“Involuntary euthanasia” is a myth
Sir: Rev. Barry Van Dusen’s opposition to “physician assisted dying” relies not on facts but on fear-mongering, misinformation and statistics abuse (“Dignity, not euthanasia”, June 18). Every jurisdiction in the world that has legalized “physician-assisted dying” has put in place strict criteria and regular monitoring to ensure that patients are protected from “abuse of the law.”
Rev. Van Dusen targets the Netherlands were he claims that patients are often subject to “involuntary euthanasia” and that the situation has not improved since 1991. Yet he provides no evidence of physicians being charged with breaking the country’s laws. Are we to assume that Dutch doctors regularly get away with murdering patients and that the country’s medical community, government, police and general public all turn a collective blind eye to this abuse?
He also fails to mention Quebec’s recent bill that expands “end-of-life choices” including the option for “physician assisted dying” which was supported by all political parties as well as many in the health care community. Most Canadians in fact support the right to have this option legally available in the rare situation when palliative care and other medical options can no longer provide a terminally ill patient with the comfort and dignity that would make their life worth living to the very end.
It is all about having the right to choose. This is a civil rights battle and the very few who ultimately choose this option deserve the freedom to be able to make it, knowing that the law is strong and there is no need to fear “involuntary euthanasia” or other myths perpetrated by those in denial of the facts.
No dilemma for lost beach
Sir: Re: Sarnia’s “lost” beach
What dilemma does city hall have? There is no dilemma.
If the landowners impacted have paid their property taxes based on lakefront property values, then, yes, I would agree a lawsuit would be in the making.
If they have not, then you give them ‘X’ days notice to remove their improvements or the city would do so and send them a bill, no different than what the city made everyone on the Watson Trail do.
Or you could send them a tax bill from 1973 to present.
As a former Watson Trail adjacent homeowner, our improvements did not impact public access.
So, how can the city possibly treat them any differently?