Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?

Ken Flegel and John Fletcher
CMAJ August 07, 2012 184 (11) 1227; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.120961
Ken Flegel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Fletcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The Dying with Dignity commission of the Quebec National Assembly has issued its report after two years of public hearings, consultations with experts and visits to countries where there is now some experience with a range of options on ways of dying.1 The commission and the Charest government deserve equal praise for their thoughtful report and their courage in addressing this controversial topic. The principal theme of the report holds that palliative care has come of age and is adequate to meet the needs of most dying people; however, it is underprovided, particularly in remote and rural areas.2 A second important theme concerns “l’aide médicale à mourir” — medical assistance to die. On this subject, the report calls for a change in thinking, arguing that there will still be cases where suffering is great, irreversible and unrelievable, such that the only option is actively helping a person to die.

The recommendation is based on two legal considerations. First, the civil code recognizes the right of adult patients to make medical decisions concerning their care, even if refusing or stopping treatment may result in their death. Second, both the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms enshrine the rights to personal dignity and integrity. These rights imply a respect for self-determination and a person’s physical and psychological well-being. These are powerful arguments and suggest that an individual should be able to make life’s important decisions in a free and unconditional way, including deciding when the struggle to stay alive should end. However, this line of reasoning only supports an individual’s right to end his or her own life.

Proponents of “dying with medical assistance” must argue that a patient’s rights invoke a corresponding medical duty to provide the means if a patient cannot, and it follows that this should be done in a safe and expert way. Hence, the act of assisting death would need to move from the context of being criminal to being part of the continuum of end-of-life care.

Many physicians and patients will find this a shocking prospect to consider. If their views are to prevail, they will need to argue why there should be limits to a person’s autonomy. Human dignity may imply certain rights and freedoms, but conflicts among people’s rights are hard to resolve. Frail, dependent patients often feel a burden to their families or caregivers, and the unspoken possibility of a quick resolution to their predicament may complicate an already stressful situation. Removing the legal barrier to ending another’s life may ensure the self-dignity of those who wish to die, but may distress and remove the self-dignity of more people who wish to live.

Others will welcome this report as heralding a needed change in the way we perceive life and its ending. They will need to argue why patient autonomy trumps other considerations and why we should prepare to embrace euthanasia as routine. Proponents of euthanasia cannot assume that the practice will be restricted to extreme cases of untreatable suffering; they should be prepared to accept the implications of unrestricted choice, or a patient’s “right to die.” For example, in Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002,3 half of all nonsudden deaths are the result of some decision to hasten the end of life; 4% of these deaths are defined as euthanasia, and 11% involve continuous deep sedation or rendering the person unconscious until he or she dies.3

If Quebec chooses to proceed with the report’s recommendations, those who disagree will have to acknowledge that society’s values have become more pluralistic. However, any change in the law must safeguard both health care workers and patients from possible abuses in its application.4

Public consultation in Quebec is only the first step. A change to the criminal code will need more national dialogue and action from federal lawmakers. Change should not be the result of one provincial Supreme Court decision (www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/08/2012BCSC0886.htm). Issues such as who is expert at providing this new option, how it will be provided, and how to assist patients who do not fit the criteria or families who disagree with the patient’s choice will be debated in a brave new future.

The ethics of euthanasia are a familiar debate in Canada; one that may have been theoretical until recently, because of the tacit assumption that doctors do not kill people. In Quebec, the debate is moving from theory toward practice. Which way will legislation go? Will the rest of Canada follow? Those who care about the answers to these questions must speak up now, and with conviction.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/site/misc/cmaj_staff.xhtml

References

  1. ↵
    Mourir dans la dignité [report]. Québec (QC): Assemblée Nationale Québec 2012. Available: www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/actualites-salle-presse/nouvelle/actualite-25939.html (accessed 2012 Jun. 12).
  2. ↵
    Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. Not to be forgotten: care of vulnerable Canadians. Ottawa (ON): The Committee; 2011. Available: http://pcpcc-cpspsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ReportEN.pdf (accessed 2012 Apr. 1).
  3. ↵
    1. Van den Block L,
    2. Deschepper R,
    3. Bilsen J
    . Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions: a mortality follow-back study in Belgium. BMC Public Health 2009;9:79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Inghelbrecht E,
    2. Bilsen J,
    3. Mortier F,
    4. et al
    . The role of nurses in physician-assisted deaths in Belgium. CMAJ 2010;182:905–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 184 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 184, Issue 11
7 Aug 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?
Ken Flegel, John Fletcher
CMAJ Aug 2012, 184 (11) 1227; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.120961

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?
Ken Flegel, John Fletcher
CMAJ Aug 2012, 184 (11) 1227; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.120961
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Physicians are not solely responsible for ensuring access to medical assistance in dying
  • Independent research needed to inform end-of-life policy choices
  • More on assisted suicide
  • When and how to die
  • When and how to die
  • When and how to die
  • When and how to die
  • Scopus (9)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Updated CMAJ policy on undisclosed competing interests
  • A national electronic health record for primary care
  • To keep patients with COPD out of hospital, look beyond the lungs
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Medicine & the law (including forensic medicine)
    • End-of-life care & decisions

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Early releases
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Permission requests
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire