Anita Ho, a bioethics professor at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Applied Ethics, reviewed That Good Night in the October 2009 issue of the Literary Review of Canada. It’s a thoughtful essay and not really a bad review at all — in fact, it may even make some LRC subscribers want to read the book — though apparently her take on dying with dignity isn’t the same as mine.
It’s not online, so here’s a taste:
As a bioethicist whose work in clinical ethics is also dominated by end-of-life issues, I particularly welcome how That Good Night includes multiple voices and perspectives – it weaves stories of patients, families, physicians, and ethicists together in exploring how our health-care system, despite its promises to be patient-centred and respectful of diverse perspectives, often fails to honour the wishes of or provide comfort for those who are facing an impending death. Various anecdotes illustrate how the lack of appropriate support has led to people dying alone, in pain or hooked up to machines. Nonetheless, as powerful as the stories are in conveying patients’ and families’ agony, some of the discussions Falconer presents may also inadvertently oversimplify the meaning of a good death.
Regardless, before the piece even hit newsstands, the editors at the Literary Review of Canada asked me to write a response. Now, I’ve always understood that the last thing an author should do is respond to a bad review — the standard advice is: “Sure, you can write a letter, but you should never, ever send it” — and, as I say, this wasn’t even a bad review. But, assured that author’s rebuttals are a regular feature in the LRC, I wrote a response that’s in the November 2009 issue and is online (scroll down to the seventh letter). It ends this way: “Well, I’m sure she sees a lot more death than I ever will (not that I’m complaining) and she would hardly be the first expert to accuse a journalist of oversimplification, but my book never judges how others decide to die, arguing instead that we all have the right to choose our own ‘good death.’ If Ho can find dignity and meaning in going out on a flotilla of medical technology, I respect her choice. But she shouldn’t expect everyone else to make the same one. Nowadays, even assisted suicide seems more natural than years spent lingering on life support, so I know how I want to die—as does my wife, just in case.”
The special “Legalize Everything” issue of This Magazine is now out. It includes provocative pieces on legalizing hate speech, music piracy, drugs and raw milk — and my short essay on legalizing assisted suicide. Please consider buying the magazine at your favourite newsstand, but you can also read my argument online (there’s also a poll, so please vote).
Parliament will soon vote on Bill C-384, Bloq Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde’s private member’s bill to legalize assisted suicide. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Canada’s national newspapers are finally paying attention to the issue. Today, The Globe and Mail ran an excellent op-ed piece in favour of assisted suicide by Arthur Shafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. “When it comes to end-of-life care, Canadians should be able to choose from among a full range of options, including first-rate palliative care and physician-assisted suicide,” he writes. “With proper safeguards in place to ensure openness and accountability, there’s no reason to deny people the help they want and need.”
Earlier this week, The National Post ran an op-ed by Steven Fletcher, a Conservative MP who became a C4 quadriplegic after a collision between a car and a moose in 1996. He calls the bill “a provocative starting point for a discussion about potential choices at the end of life.” And while he won’t vote for it because he believes it’s flawed, neither will he vote against it, saying he “cannot vote against empowering Canadians to make deeply personal decisions for themselves.” So he’ll abstain.
Although I obviously wish he’d vote for C-384, I applaud him for giving the issue serious thought, voting his conscience — instead of his politics — and explaining his decision. Would that our other politicians would do the same.