Editor:
Re: It’s back in their court, Murphy’s Law, Dec. 19
In Ted Murphy’s opinion, “The hospice society has every right to take the position it has, but…” Translation: Delta Hospice does not have this right.
Adrian Dix (i.e. the government) has threatened “consequences” should the hospice society not side with the government. Remember, the funding at issue is tax dollars, and tax dollars are regularly dispensed to special interest groups.
So Dix is saying, agree with the government stance, or it will pull your tax dollar funding.
Murphy states the society’s stance is at odds with public sentiment. So? What is public sentiment, anyway? And doesn’t a lawful, private institution, in a free society, with practices based on moral principles that have existed for eons, have the right to be at odds with public sentiment?
There are many public sentiments I find offensive and morally repugnant. Thankfully I can manoeuvre around them… for now.
Do not fall for the false argument that opposing government imposition of MAiD is denying rights. That right exists under law, the Delta Hospice Society just doesn’t want to practice it. It wants to offer alternative care. The society is skeptically examining the motivations and outcomes of an approach not based in its well-founded and chosen morals and ethics.
In Europe, this approach has been supported and promoted for decades, with troubling results. Research them. The numbers have steadily increased (B.C. has the highest rate of assisted death in Canada), the approved grounds for assisted death have expanded to even include depression, children, and considerations of convenience and cost are noted in research.
European public sentiment slid down the slippery slope. Some don’t want to help this slippage here in Canada.
Deborah Burpee
