Death by Doctor

In "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell takes merited jabs at the use (and abuse) of the English language. He wrote, "Pretentious diction [lends] an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements."

We see an example of the "air of scientific impartiality" in the matter of euthanasia. Regardless of one's position in this issue, clear, honest language is called for. The terms "mercy killing" and "death with dignity" have been replaced by "assisted suicide." The language is abused.

The death is not suicide, nothing to assist. The medical person occasions the death by lethal injection. The process is more accurately described as "death by doctor" or more graphically, "killing by doctor." Some may wish to consider the process dignified.

Mercy killing

The Canadian media are all agog these days in promoting mercy killing. Ethicist Margaret Somerville urges restraint and some safeguards against abuse by the victim's family and doctors. My letter to the Globe and Mail. Unpublished.

Margaret Somerville deals with deep truths while outlining ethical problems in the matter of doctor-assisted dying (Why judges should have the final word, May 4). We can discuss ethics, legalities, rights, demands, conditions, immunities, and safe guards as much as we wish with regard to mercy killing as we once termed it. It will in no way affect the ultimate application of the proposed legislation. 

Human rights tribunals have the authority to override Bill C-14. They have the final word, not our legislators, not our judges. Someone refused a hastened death by the courts need only petition with a sufficiently heart-rending plea to one of these tribunals to qualify for death on demand. The history of these unregulated agencies in dealing with the vulnerable, as they themselves define the word, points in only one direction.

It's curious that the final arbiter of this issue is not even mentioned in the debate.