Pubdate: Thu, 26 May 2016
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Page: A8
Copyright: 2016 Postmedia Network Inc.
Contact:  http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326
Author: Randall Denley
Note: Randall Denley is an Ottawa commentator, novelist and former 
Ontario Progressive Conservative candidate

PERSONAL CHOICE SHOULD GUIDE LAWS ON TRICKY MORAL QUESTIONS

Assisted Death, Safe Injection Sites Demand Politicians Open Their
Minds

Medicine, politics and morality make a complex mix, and sometimes
doing the right thing can just seem wrong.

The Sandy Hill Community Health Centre's plans for a safe drug
injection site and medically assisted death are both challenging
issues. Looked at in the simplest light, drug addiction is a bad thing
and spending tax dollars to enable drug addicts is, too. A Supreme
Court decision is forcing the government to allow doctors to assist in
patient deaths, and again the action seems just the opposite of what
we expect doctors to do.

The process for approving a safe injection site is complex and
requires support from all three levels of government, as well as from
the police chief. Predictably, both Mayor Jim Watson and police Chief
Charles Bordeleau have opposed the Sandy Hill plan. If they are not on
board, the province is unlikely to fund the injection program.

Opposing the injection site is the easiest political choice, but
perhaps Watson and Bordeleau are out of sync with the public. A Forum
Research poll released this week shows 54 per cent of Ottawans approve
of the idea of a safe injection site, while 37 per cent are against.

he arguments offered against the Sandy Hill plan are
weak.

The police chief has said it could lead to increased drug trafficking
and more crime. The crime wave fear is almost certainly a fallacy. The
Sandy Hill centre already offers counselling and treatment to drug
addicts in their neighbourhood now. This is about an expansion of
service to people who are already there, not some new horde of addicts.

The mayor says the money would be better spent on drug treatment. It's
not an either/or proposition. Drug treatment and safe injection are
part of the continuum of medical care required by drug addicts. That's
a point of view that has been emphasized by Dr. Isra Levy, the city's
medical officer of health. Good for him for not automatically backing
the mayor.

Whether there is a safe injection site or not, people in Ottawa will
keep using hard drugs. The proposed centre is really an attempt to
keep those people from dying of an overdose in an alley. Instead, it
would be a way to make a first connection that can lead to treatment.

The safe injection site would help a few hundred people, but assisted
suicide, as it used to be called, is an issue with much broader reach
and application. Few families will be untouched by the consequences of
the new law. Let me give you a personal example.

My mother was a diabetic who developed terrible infections in her
feet. The infections quickly spread up her legs. Ultimately, she ended
up in hospital and faced an agonizing choice. The doctor told her she
would die unless her legs were amputated. Her preference was death,
but there was nothing the doctor could do to help her with that.

Left to run its course, the infection would have killed her, but only
after a week, maybe two, of ever-increasing pain that would be
difficult to manage with drugs. Although she had no desire to live
without legs, my mother chose amputation as the least bad course.

After the surgery, my strong-willed mother refused to eat properly and
ultimately withered away, finally getting the peace she had sought
nine months earlier.

Before the Supreme Court decision, one could not legally choose a
quick end, but starving yourself to death was acceptable. Does that
make sense?

In both of these medical-moral-political issues, the key points are
humane treatment and allowing people to make choices. A safe injection
site will let drug addicts make a small, rational choice, even if the
rest of us don't approve. The assisted-dying legislation, which will
not compel individual doctors to provide the service, won't force any
of us to make moral choices we disagree with, but it will give others
the chance to die with more dignity.

Those benefits outweigh moral and political qualms. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D