Rawnie Dunn just wants to die and end her suffering. This is not a spur-of-the-moment decision. It is not a decision made lightly. It is certainly not an easy choice. And whether we agree or disagree with her choice, it certainly seems that the humane thing to do is to allow her to exercise that choice.
But life-and-death issues are never that simple. For the last three decades, Canadians, their political leaders and the courts have swung back and forth like a proverbial pendulum on this issue. The current federal government has stated that it will not allow the law to encompass physician-assisted suicide and will strike down any attempts by provincial courts to do so. And yet, there are those who do assist people to leave this mortal coil, and they - if they do not broadcast their help - are not charged.
The law, it seems, can turn a blind eye when compassion is required.
Understandably, advocates for the physically disabled, mentally challenged and very elderly see potential problems with legalizing assisted suicide. Who speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves?
The case of Robert Latimer, the Canadian farmer who killed his young daughter in 1993 before she (who was suffering from cerebral palsy) was to undergo another painful operation, is often used as an example. However, Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder and only received full parole in 2010.
Surely the law can be written to protect those who cannot make such decisions. In the case of Rawnie Dunn, she is of sound mind and has had many decades to consider her decision. She is, as criminologist Robert Gordon says, one of those "absolutely dead certain" they want to end their life.
For those who think that we, by not having an assisted suicide law, have evaded a difficult decision, rest assured we have not. We have merely allowed unnecessary suffering to continue. Is that something we should be proud of?
Read Rawnie Dunn's story and then answer that question.
