Writer disagrees with columnist’s opinion on euthanasia

Now it is the Lacombe Express that has missed editing a piece of ‘hate propaganda’ in their latest issue.

Now it is the Lacombe Express that has missed editing a piece of ‘hate propaganda’ in their latest issue. And yes, that’s on my mind right now. Where is this going to go? Are those editors sleeping?

This time I’ll not refrain from naming names, I think.

The title of the offending piece is ‘Taking a look at the ‘end of life’ debate’ and ran in the March 27 edition of the Lacombe Express. It should have been titled ‘mad as hell’.

Yes, not a very pretty concept. But I say that because a ‘debate’ on a certain subject it is defi nitively not.

Let me assure you that I have a high regard for the medical profession.

And I do not personally know this Dr. Jones. But in the article mentioned above his professionalism takes a severe tumble, not only as a member of the medical profession, but also as a medical journalist.

The main thrust of the article is ‘freedom of choice in death.’ Keep that in mind.

Dr. Jones has joined Dignitas, the Swiss death club.

Some day he will travel there to take his last breath (although he says also he hopes to never use this privilege). Then what? Will he live forever? No, by that time he fervently hopes this ‘privilege’ is available in Canada.

With an unprofessional swipe at our government and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms this mad as hell medic turns on all the people that might not agree with him in an extremely unprofessional manner.

He boldly claims that they use ‘asinine reasons’ in opposing him, not only, but they do so knowing full well that what they say is ‘a blatant lie’. How close is this coming to hate speech?

As I said before, I do not know this Dr. Jones. Is he indeed a member of the medical profession, as I assumed?

Maybe not, it does not matter very much. He is (or was in 1984, how intriguing) a professor of something. He is a fellow human being, sadly burdened with a twisted moral code.

This becomes very evident when he asserts that he has no problem with his opponents. But he has! He claims that they have his ‘blessing’ (yeah, blessing!) if they prefer to suffer unbearably towards the end of their lives as long as they like. And this is an attitude of compassion and concern?

Of tender mercies for the sick?

Yet Dr. Jones’ chief concern is the injustice to the poor (so he says). To those who at the obvious ending of their lives cannot afford a one-way ticket to Switzerland and must die here in Canada the old-fashioned way.

I will leave the actual debate to others. The issue is – respect for life – or consent for murder. And end of life (a euphemism if there ever was one) or assisted suicide.

Susan Zylstra

Lacombe