WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - The Hillsdale Interview: Daniel Dorman

Episode Date: March 8, 2024

Daniel Dorman joins WRFH to discuss his recent essay at National Review, "How Canadians Earned the Right to Life, Liberty, and Suicide." Dorman is the Communications Manager at one of Canada's leading think-tanks, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. As a part of his role with the Institute he has supported the work of many of Canada’s leading policy experts, editing and placing op-eds in nearly all of Canada's national news outlets and a variety of major international publications.

You're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Therese Boudreau, and today I'll be interviewing Daniel Dorman, Director of Communications at the McDonald-Loreer Institute in Ottawa. We'll be discussing his article, how Canadians earned the right to life, liberty, and suicide. Mr. Dorman, thanks so much for joining us. My absolute pleasure. Thanks so much for having me. All right, so your article covers,

Canada's growing euthanasia program, which they call Maid, standing for medical assistance and dying. While this is obviously a euphemism, can you explain what exactly the program authorizes, who is eligible for it, how it breaks down, and why it's being framed in this humanitarian light? Yeah, absolutely. A great question. And you're right to point out right away that, But, of course, the term made medical or medical assistance in dying is a euphemism, which is one of the things I focused on in my article. So euthanasia became legal in Canada following a 2015 Supreme Court decision. One of the things, again, I discuss in the article is that the Supreme Court actually found the right to euthanasia, the right to death in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. which contains the guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. And in my article for National Review, I somewhat facetiously say the right to life, liberty, and suicide,

because I think it's quite shocking that the Supreme Court found that in there. Certainly not what the average person would expect out of that language. And when it was first implemented, it was intended for people whose death was reasonably foreseeable. In other words, someone with a terminal illness. But of course, over the past seven years or so and longer, the sort of safeguards have been eroded slowly through different pieces of legislation. And really, the attitudes towards it are shifting to where it's something that's been. being seen as a right full stop that anybody could be eligible to receive euthanasia from a doctor. So it's quite a frightening situation.

It raises a lot of questions about Canada's health care system, even about the role of government, about individual rights. It's quite a messy topic. But yeah, I hope that suffices as an intro. You say in your article that more than 13,000 Canadians have died by this procedure in 2022. And since that Supreme Court case that you mentioned, almost 45,000 have died. And this accounts for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada, which is obviously horrible. But what could be motivating a country to, if not,

kill its own citizens be okay with that. Is there evidence that this euthanasia program is maybe supported bureaucratically because it could reduce health care costs for the overburdened medical system or what could be the motive? Yeah, that's a great question. And I should highlight as well that those 22 numbers are the most recent numbers we have, but early projections for 2024, that that 2024 will be much higher, I mean, it's on track to be one of the leading causes

of death in Canada, which is quite shocking. I mean, I think as far as what motivates this is, I think many people in Canada are somewhat passive towards it. So there's probably the Canadian population in general is maybe not even necessarily

aware of what's gone on legally of the shifts that have occurred to really start Canada down this slippery slope to where our healthcare system is killing so many people. But as far as those that are really pushing for it, I think that they do see it as a fight for liberty, for individual autonomy. But I think that raises questions about what is the reasonable definition of the term liberty. And certainly from maybe a more classically liberal perspective,

the right to suicide would not have been considered liberty, but license. That's a distinction that John Locke would have made. I mean, I think many people are motivated by compassion for individuals. You mentioned also sort of budgetary concerns. There was a few years back when one of these bills that was removing safeguards was before Canadian Parliament, the budget officer for Canada's Parliament was asked essentially to cost out. this bill in terms of what it would save. So, I mean, if you were really cynical, you might say that that was part of the equation. I'd like to think that, you know, most people, even though they are

participating in this expansion of euthanasia, which I disagree with vehemently, that they're still motivated by compassion, not by, you know, funding or budgetary concerns, but there's some evidence to suggest that that's part of the equation. Just a reminder that you're listening to Daniel Dorman on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM, talking about his article covering Canada's assisted suicide program. You mentioned in your article how there's been discussions about including those who are physically healthy but mentally ill under this program. That decision has been put on hold until 2027, but this also raises the question, And how far could this program go? Are there really any safeguards in place to prevent this from not just allowing the mentally ill to use it, but also even changing it from voluntary to non-voluntary, which would include infants, which would include people who maybe their family just decides that they're not fit for living anymore?

Should we expect that in the future? I mean, you raise a few good points in terms of just the safeguards that are somewhat in place, but being eroded in different degrees. Certainly, there's some maybe activists for euthanasia in Canada that would like to see very little safeguards in place. Again, during one of the last times that this was being discussed in Canada's parliament, there was discussion of expansion to minors. right now, minors aren't eligible, but there's discussion of expansion to those under 18. There's also discussion around consent, which becomes particularly messy, for example, with people with dementia or Alzheimer's that, you know, there's some that would push that even if a person isn't consenting in the moment, maybe because they have a disease that affects

their memory, if they had consented previously, but the euthanasia percentage, procedure should still be carried out, which is, I mean, I don't think practically, again, many Canadians or even many Canadian doctors would be for that, but there's some in Canada that are trying to erode even the safeguard of consent in the moment. You mentioned as well the sort of stipulation around the sole underlying cause being mental illness. And thankfully, that has been pushed back by the government. There was the plan to expand euthanasia to to those who saw the underlying condition was with a mental illness in March of this year, so this month.

And that's been pushed back until 2027. So I think that's a really positive development. It's quite likely that there'll be a federal election in between now and then, and that may provide opportunity for a different government to redress that and make sure that it's permanently off the table. Or even for this government to hear from, you know, concerned citizens, concerned medical experts, concerned lawyers, that that's really not the way to go. I mean, the number of experts in Canada, mental health experts that talk about how there's just no way in which, you know, suicidal ideation, to use the medical term, should be met with, well, an offer to carry out suicide for the person.

And that's clearly just wrong. And I think that in Canada, there's also something of a cognitive dissonance in some of the political leaders of the activists on this, because Canada recently implemented a suicide hotline for those struggling with mental illness. And I think that's a great development that people could access resources in moments of crisis. but to implement that at the same time as considering expanding euthanasia in our health care system for those struggling with mental illness, I just don't know how you could reconcile those two things. Either life is valuable and ought to be defended, or when somebody's suffering, you just offer them death. And that's just really quite frightening to think that as a society, Canada, would get to a place where that's how we treat vulnerable.

individuals. Yeah. Yeah, it seems like Canada might be going in that direction as kind of a, almost seems like a natural conclusion of a modern culture, which seems to see lives as worthless if they are inconvenient to others or if the person is suffering. And I think that's also, that's also a phenomenon in the U.S. culture. And a lot of times we see legislation happening in Canada that then kind of spreads down to the U.S. Looking at policy trends, do you think that that is the direction that the U.S. may be heading in, that we might follow in Canada's footsteps? Yeah, I believe there are.

Certainly California is a good jurisdiction to bring up in terms of, and I recently heard this from one of our senior fellows, our researchers at the McDonald-Blorie Institute, that California implemented euthanasia, legalized euthanasia at a similar point to Canada and has a very similar population to Canada. So in some ways, it's comparable jurisdiction. But California has kept safeguards in place

and Canada has to date killed about 50 times as many people as California. So I do think that, now that's not to say there's not a discussion in California about whether that system is good there or whether the safeguards are sufficient or whether it should be enacted at all. I think those are all reasonable discussions to have. But thus far, Canada is somewhat unique in how it's developed here. But to your broader point, I do think it is the result of a

hyper-individualized culture, you know, even for someone of a deeply libertarian bent, if you know you believe that anything and everything should be legal unless it harms your neighbor. Well, I have to say that I do think that suicide does harm a community, right? So even someone with that bent could very reasonably oppose euthanasia, certainly euthanasia, by a public health system like in Canada. Again, you're listening to Daniel Dorman on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. discussing his article covering Canada's Maid Program. Right now, are there certain religious exemptions for practitioners, medical practitioners, who say, I do not want to do this, I became a doctor to help people live, not to help them die?

Are there protections in place for hospitals or even just doctors who don't want to do this if they're asked to? and is there a fight going on about that? It is happening, yes. There's a group called Canadian Physicians for Life that I know has done some good work on this issue. There's, I'm not aware of the exact language of the exemption. I know that there is some exemption for doctors that don't want to participate, but I believe that there is still a requirement

to defer to another medical professional. So it is being seen as a part of a standard of care, for example, by the Ontario Medical Association. So it is certainly a concern of many doctors with a religious background or simply an ethic that would, you know, prevent them from participating, from wanting to participate in it in euthanasia. certainly a concern. I mean, I have heard anecdotally stories of doctors that have left, have stopped practicing in Canada, whether to go to the states or other jurisdictions, that they just feel that they can live out both their profession and their convictions more freely. So that's a scary thought for a Canadian, certainly considering some of the constraints of our medical system in some provinces.

Yeah, I think many doctors are concerned. many don't want to participate. So they should keep advocating for the freedom to bow to that. As a final question, what are some ways that ordinary Canadian citizens can also get involved in this battle for life? Are there any other organizations they should be aware of, any concrete actions that they could take? how can people help stop the spread, the expansion of this program? Yeah, I think that's a great question. I would recommend, I believe Canadian physicians for life is fairly easy to find online

and just following what they're up to would be a great start. And I would encourage, particularly perhaps after the next federal election, any Canadians that are concerned to get in touch with their and these, their elected officials, just because it is quite a scary issue for many people. And to turn towards the U.S. as well, just to see Canada as an example of, you know, that when it was originally implemented in Canada, euthanasia was not thought to be something that would be a slippery slope, that it wouldn't become, you know, in many ways what it's already become, which is a significant cause of death in the country and something that maybe

vulnerable people are subjected to or, yeah, without desiring, without any hint that they want to go to pursue it. So I would just say as a warning to the U.S. to stick to, you know, a reasonable definition of something like the right to life and the right to liberty, which I do not believe should or could include the right to euthanasia, the right to death. Well, Mr. Dorman, thank you so much for your work. and for your writing against this. And thank you so much for joining us today. Again, again, my absolute pleasure.

Really, really pleased to be able to chat with you today. Thanks so much. You've been listening to an interview with Daniel Dorman from the MacDonald Lawyer Institute on his article, How Canadians Earned the Right to Life, Liberty, and Suicide. I'm your host, Therese Boudreau. Thanks for listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thank you.