As the federal assisted dying legislation moves towards ratification, it's time to reconsider the death penalty.
This seems like a ridiculous connection to make at first but the two issues have deep connections. The refusal to grant medical suicide and the use of the death penalty are bedfellows, corresponding examples of an all-powerful government exercising its dominance over a single individual, stripping that person of their final inalienable right.
Forty years ago, serial killer Gary Gilmore asked to die for his crimes and the state of Utah was only too happy to arrange a firing squad. What if Robert Pickton or Paul Bernardo or Cody Legebokoff were to apply for medical suicide? The government can't claim they are mentally incompetent to make such a decision for themselves because they passed that test to stand trial. These men can claim that their desire to kill is causing them endless emotional anguish, a cancer of the brain if you will. The proponents of medical suicide argue that a government that insists on extending the pain of people suffering from medical torment is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The same logic should then apply to everyone, regardless of their criminal record. Those in favor of assisted dying for good people may not like their rationale applied to assisted dying for bad people, too, but that's the outcome when contemplating death as a tool to end suffering.
That sharp blade cuts into unexpected areas.
To be clear, these arguments should not be interpreted as opposition to medical suicide. Assisted dying is morally problematic but it remains the right choice for some individuals. Clear criteria and careful oversight by government and the medical community to allow those individuals to make that decision for themselves is proper.
Instead, these points support a new evaluation of the death penalty or capital punishment or putting messed up people who did bad things out of their misery or whatever palatable phrasing the government chooses. Rather than making a legal case for penalizing or punishing the worst criminals who will never be released for their crimes, perhaps executions need to be framed in medical and humanitarian terms.
Medically, the deep-seeded desire to harm and murder others is a disease that puts both the individual and others at great risk. If there is no hope of a cure from such a condition, wouldn't the responsible course of action be to help that person end their life? From a humanitarian standpoint, condemning someone to decades in prison with no hope of release and no hope of escaping their violent fantasies sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. The most notorious killers already spend most of their time isolated from the rest of the prison population for their own safety, yet a growing body of research shows solitary confinement causes even more harm to already seriously damaged individuals.
Lebebokoff has been in jail since he was 20 years old. He will either die in prison or he will be released under strict conditions half a century from now or more. There is a clear case to be made for executing someone like Legebokoff on humanitarian grounds because to keep him locked up for his entire adult life is a violation of his human rights.
It has been said on more than one occasion by medical suicide advocates that animals get treated better than people, that when pets are suffering needlessly, their owners have them euthanized because it's the right and moral thing to do. The raging dog that attacks and kills other dogs or people is put down because to lock it away in a kennel until it dies would be considered animal cruelty. Yet the raging human predators that attack and kill other people are locked away forever because putting them down would be considered immoral.
As Canadians, morality continues to evolve as different lenses are applied to various ethical dilemmas. We're changing how we accept suffering people wanting to end their pain. Just over the horizon, however, there is a further social discussion waiting to happen about executing the worst humans, not for vengeance and not for the good of society but for the good of the killer.
The fruit of that debate will have grown from the seeds planted in this current consideration about medical suicide.
