Your View

It is not "dignified" to be flown to another country with intent of having your wife killed. What happens to the corpse? Flown back to Canada, or not? Is either way 'dignified'?

Thankfully, the laws of Canada are not based on emotional knee jerk reactions like some here. The laws of Canada are based on the well being of Canadian society, and one of those laws specifies it is ILLEGAL to plan and carry out the killing of another.

Period. End of story. Eric MacDonald is going to jail. Nuff said.

Nancy from Ontario

Having read your posts on this issue, I simply must ask you if it's really "justice" you want done?

It seems to me your primary concern here is that the law be exercized to the fullest extend, including the maximum punishment levelled against Mr MacDonald, if he is guilty.

Justice, comes from the word just as in 'right' or 'fair'.

If you were to argue that "laws must be upheld," I could at least appreciate your sentiments, even if I don't agree with them.

But when you suggest this has anything to do with justice, I cringe.

If justice were ever the prime motivator in this type of issue, Parliament would have enacted legislation to ensure people wouldn't suffer needless and ongoing pain simply to satisfy another's insecurities.

Justice certainly doesn't require inflexible laws to occur, but it certainly will never happen if there isn't an iota of compassion anywhere.

The Canadian Justice department, the courts, judges and the RCMP need to keep their noses out of other people's personal business around health and the right to a dignified death with reduction in unnecessary suffering. It is none of their business around the private life and health of others.
It is also a waste of public funds to be persuing such frivilous end-of-life issues.

This individual did what his wife asked of him out of love. He helped her carry out her dearest wishes; that's obvious. I'd do the same without hesitation.

Nurses and doctors have been assisting people legally in Canada to die with dignity for many years My wife is a registered nurse and she has administered doctor's prescriptions for increased morphine to cancer patients for example, more than 300 times in her career. Morphine actually slows down the patients metabolism; reduces the pain and suffering and... the patient dies faster. That is a form of legal euthanasia, like it or not. If the morphine was not administered the patient would die in agony. Does that make my wife and the doctors guilty of breaking the law?? It does not unless some lunatic, moron in the Justice Department from Ottawa forces the RCMP to carry out a new mandate against Nurses and doctors who work in palliatative care. Can you imagine the backlash??

Those insensitive writers,
Please appeal to your human decency and pause for a moment to think how strong and selfless Elizabeth's husband must have been to allow her this choice. I imagine that he struggled everyday with wanting to deny her the fulfillment of this plan. But he faced the reality that she was determined to die, assisted or not. Elizabeth wished to fight MS for control over her death. Mr. MacDonald chose to support her decision to seek a dignified death in Switzerland. Providing this support must have been unimaginably difficult. I hope that if I had a loved one dying in that manner that she/he could find someone to help and I could be present to say goodbye, but it wouldn't be me assisting, as it wasn't Mr. MacDonald.

Yet, there are people who would throw vinegar on his wounds by suggesting that he persuaded her into this choice. How awful!!

In Canada, if Elizabeth wanted to escape the undignified and agonizing death being dictated by her form of MS, she would have had to die alone, via another suicide attempt. Is this really the only choice Canadians wish for our terminally ill people who are facing agonizing deaths?

I absolutely support a person's right to die with dignity via assisted suicide.
In addition, I would like to thank Mr. MacDonald for his incredible courage and for relaying this remarkable love story.

I must reply to Susan Lawrence.

Eric Macdonald is not mourning the loss of his soul mate - he brought his wife to Switzerland to be killed! See the difference? Justice will occur when he is sent to jail, and people will see that I was right all along.

J Redden of Halifax makes a very good point about the RCMP having no right to even pursue this. No crime has been committed here. This just goes to show you how inept this whole country is being run.

We have Sikh terrorists who parade around with their label of terror while Politicians join in on their celebrations and this is OK? Yes - the RCMP needs an overhaul. I won't even get started on the "no fly" list which has already been a joke - two young kids find their name on the list and one is told that maybe he should change his name so the family won't have to go through this again.

Happy Canada Day! My condolences to Mr. McDonald.

This comment is directed to Nancy . Are you writing from a mental hospital ? Did you escape ? Please get help for your condition .

This Macdonald case has had enough sorrow for the family . Canadain laws are not for everyone as are all beliefs not for everyone .

Mr Macdonald is suffering the loss of his dearly loved wife . His soul mate ... perhaps you should read her tomb stone and see what it says . There simply is no crime in this . I would do the same thing as Liz if it was me .

....Laws change...It seems only yesterday that Condoms were illegal in Canada.

Our suicide laws in Canada today are archaic and will soon be changed.

Canada has no jurisdiction in this case. It did not take place in Canada. It took place in Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal. A Canadian who commits a crime in another country can be and often is extradited to that country to stand trial under that countries laws.

No country will extradite someone to Canada because Canada says they committed a crime under Canadian law but not under the laws of the other country.

Mr. Macdonald did not commit any crime in Canada and no crime in Switzerland. He traveled with Elizabeth at her request. What she did was her own decision.
I agree with assisted suicide, some others do not.

I will defend your right to your beliefs , but don't you try to impose them on me, I make my own decisions-----THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I find this all interesting that so many people are caught up in "minding the business" of other people and deciding how people should live their life (if thats what you call it when they are in a state of body that is totally lifeless).

We put down animals that are in pain and unable to live a proper life but the need in our world to see human suffering in this and other forms continues to strive. I have seen some people refer to the process as "building character." I hope those people never have to build their character by their bodies or a loved ones body slowly and painlessly degrading away.

To those people who are building the character in this way, my heart goes out to you to have to be the one to suffer or to watch someone suffer to their end.

Unfortunately there is so much violence, wars, killings, and starving people in the world that we are now a society that is blind to 'hurt, pain, and suffering". Let people decide how they want to end their pain and suffering, just as we decide on our pets (who are referred to by most pet owners as part of their family), and let each live our own lives being a more understanding and compassionate society!!

.....This 'brou ha ha' over suicide will only accelerate the day when the Law WILL Provide for Assisted Suicide, provided the patient voices such a desire.....

.....We euthanize our pets if they are in pain and there is no hope!

Humans are animals too and although suffering may be good for building character...count me out please..my character needs no further building at age 77.

Kevin McDonald

If you can isolate and focus only on the actions of Mr MacDonald over the course of several months, perhaps years, while completely ignoring the Elizabeth in the front room, I'd say you're quite the resolute , stiff, upper lip type of fellow.

Unfortunately some of us were born with tear ducts and a tendency to try to relate sometimes, I guess. Damn those human frailties, eh?

You say allowing assisted suicide is letting the severely depressed "make choices that can't be undone."

I'm not certain of the health care realities in Halifax or Nova Scotia, but must assume they are somewhat similar to those in BC.

I do know in BC there are far too many severely depressed being allowed (or left on their own, to be correct,) to make all kinds of choices that can't be undone and I'm not even speaking of death.

Perhaps if you were to reread some of the "emotional" postings below, you would notice two other sentiments weaving through the thoughts.

The first is that death is not the worst fate one can suffer.

The other is that laws are sometimes like an old and tired ass, capable now of serving only to prop up even more outdated beliefs and superstitions while hurting others.

So Nancy. I have a question for you.
When you say "suicide is cowardly, not heroic" - OK so you're just the messenger? So that isn't actually YOUR opinion, you are just relating to us on behalf of someone else, right?

Hey listen Nancy, nobody want's to pick on you as an individual. It's just that most people want the right of self-determination. I can't say that I would commit suicide if in Mrs. MacDonald's position. But I can emphatically say that I believe I should be able to choose for myself.

If my mind is sound and I make the decision with the support of my loved ones, I want to be able to gather them around me and pass on with dignity surrounded by the love of those who mean the most to me. And I want to be able to do that knowing that none of my loved ones will face prosecution or, for that matter, persecution, for being there for me. Then I will already be as close to heaven as I've ever been.

So Nancy - don't judge me, or anyone else for their opinions, just as I won't judge you. I simply choose to disagree with you and find your narrow interpretation to be woefully lacking in insight and compassion. Just MY opinion - for what its worth.

I do not believe this man should be punished in any way for accompanying his wife to Switzerland to kill herself.

However, I do have big problem with assisted suicide. It has nothing to do with religion or God. It has nothing to do with me thinking that people should suffer intolerably at the end of their life. It has everything to do with not allowing doctors to cross a line. Doctors should not be in the business of killing people, whether they ask for it or not.

This is my belief and the belief of many people in the medical profession and the Supreme Court of Canada. Some lines should never be crossed, not matter how much a few people may suffer.

Look at what is happening in the Netherlands. They started with allowing people who were terminally ill to ask for suicide. Then, they changed the law to include people who were suffering from a physical illness but not terminal. Then, the law was changed to include mental illness.

So, a person who is depressed can now ask for doctor assisted suicide. I would like to know how to explain to the minor children of a parent who commits doctor-assisted suicide because they are depressed that their mother went to the doctor because she was not feeling very good and the doctor killed her. Try munching on that food for thought.

My final words are to note that laws change through cases exactly like Elizabeth's. Acts that were once considered criminal years ago are not considered criminal now.

I understand that many of you wish to educate us on how our current laws apply to this case and under what clauses Mr. MacDonald could be charged. However, I am incredibly thankful that most writers appear to recognize the how current laws conflict with compassion for the terminally ill and their right to self-determine.

Somehow our general definition of "suicide" does not seem to apply (if a POW kills himself admidst torture, is that suicide?), just as our general concept of "life" in these cases does not apply. Thank you for the engaging discussion.

I think many people are missing the point about what happened. This man did not kill his wife. He did not make the arrangements for her to end her life. He did not feed her the poison that killed her. All he did was travel with her to Switzerland to be with her during her final moments.

Elizabeth MacDonald made the decision to die herself. She was of sound mind, and she knew what she was doing. In the end, she told people at the clinic that she understood what would happen once she drank the glass of barbituates that they gave her.

This is not murder. This is suicide. Erice MacDonald did not murder his wife. He was merely with her when she chose to die.

I wish to nmake one final comment on this issue. Some of you need to learn to not attack someone for their expressing a different of opinion from your own. Learn to shoot the message, not the messenger!

In response to Stephanie's comment:

"Yet, assisted suicide of a sane and rational person with an agonizing and TERMINAL disease is deemed criminal".

That's the point. That is why Eric is being arrested. Do not blame the RCMP for doing their job.

Suicide is cowardly, not heroic.

I guess we can all agree to disagree. But one last note from me to Karen and Georgina. I guess in Canada this is a crime, but it did not happen in Canada so to me it null and voids the crime and the consequences.

Let's leave this poor man alone. He clearly believes that taking his wife to Zurich (at her request) was the right thing to do.

I would do the same thing. If you had to watch a family member suffer as he did and that person begged you to get them on a plane and take them to a place where taking ones own life was legal and you told them that it was against the law, well, that would simply be heartless!

There are some misconceptions here.

1. Euthanasia is the direct killing of another person against their will. This already happens to infants in Holland.

2.Physician assisted suicide is never medically necessary to alleviate severe or chronic pain. Palliative care can do that, but still some people - for fear of loss of autonomy, or to make political statement disagreeing with current laws - choose to kill themselves and publicize it as Mrs. MacDonald did in her obituary.

3. Canada's laws prohibit aiding or abetting anyone to commit suicide. If it can be proven that Mr. MacDonald knew the intent of his wife's visit to Switzerland and helped her get there then I would say that is clearly "abetting" and he should be prosecuted. Sadly enough though, Crown prosecutors are often swayed by public opinion and do not always defend written law.

4. It looks like his statements to the press prove he had foreknowledge of his wife's intentions in Switzerland. If he is admitting that now, and he so much as drove he to the airport and accompanied her there, he should be prosecuted.

5. Yes there is a slippery slope where life becomes devalued. People have the legal right now to refuse medication and food as means of treatment. What some are asking for is that helping others to end there life be made legal. That will devalue all other human life and lead us down the route The Netherlands took, where people are kiled without their express permission.

All of the letters above are all emotion and no logic. Canada will benefit greatly from more funding of palliative care resources that help people deal with chronic or terminal pain but the abuses that can occur (letting the severely depressed make choices that can't be undone) are too great to risk.

And for the record: Mr. Latimer is in jail for homicide. It was not a "mercy killing" as you semanticists allege. He tired of caring for his daughter and he killed her without her permission.

There are some misconceptions here.

1. Euthanasia is the direct killing of another person against their will. This already happens to infants in Holland.

2. Physician assisted suicide is never medically necessary to alleviate severe or chronic pain. Palliative care can do that, but still some people - for fear of loss of autonomy, or to make political statement disagreeing with current laws - choose to kill themselves and publicize it as Mrs. MacDonald did in her obituary.

3. Canada's laws prohibit aiding or abetting anyone to commit suicide. If it can be proven that Mr. MacDonald knew the intent of his wife's visit to Switzerland and helped her get there then I would say that is clearly "abetting" and he should be prosecuted.

Sadly enough though, Crown prosecutors are often swayed by public opinion and do not always defend written law.

4. It looks like his statements to the press prove he had foreknowledge of his wife's intentions in Switzerland. If he is admitting that now, and he so much as drove he to the airport and accompanied her there, he should be prosecuted.

5. Yes there is a slippery slope where life becomes devalued. People have the legal right now to refuse medication and food as means of treatment.

What some are asking for is that helping others to end there life be made legal. That will devalue all other human life and lead us down the route The Netherlands took, where people are kiled without their express permission.

All of the letters above are all emotion and no logic. Canada will benefit greatly from more funding of palliative care resources that help people deal with chronic or terminal pain but the abuses that can occur (letting the severely depressed make choices that can't be undone) are too great to risk.

And for the record: Mr. Latimer is in jail for homicide. It was not a "mercy killing" as you semanticists allege. He tired of caring for his daughter and he killed her without her permission.

"And as for Patrick, I can't for the life of me figure out why CBC finds you so appealing. You know how to throw a sentence together, and I'd even go so far to say you might know what you're talking about. But that doesn't make you right."

Newsflash K.N. Its not about right or wrong since I rarely voice my personal opinion here (safe the threads on religious morality).

All I do is analyse things here, a fact that seems to be lost on the likes of you, Zen and Allan!

You see I can stand back at a distance and analyse things from a dispassionate position. Perhaps you can't.

Was MacDonald right? As far as Patrick is concerned who knows? Who cares? I'm simply stating what might happen to him as a matter of course due to his actions.

I searched the cbc.ca archives and read many articles concerning Sue Rodriguez who also fought for the right for assisted suicide. Ms. Rodriguez's appeal to Canadians to be allowed the right to own her body occurred in 1992. How sad that now 15 years later, people still lack this freedom?

I think most of us believe in the right to die if the individual is of sound mind. I read that Belgium law allows assisted suicide, but will involve a psychologist if there is any question about psychological health. Interestly, suicide was decriminalized in Canada in 1972, regardless of the person's state of mind.

Yet, assisted suicide of a sane and rational person with an agonizing and TERMINAL disease is deemed criminal. Oh sorry, Pat and Nancy, but the "law is the LAW" (just to save you the trouble of commenting).

Thank you Ayla for your comment. I am hopeful that some writers will show greater sensitivity with your reminder that Elizabeth was a real person with friends and family. Also, thank you for pointing out again that her case is not about "others" choosing for her.

The debate should stick to the issue. It is about whether or not we think an individual (in a state of sound mind) has the right to choose death for themselves. I find it very frustrating that people are trying to blur the issues.
Let's have an intelligent discussion about the right to die.

Allan from Kamloops, on war and some social policies we couldn't be further apart.

But on this instance you are right on the mark, well done!

What do you religious people not understand that you have the right to your beliefs but not to impose those upon others? She'll be in purgatory? Fine - for you. Sleep smugly, content that your God loves you and hates them. I don't see what religious dogma has to do with this other than it was used to set laws years ago and society has evolved.

If my God doesn't understand that I don't want to live in pain - then he/she/it is not God.

And my cat has reason. When I come home at night he tells me if he's been sick and then leads me to the spot with a guilty look on his face. When it was touch and go with his health I used his level of joy or lack as my guide to put him down or not. Same criteria my family and I use with each other. We don't want to see our loved ones suffer needlessly.

Laws evolve from discussion, not codified inflexible dogma. Unfortuneately some people do not understand this because some people support other's right to choose - something most organized religion has never really encouraged. Just ask Nancy or Minister. Another point of view? Blasphemy! You will never get into heaven! The battle cry during the crusades was "God Wills It" - were the crusaders right in hindsight? Just a correlation to another bit of suffering in the name of Holiness.

Colour me mad! It's absolute insanity and a waste of my tax money to pursue this subject!!

At age 77, I haven't much more time to go until the Pearly Gates open for me!
My wife has taken good note of this Swiss Clinic and when the time comes for me to depart, I would prefer to take a draught of hemlock, than be hooked up to a life support machine with tubes inserted into every orifice in my body, nauseated with drugs and wracked with pain!!

Sure now, I have no trouble if these complainants, who started this ball rolling, prefer to die, painfully, 'inch by inch' floating in a sea of vomit and faeces. 'WELL BE MY GUEST' I say, but do not expect me to follow your example!

It seems to me that some people think that Eric made this decision for Elizabeth. He did not, she was still very capable of making up her own mind and had the ability to know what she wanted.

Elizabeth was a strong woman who fought for what she believed. I think she would be so proud of the attention her death has brought to this issue.

As far as the people who are so unsympathetic to the fact that had Elizabeth lived out the short remainder of her live it would have been in severe pain, I'm sure Elizabeth would tell them to "F" off! I think that what Elizabeth did was courageous to take control of her body which here ms had stolen from her. I think that Eric was also courageous to accompany her and support her decision to set herself free.

In our hearts and memories she will live on. I would also like to say to the person who said that they could make the choice for their dog but not their spouse, that the question is not whither you could make the choice for them but for yourself, and them for themselves.

"The law is the law" is the stupid argument most often made by conformist halfwits with no clue how society evolves.

They made the exact same arguments based on archaic biblical drivel in the sixties when Henry Morgentaler was repeatedly targeted by culture nazis and their jackbooted brownshirts in the RCMP. Some things never change.

I support assisted or any other kind of suicide. What I do with my own body is my business.

Health care in this country terrifies me - I don't want to go near any hospital. I have begun to accept my mortality and prefer quality of life to longevity. At 60 every day is a bonus.

My sympathies go to Mr. Macdonald.
Surely the authorities have better things to do than harrass a loving husband and now grieving widower.

Finally, because the form would not let me finish in one posting, in respect to her eternal soul and where it now resides. No one can honestly say they really know this. No one can honestly say they are assured a place in "heaven" or are condemned to eternity in "limbo", "purgatory" or "hell".

To make such an assertion is foolishness of the highest order. That is in the purview of a greater power than resides on earth. I hope that we will all learn from another fictional character in this matter: Father Duddlesworth who once said, "Sure I believe in hell. But what kind of God would send anyone there."

I am at odds with this topic myself. I know that if my dog were to be suffering I would not hesitate to take it to the vet and have her put to sleep. But to equate my spouse to that of my pet is a bit of a leap.

For one, my pet does not possess reason and cannot make decisions for itself other than when it needs to eat or go out. It is up to me as my pet's "steward" to make those decisions for it. Humans have the ability to see reason and to make their own decisions.

What Eric MacDonald did was not illegal and he will not spend a day in court much less in jail. From what I have read of this situation he did not make the decision for his wife, he did not force her into this choice, and he did not urge her to do it.

The bigger issue is, should a human have the right to take their own life. We all have freedom of choice and how we exercise this choice is how the people around us judge us.

Our society puts laws and rules around us to encourage us to make choices that are good for the society as a whole - thus murder of a human being is illegal and killing a dog who is suffering is not, and humanely killing a pig so that we may eat it is not.

In the end Mrs. MacDonald made a choice to end her life because she did not want to suffer in her last days... full stop. Does this choice affect our society as a whole?

That is in the purview of politicians to decide (God help us). But I believe that the only people she has affected are herself and those who love her. She is dead and now released from her prison. They are grieving her loss and no one should get in the way of their grief.

I don't know what I would do under these circumstances but I do know:

1) I love my wife(31), daughter(6), son(7 months) and dog (13)
2) If my dog was going to live the rest of his life suffering, I would put him down
3) My wife, daughter and son are NOT my dog...

Again. I dont know what I would do.

This is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people, obviously, but in reality this issue is about a woman's right to end her pain.

I can't believe that we would even consider any persecution or prosecution of this man who made the incredibly brave journey with her.

How has "god" somehow got into this? There is no such a thing, and even if there was it would be none of his/her/its business what people choose to do with their own lives when what they do affects no-one else except, perhaps, the ones they love/are loved by.

To reply to Rich's final note, " I challenge anyone pro-law to stand in my way if this decision were to come up for me. The results won't be pleasant."

Correct, since you will therefore have done yourself or your spouse in. Would that result be pleasant for your family and friends? Probably not.

There are many things here I'd like to comment on but I'll start with just this:

People often say in such debates "Until you're in that situation yourself you don't know what you're talking about."

This is incredibly flawed logic. If you seriously believe that then you're saying that moral right and wrong are decided almost purely on emotion.

If right and wrong changes with emotion, then anger could make violence okay, when we might think otherwise in a calm state.

I would say that the actual case is that those who are in such situations are the least fit to decide what is morally right and wrong because their emotions are governing their decisions. It those who can think about the situation from a detached standpoint that is more fit to think clearly about it.

But that's if you believe that morals and right and wrong do not change and are universal, something our society rejects.

Are right and wrong really so unstable, do they really change from person to person, emotion to emotion, situation to situation? Hitler didn't think he was doing anything wrong yet he is now pretty much universally condemned.

How is right and wrong decided?

For those who don't believe in a superior deity of any kind these questions can't have any meaningful answer. On the other hand...

I believe in the God of the Bible, therefore to me all morals are unchanging (as He is, since He is perfect). What He says is right is right, and vice versa.

Well I'm enjoying the Patrick vs. allan thread - that's some good entertainment, and for once it isn't me their beating up on.

But more interesting, in my humble opinion, is that they're both right. Patrick is pretty much on the mark about the legal aspects, and allan is clearly voicing the moral stance of the majority here.

As I noted in previous posts, the laws that could get Mr. MacDonald in trouble do exist - that really isn't debatable. What is debatable is first - did Mr. MacDonald actually cousel, aide or abet in the commision of the act of suicide? I'd say that would be a tough burden of proof to meet.

Second - from the moral point of view, if so many Canadians feel the right to take their own lives or to assist a loved one in so doing is something we should honour in Canada, then write your MP and let them know your opinion. Ask them their opinion at election time - or any time for that matter.

Because as I also noted previously, if the law is ever going to change it will not be because people were quiet about it.

I cannot believe that ANYONE thinks that a suffering, but clear-headed person, should have to seek approval from society or the law or Parliament, or the likes of Nancy or Patrick, to end their own life.

Should they also consult with you for other life-important decisions, like if/when to have children...?? Perhaps they should be conferring with you about their diet, and employment choices as well. Why do you think you should have any say in how another person lives/dies?

The law you lean on is antiquated and based on religious belief, as evidenced by many of the anti-choice rants on this thread. Why should the rest of us be subjected to your ideas of life/death/pugatory? It's discrimination, and its not tolerated anywhere else. No one is forcing YOU to do it, so why rob others of having that choice?

Nancy... your words will come back to haunt you, one way or another. And I feel sorry for you.

And as for Patrick, I can't for the life of me figure out why CBC finds you so appealing. You know how to throw a sentence together, and I'd even go so far to say you might know what you're talking about. But that doesn't make you right.

Nancy,
Try to keep to the subject at hand. Suicide due to depression and other socio-economic problems on reserves has nothing to do with assissted suicide for terminally ill patients. Two different topics.

And laws are subject to change with the times, as has happened in the past, to support a society and it's needs as the society changes. Just because a law is in place does not mean it is implicit that that rule is truly "just".

And as a final note on this from myself. I challenge anyone pro-law to stand in my way if this decision were to come up for me. The results won't be pleasant.

To Ms. Georgina...how dare you question her husband or how he feels...and perhaps when you're dying of a dreaded disease..crippling and painful..and unable to breath ... then ask yourself this question... your religion tells you, "not to judge"...i'm sure your view will be quite different.

It's no ones business....the right to choose belongs to the one who suffers...
heartfelt sympathy to the MacDonald family, a very difficult and painful decision to deal with.

To Nancy (Ontario)
If you ever go out of Canada, into a country where the legal system is different from our's; and you are sentenced to be lashed for going out in the street unveiled, or for walking with a man who is not related to you, or for driving a car; will you still hold to your mantra that you seem to have chanted the last 18 hours or so, which I paraphrase as "the law is the law! All who break it must be punished. It is the job of police"? Will it still be meaningful to you in such a case?

Will the law save you? Will the law make a society just?
I advise you to choose compassion instead of iron-fisted legalism. Believe me it is the better way. Judge not and thou shalt not be judged.

minister (Halifax), please do not try to inject this kind of sarcastic humor into the discussion, it is disrespectful to those who suffer from painful life-ending diseases. You may just be trying to get a reaction, but many people will read your comment as being serious, which just flames the debate.

If on the other hand you are being serious, then, you either misprepresent yourself as someone with religious authority, or else understand very little of the religion that you subscribe to.

The concept of Purgatory is held by the Catholic church, and is not for "eternity" (and by the way a "minister" in the catholic church is not clergy). If I am wrong please back it up with scripture.

Patrick of Ontario

I've come to expect the usual cheap shot from you, which I can live with. Mosquitoes are nasty right now too.

It's the monotonous focus to everything through a tight legal lense that gets just a bit tedious I think for most readers.

Most of us are somewhat familiar with law and some of us realize law is about the last place you want to go when dealing with human grief, sickness, death and many other factors.

When people explain to you they aren't really interested in that very narrow focus on life, why is it you just don't get it?

You're "yes, but the law, blah, blah," is like a broken record.

Here's a tip: if all you're drawing is yawns and raspberries from readers, how are jurers going to react?

Perhaps some of us just don't appreciate the effort you put into your postings, but why, if you have all this hidden legal talent, are you wasting it responding to ideas rather than making heaps of money actually practicing law?

Given the volume of materials you dump here on each story, I'd say you are pretty much filling your days without the fear a client is going to interupt you.

Good comment from Joe of Halifax.

Once again Patrick, you stand on your pulpit and voice your opinion in a condescending and holier-than-thou attitude. I'll take Allan's compassion any day over your "don't question the law or the lawmakers" stance. You may want the law to be black and white, but you know what, a little common sense needs to enter the equation.

I guess you can call the RCMP to come and get me and some of my family, by the way. A few years ago, in a hospital right here in Canada, we allowed doctors to increase the morphine levels for my grandmother [at her request too] to ease the pain she was in as she waited to die from cancer. Within days she was gone.

I hope that I have someone holding my hand when I die, and not someone like Patrick standing over me spewing his legal rhetoric.

Euthanasia is a crime. The taken of live whether deliberate or not is again any and all religions. I believe that Eric MacDonald should be send to jail for the crime of taken a life.
I can't believe that an Anglican priest would go so far, or so low, as takes his wife to Switzerland so she can be assisted in taken her life.
What is this world coming to, if we think that murder is okay.

I believe that people do have the right to life and the right to die. And i generally accept doctor-assisted suicide to some degree.

I also believe that having this option available to those who really need it is rather quite comforting since they can choose to or not. However, the law is in place to protect society, and to protect those who are at a disadvantage and can not really control their lives from being taken advantage from by other people.

I accept both sides of the debate and acknowledge their points and concerns for the general welfare of society. But i still believe that an individual should have control or their own life by being able and allow to decide when they think time is enough for them.

No wonder the suicide rate on Native reserves is so high among young teenagers, with so many of you, apparently without conscience, willing to assist in carrying out such a decision.

The fact remains, if you break the law, you should suffer the consequences. The RCMP have a responsibility to apprehend anyone who has broken the law, for serious crimes.

I feel that Elizabeth knew what she was doing and had the right to make her own end of life decision.

Eric accompanied her to another country, he did not assist her suicide. The decision to die with dignity was not an option for Elizabeth in this country.

Please let Eric mourn the loss of his wife.

People often make the mistake of assuming that if assisted suicide were legal that people would be lining up to die and it's just not true.

In places where it is legal there are many strict laws surrounding the practice and even among the terminally ill the numbers who would choose the option are often quite small.

That being said, while extensive palliative care and counseling should be available to anyone who needs it, the control over your own body is perhaps the most personal right any of us could possibly have and if someone chooses to exercise that right in this manner that should be their own personal decision.

I really cannot stand people using the cop out argument of "well, as long as they don't get assistance" either.

People may need that assistance greatly and what is wrong with allowing for a painless, easier death as opposed to otherwise?

To investigate a person for example, who may have helped with the last wish of their suffering spouse and who is likely suffering terribly themselves right now is disgusting and indicative of the busybody nature of some people's supposed "moral code".

If some people are so terribly concerned with the sanctity of life then how about supporting programs, laws and social policies that help provide for people’s quality of life today instead of pretending you care about a terminally ill patient who just wants their pain and terror to end.

Don't like assisted-suicide? Then don't do it, and get out of peoples way.

"The only crime I see being played out in this story is a moral one and I'll place the blame for that one squarely on our government."

Well Allan that you don't see that potentially the law here was broken says nothing given your lack of knowledge therein.

And contrary to your assertion, it is the dispensors of justice that being the state who decides what is just and what is not seeing how first it is their duty to do so and secondly they (more than you) have a better grip on criminal law than you do.

If the Crown federally or provincially decides that it has a case then it will be most just if they were to try to charge MaCDonald as justice in this country demands that they exercise their duty without regard to passion.

But since no charges have been formally laid yet, we'll have to wait and see what if anything legally will come of this. I know you like to sound off on the philosophical, ie. "what should be" according to the "world of Allan", here I think this situation will be resolved more objectively, (that is a look to the facts) as opposed to subjectively, as that is usually the domain of the legislature. As I said to one of your compatriots here, you hate the law, take it up with parliament as it (with a little help from the courts) is solely responsible for ammending the Criminal Code of Canada.

Someone pointed out that "suicide is a sin",so is child molestation but the Vatican and the ex nazi who runs it seem to be ok with that.

Every person is born with free will and how they chose to live and end their lives,as long as the dont force their wishes or beliefs on others is is both their right and their responsibility.

If it is a sin and there is a god then i think he can judge them without any help from us.Leave the man alone.

Right on Allan from Kamloops. The medical system should be billed. And Todd from PEI. Please tell me why any God would want anyone to suffer so?

If the RCMP receives a complaint then it must be investigated regardless of it's nature and/or the validity of it.

HOWEVER, I believe the Crown may have difficulty prosecuting this case if it appears before the courts, as it is clear that Mrs. MacDonald made the decision herself and was of "sound mind" when doing so.

Mr. MacDonald did not administer the toxin that ended his wife's suffering.

I choose not to say, "end her life" because her life was of no quality. It was one of pain and suffering. Who are we to judge the decision one makes to end that?

I have multiple sclerosis and thankfully I'm stable at this point, but if I ever find myself at the same place as Mrs. MacDonald was, I'm not sure but I'd do the same and leave my family remembering me while I had some dignity.

I know of one person with MS who ended her own life while she still had the capacity to think for herself, and I also know of one who was reduced to almost a vegetative state and eventually died. Which would you choose?

Would you want to live in country that grants you the authority to let the medical community end your suffering when death is inevitable?

Sadly Mr. MacDonald has assisted in his wife being subjected to an eternity in purgatory.

Those who kill themselves, or who kill others, are not permitted into Heaven.

The only crime I see being played out in this story is a moral one and I'll place the blame for that one squarely on our government.

Well, I guess I could throw Nancy of Ontario and Patrick into the heap also as moral aiders and abettors of this injustice.

It just makes my day to read how some people insist that a wrongdoing always be found even in the face of the most heart-breaking human misery.

If External Affairs or Justice pursue this, the bureaucrat or politician calling for this abuse ought to be oughted so all Canadians know just how small some of us can be.

Nancy, it's people like you that drive so many people to work to improve the world so I guess, ironically, there is something good to come out of such narrow minded thinking.

Todd Gallant of PEI, what do you mean "it's a sin?"
Mr Macdonald did absolutely nothing wrong. He accompanied his wife on a trip for medical services she sought and planned.

That he stayed and held onto his wife to the end when the drink she accepted from medical staff took its effect, shows the actions of a man who loved his partner dearly in my estimation.

In fact, if I had my way Mr. MacDonald would be billing the medical system for all expenses related to the service his wife received in Switzerland, his trip included.

I hope that the RCMP can sleep at night with this inhuman persecution of an obviously decent man. It must be nice to have such a clear conscience.

Yes,

People are stating that "no crime" was committed in Canada. If any planning or orchestrating of this event can be traced back to Canadian soil, Mr. MacDonald can face a conspiracy charge. Planning illegal acts in Canada. Now section 463 or Part 13 of the Criminal Code which deals with said offence does not mandate that the action has to have been carried out let alone carried out abroad.

So for you K.N. especially (as I know you're gonna scower the Code for a response...) and others, our friend may not be out of the woods just yet.

Suicide is a sin, no matter what the situation.

Nancy,

i think your missing the point here. Mr Macdonald did not break the law in Canada. he was not on Canadian soil and was abiding by the laws of a differnet country. a more forward thinking country at that. the law is the law as you say, as it realtes to the country in which the so called crime was committed. end of story

A Canadian Citicen wished to die - surrounded by family - in her home, in her country. She also wished to shorten her suffering. If those very human last wishes can be refused by "the Law", then there is something wrong with our perception of "right". I prefer to have my tax dollars spent on fixing this.

As you probably realize from previous posts, I am a staunch conservative. That being said, I find it offensive that we do not have some kind of provision to cover assisted suicide.

I put my dog down last year because the sign were obvious. Why do we provide mercy to our pets but are unwilling to do same for our loved ones. We seem to have a sense of eternal optimism but fail to accept reality.

I offer my condolences and express my admiration for Mr. MacDonald. His act was the ultimate expression of love for his wife. I would not want my family to watch me waste away slowly. The burden on them would be much greater than my own. My experience with very ill people is that they are ready. It is US!! The healthy person that is not ready for the finality of death. We all die. Modern medicine has allowed us to stretch the natural limitations of our bodies. Sometimes that is not enough. Let her rest in peace with the knowledge that her survivors will not pay the price for her choice. HER CHOICE!

I'm actually very torn on this issue. On the one hand, I would not want to see someone dear to me suffering and in pain and would want them to die with dignity, on the other hand, I don't know if I could personally help them bring that about or even provide them the means to bring it on themselves or through someone else's aid. I was a mess when I had to put down my cat nearly three years ago, I can't imagine assisting my mother, or father, or brother, or anyone else close to me. I think I would be horribly guilt wracked for a long time, if not for the rest of my life.

It's not an easy thing to have to deal with.

As for no crime being committed in Canada so therefore no crime was committed at all, I have to be honest in saying that I don't necessarily agree with that. If that's the case, then people going over to Asia to participate in the sex tours that involve minors, then well, we would have no business prosecuting these individuals either.

Since you can't commit the crime in Canada, you seek out the country that will allow it and go and take part in it there. Somehow, well, that's just wrong in my eyes.

"The nation has no place in the homes of its citizens."

That's not necessarily true. I think in certain matters, you are correct. But if a crime has been committed "in the home", then it should be dealt with.

I really am torn. There have been concerns voiced out there that if euthanasia is made legal, it would be the start of a slippery slope. How true this is, we don't know and may never know, but at the same time, an individual should be allowed to die with dignity.

I hope to never be in a position to have to deal with this. I really feel for those who are and have had to watch someone they love die slowly and painfully. My heart goes out to the MacDonald family.

So after countless numbers of Canadians come back from a trip to Amsterdam can we expect the RCMP to be investigating a whole lot of cases of grass purchasing/consumption?

My heart goes out to Mr. MacDonald, especially for facing police -- and public -- scrutiny after losing his wife. If Canada would update its laws regarding assisted suicide, his wife could have stayed home and still had the option of dying with dignity.

My birth-mother killed herself with an overdose when her MS became too much to bear. She died _prematurely_ because our laws restrict people's options when they're facing chronic illness and debilitating pain, so she had to choose to go while she was still able to exercise the option herself.

And she died _alone_ because our laws made it a crime for her to share her plans and let her family be by her side. At least Mrs. MacDonald was able to have her loving husband beside her -- what a gift for both of them.

At least there's somewhere in the world that still believes in Humanity that enables someone to be allowed to end their own life in peace rather than made to linger on for long periods of time enduring pain and suffering until their body and/or mind can't stand it any more.

I can't even imagine the pain and mental anguish both of these people went through and I would never wish it to happen to anyone.

If we euthanize an injured animal, we call it Humane to end the suffering, yet our Government doesn't deem it correct to be humane to Humans, where's the sense?

Who of us would ever enjoy watching another human suffer endlessly, I don't.

Nancy (Ontario), all I can say is WOW! how very sympathetic you are... you must be applying for a position with the Euthanasia Prevention Council.

Latimer was convicted of Murder in the euthanization of his daughter, who couldn't or wouldn't consent by herself. While you may agree or disagree of the conviction in that case Latimer acted out of love and his persuasion that he was doing the right thing. Society has judged and sentenced him and he will face judgement by his maker. You on the other hand are showing misplaced hatred for making spiteful comments against him without considering his plight.

Mr. MacDonald's case though, is about helping a consenting person die with dignity - not euthanasia, not sympathy murder, not about pulling the plug and nothing like putting down a pet. Mrs. MacDonald consented to her death and that is why it is called suicide and why I feel that this matter has nothing to do with Euthanasia Prevention Council.

Nancy: "aiding a suicide is a crime in Canada. "

In *Canada*.

*In* Canada.

You should hope you are never in the situation as this woman.

A comment to Nancy from Ontario.

Thank-you for your comments. I am well aware the assisted suicide is against the law in Canada. My reference was to your ill-informed comment that her husband assisted in her suicide. He did not provide her with any barbituates.

According to the story, Elizabeth made all the arrangements with the Digitas and for travelling. I am guessing that you wanted him to stay home and refuse to accompany her to Switzerland? The RCMP will investigate a compassionate and loving man mourning the death of his wife. A man who did not challenge his wife's final wishes. There was no crime committed by Mr. MacDonald and there will be no charges.

Why are some people trying to turn this hero, Elizabeth,into a victim? Don't you think MS stripped her of so many wishes and plans? I can only imagine the joy she must have felt when she learned about the Dignitas. She must have felt empowered to be able to plan and arrange this part of her life (without MS dictating what would happen as she had dealt with for years).

Mr. MacDonald did not provide her the barbituates. He did counsel her to do so. I'm sure a huge part of him wanted to beg her to hold on for his sake, so he could have her with him longer. Please allow this woman the ownership of this decision that she made so bravely. Please leave her husband alone.

Thanks, Nancy, for giving me the motivation to call/write my MP about this barbaric Canadian Law that prohibits assisted suicide. You may be right about what the law says, but I completey disagree with you as to what is right, and what is wrong.

Nancy, you seem to be either a troll (and thus worthy of being ignored) or a very narrow-visioned person.

In the faint hope that you are the latter, I would suggest to you that a perverse obsession with the law leaves no room for justice.

Faithfully following the law, with no thought for justice, leads to an ignorance of justice itself.

It is against the law to jaywalk, yet you would have to be out of your mind to suggest that traffic police focus on everyone who crossed against a red, or in the middle of a block, rather than use their time pursuing more serious transgressors.

And here it is a similar situation. If there are no capital crimes that remain unsolved in the province of Nova Scotia, then more power to the RCMP in the pursuit of such overseas.

But even if this were the situation, many here have made a case for this not being a capital crime (outside of the strict definition of the law). And, once again, I remind you that following the law does not always produce justice. It certainly wouldn't in this case.

Now, if you're a troll, please continue spouting how the law has been broken. If you're not, gives us your views on how you see this as an injustice (without just repeating "the law has been broken").

"Anti-assisted suicide = pro-law."

That may be, Nancy, but have you considered that in many foreign countries,

Anti-womens' rights = pro-law ?

Or what about

Anti- = pro-law ?

No government in the world has a universally just set of laws. Sitting back and blindly accepting every law established by your government will only exacerbate the situation.

Arguing on the basis of fact and philosophy is fine, but arguing that a law is just simply because it has the government's stamp of approval means nothing.

Nancy in Ontario:

I appreciate the fact that you are behaving in the manner of a troll, but I would appreciate you not insinuating that I was advocating murder. Thank you.

Nancy,
I am not a law professor, but I do have a fairly solid working knowledge of a number of aspects of law and I know a bit about mounting a decent defence if you're charged with an offence.

As a previous poster did here,I will refer you to sec. 241 of the criminal code which states: every one who a) councels a person to commit suicide, or b) aides or abets a person to commit suicide .... is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years.

Now, I think a crown prosecutor would have to be in possesion of some knowledge not presented here before he/she would pursue this case in a court of law.

Otherwise a half decent defense lawyer should be able to prevail on behalf of Mr. MacDonald.

It is most certainly NOT a foregone conclusion that Mr. MacDonald will do time for this, nor even that he will be charged or convicted.

The RCMP needs to back off. What right do they have to persecute this man WHO ACTED IN A COMPASSIONATE MANNER?!! Enough already with the police state!

Nancy: Did you even read the article? You seem hell bent on codemning this man, but point to no facts that support your conclusion. Exactly what did this man do to kill his wife or help her kill himself, beyond getting on a plane with her? This situation is NOT akin to Robert Latimer and his little girl.

My suspicion would be that clinics such as the one the MacDonald's attended are very careful to make sure their procedures do not directly involve the loved ones of those who choose to die.

Someone said that the RCMP can't choose who and what they investigate. Guess what? They do. All the time. For my tax dollar, I think their resources could be put to better use.

I'm with you, Rich. Canada's Euthanasia laws are akin to government-sponsored torture. I see it as being no more acceptable than foreign governments that promote execution by stoning. Then again, at least death by stoning doesn't drag on for days, weeks, months, years...

Regarding the possibility of a miracle cure appearing one week later, that possibility is in general extremely remote. If one who is suffering from a terminal illness still has such strength and optimism that they wish to go on living, that's great - so long as it is their decision. But those who would rather end their constant torture than chase a one-in-a-million chance at recovery should also be free to follow up on their decision.

True, criminal code may dictate that laws broken abroad are chargeable here in Canada. However a counter-suit alleging the RCMP, Gov't and whatever special interest group has their nose out of joint as complicit in torture should also be filed. Fair is fair.

Laws are decided by politicians, and very vocal special interest groups who will not be happy unless everyone adopts their mindset. We should ban special interest groups, since everyone else has a life and can't be bothered with interfering with others. As for the charges, they should be dropped as he carried out his wife's wishes - unless there is no more crime to prosecute in Nova Scotia and we have to pay these people anyways.

If I ever become seriously ill or incapacitated, it is well documented that if I can't shoot myself, another family member will do it for me. I will not live in pain or as an invalid. I am not God, but I am not a Christian either so don't hold me to the tenants of someone else's faith. You do not have that right.

As for law, it may be illegal to help someone commit suicide, but it's also illegal to defend yourself or your property now. Both are equally assinine in my opinion.

Thanks for your comments Stephanie, but you seem to have missed the fact that aiding a suicide is a crime in Canada. Don't you understand Canadian law?

MacDonald will be sent to jail for this, rest assured. The law is the law.

Nancy in Ontario. Eric Mcdonald did not make the very hard decision to end his wife's life. As I read the story, his wife asked him to take her to Zurich to end her pain.

You are certainly right that murder is a crime in Canada, but he was not playing God. His wife was for herself.

She decided that she did not want to live anymore - not him. I would also say that I have never had a family member that has had to go through what Eric McDonald and his wife has, but if I end up with a disease that would slowly and painfully take my life in the end I would ask someone to take me to Zurich too!

Anti-assisted suicide = pro-law.

The RCMP are paid to uphold the law. Period.

Are there other laws of Canada that Lori advocates breaking, besides murder?

How is it that the RCMP can be pushed into an investigation into something that happened in another country by a fringe group, aka the "Euthanasia Prevention Council"?.

Who are these busybodies? Maybe the RCMP need to tell people like these nutcases to mind their own business.

A comment to Nancy in Ontario.

I think that you may have missed the part about Elizabeth MacDonald making the decision to die, not Eric. If it was God who made plans for Elizabeth to have MS, then he did decide that she was to die.

Nobody said that life was an option for her, only palliative care measures. Multiple Sclerosis decided Liz would die and she fought for years to beat that fate, but when death was certain and the last of her bodily functions would progressively fail over the next months, she decided to die with dignity.

The Criminal Code provision people are discussing is thus:

Offence outside Canada

481.2 Subject to this or any other Act of Parliament, where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

Whether or not the RCMP should exercise discretion to investigate an alleged offence is a matter best left to the RCMP. They cannot be limited in which allegations they may investigate based on popular perception, regardless of the emotions involved.

I think this case brings up a lot of issues that are pertinent:
a) the criminal code of canada is antiquated, yet nothing is being done to change it
b) many of our laws, practices, and mores are based in outdated christian ideology
c) there are conflicting laws here, one of which would be broken either way ("murder" vs. torture)

I find it interesting that since an anti-assisted suicide group is putting pressure on the RCMP that they're investigating it in the way that they are. I wish that the RCMP would spend our time and money convicting some rapists and murderers instead of hassling a man who has lost his wife to a horrible disease? Suicide would be preferable for many people than a life trapped, with a fully functional brain, in a non-functional body waiting for the inevitable esophageal paralysis and eventual drowning in something innocuous like water or mucous.

Rich in Victoria.

My sympathies go out to you. I cannot say that I have had to endure the kind of misery that accompanies watching a loved one suffer and die, although I have had friends in that position. It must be exceptionally difficult.

But I must beg to differ with your assertion that because I have not experienced this first hand I have no right to weigh in on the topic.

Fact is that as a healthy person I look at Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald's situation and I say "there but for the grace of God go I".

I hope that if I find myself in the position that either of them did I will not only have the strength, courage, and wisdome to do the right thing, but that I can say I took the opportunity to express my opinion in a public forum when I had that chance.

One thing is for sure. If the related law ever changes, it will not be because the public was quiet about their opinions on the topic.

Eric Macdonald should have consulted with Robert Latimer, as he rots in jail, before Macdonald decided to end his wife's life.

In Canada, murder is a crime. Eric MacDonald needs to realize he is not God, to decide who lives and who doesn't.

I think it is fairly arrogant of us to assume we know what we would do.

Euthanasia involves very complicated emotions that none of us could possibly understand. No one can say if I were in that position I would want to die too....or I would want to live every day because life is worth living. Which is why it really should be a choice for the person suffering. There are plenty of cases where very ill suffering people do want to live everyday they are given, and there are cases where people want it to end. People are individuals and we all react very differently to the many emotions out there.

Not a single person on this post, unless they are or have been in the position of Mr or Mrs McDonald, can speak towards what they would do or what they would feel, or what is the correct thing to do or feel. It is not appropriate to always assume (as we do with pets) that a life should be taken when one is suffering, and the same goes with a life being held onto at all costs regardless of the quality.

So no...charges should not be pressed.

First, I'd like to offer my sincerest sympathy to Mr. MacDonald and his family for their loss. I am sure these last few years have been filled with pain and suffering for everyone involved. It must have been awful watching this disease squeeze the life out of a healthy loving vibrant person.

Second, I think Mr. MacDonald did the right thing, and if I am ever in his shoes, I would do the same. Even if it risks time in jail. I would trade prison intead of forcing a loved one into such prolonged and hopeless suffering.

Third, I agree with the previous posters here who have commented that unless one goes through something like this, you cannot know the torment, particularly for the victim.

I appreciate JCM's position with respect to his uncle, but this case is different because Mrs. MacDonald was of sound mind, and she clearly made her own choice. Why should she have to linger in agony... to appease OUR collective conscience? And if a cure for MS was in the offing, that would be public information. By the time one reaches the stage where Mrs. MacDonald was, there is no fixing the damage and no magic pills. She just wanted it to stop, and frankly it wasn't killing her fast enough.

And, Patrick, before you bark more legal commentary on the state of the Criminal code, and whatever else you may think you're an authority on (which seems to be alot, because you post on virtually every topic on the CBC website), I suggest you get out and get some real life experience. There are laws that transcend your precious reference library.

Have you suffered through pain so intense you can't think, you can't function in day to day activities, and openly brings tears to your eyes? Have you suffered through that pain, for not days, not weeks, but months and years? Have you ever had to watch a family member suffer in such a way? If not, you have should have absolutely no input into this whatsoever.

Not only having a memeber of my family who has suffered through chronic pain disorder for the past 15 years, and recently going through excrutiating pain day to day for a period of 9-10 months, I can honestly say it's hard enough to see the light at the end of the tunnel when you know the ailment is curable or manageable. Constant intense pain has a way of draining your morale and resolve to carry on (why do you think torture chambers work so well?) If you know you have no light at the end of the tunnel, there is no cure, and you've lived with that intense pain long enough, you just want it to go away.

Not allowing someone to alleviate suffering is akin to torture, and last I checked, that's against the law, so why not take the goverment to court for causing such cruel torure?

The laws against euthanasia should be changed. I watched and assisted my mother who lived and died with MS for 30 years.

We watched as a proud and intelligent woman lost her independance. She did not want euthanasia - and that was her right.

But I do want to choose when I go and I don't want my loved ones to have to face the courts by assisting me in ending my life when the time is right.

Like gay marriage, I think this topic is over-discussed. If most people support change, than let's do it. Laws need to be changed so that each person is accountable not just for their own life, but their own death, too.

I wish that I had had the courage to do what Mr MacDonald did when my wife was dying in pain and without dignity. My sympathies are with him for his loss. Just leave him alone.

It is horrific that people in our country suffer from slowly murderous diseases with no option for escape. They are being killed and are not allowed to expediate their deaths. In Canada, we legally sanction such torture. Even the countries that uphold the death penalty for criminals believe in humane termination of life: lethal injection.

Alas, the horror and outrage we would feel if those countries decided to inflict their criminals with the final stages of aggressive MS. We would scream, "You can't torture them! Good God, let them die humanely."

But to Elizabeth MacDonald, Canada said, "You must suffer. You must die a cruel death" But Liz won the final battle. She robbed MS of it's control of her death. Thank-you Switzerland for helping her where Canada failed. I commend her family's strength and my heart goes out to her husband who has yet had time to grieve.

In reply to Dan of Edmonton who writes

On a side note, did a poster actually offer "proof" to back up their comments by using Dr. McCoy from Star Trek? Please tell me I am seeing things

Save the sarcasam Dan and look at the context of the post. Yes the characters are fictional no debate there but the subject matter of assisted suicide is it right or wrong is very real, relevant & exactly what is being discussed here.

It was cited to show the "other side of the coin" that if Dr. McCoy had waited there was a chance his father could have been saved.

If you support assisted suicide fine that is your oppinion and I can respect you for stating your point of view even if I do not agree with it. I hope you can respect me for stating my view on the subject as well. Simply put I believe that regardless of how serious a disease is every day alive is a day closer to a cure. There is no logic in ending your life assisted or otherwise simply because a cure does not exist "today". No one knows what tomorrow will bring

This "crime" did not happen in Canada. So what is the RCMP's business? Compassion applies to pets, yet people suffer unspeakable pain needlessly -- for what? Life at all cost? No thank you

Well I haven't read every post here, but I can tell those of you who believe he can't be charged in Canada for something done outside of Canada that you are not correct.

The criminal code actually has a section making it an offence to commit an act outside of Canada that, had the act been committed within Canada, would constitute the offence of...(insert criminal code offence name here).

Having said that I agree with the poster who said Canada's euthanasia laws are archaic.

I also agree with those who have said the RCMP and crown prosecutor MUST have better things to do that to even entertain the notion of pursuing this man.

As for the Euthanasia Prevention Council - if you're reading this take it as notice that I DO NOT want, nor would I encourage your meddling in my life if I happen to find myself in the position this lady did.

I think Mr. MacDonald should take civil action against this council if and when he is exhonerated.

In my opinion, Mr. Macdonald has committed no crime, but instead acted compassionatley and totally unselfishly so that his wife no longer had to suffer.

As an adult, the choice to end your life is an important private matter that is no ones business but yours and your close family.

The people who work/volunteer for the Euthanasia Prevention Council should stop concerning themselves with peoples private lives, especially when Mr. Macdonald is obviously going through a difficult time of grieving right now. I agree with Lon in Regina that they should be ashamed of themselves.

"Leave this man alone. The humane thing to do is allow anyone suffering, as this woman did, to die with dignity. Hopefully one day our country will follow the example set by the Swiss. We often treat our pets with more compassion - how odd."

That's not the point Zen, assisted suicide is against the law here in Canada irrespective who agrees with it. If you do, call your member of Parliament and or petition him/her to forward a private members bill abolishing section 241 of the Criminal Code.

I would look at it from a conflict of laws perspective which would be difficult. On one hand nations are sovereign to enforce their laws as they see fit. At the same time Canada has a duty to protect its citizens both here and abroad.

I think that the Department of Foreign Affairs needs to look into this matter along with the Federal Department of Justice and see if there is any statute concerning this issue and if indeed the government at any level can hold Eric Mac Donald criminally accountable.

The RCMP should be investigating crimes - this clearly is not one. Let Mr. MacDonald grieve the loss of his wife.

On a side note, did a poster actually offer "proof" to back up their comments by using Dr. McCoy from Star Trek? Please tell me I am seeing things.

What, they don't have enough criminals to go after in Nova Scotia? Their Crown prosecutors and RCMP have buckets of unspent money to put towards harrassing old men whose wives just died after years of suffering?

Regardless of what you think about euthanasia, surely we can all agree that this case doesn't have anything to do with Canadian law enforcement?

All anyone really knows is that the man and his wife were in Switzerland and she died. If the Swiss coroners are ok with this, then I don't see how it involves the RCMP. If the Swiss ask for extradition of the man, maybe that's a different story. The point is, he broke no law there. It doesn't sound like he broke the law here either, not having prepared, given or helped his wife drink the barbituate substance.

This woman made clear her belief that Canada's laws on assisted suicide were not to her liking, and chose to go to a place where she could get help. I would be more concerned if her husband had chosen not to go with her. Get a life, Euthanasia Prevention Council. This is none of your business.

The nation has no place in the homes of its citizens, let this family greive, Canadian laws on this issue are archaic.

I will go back to what I have always said. If one goes to another country for any reason whether it be to smuggle drugs or put their spouse out of miserable pain, then so let it be.

If you get jail time for smuggling drugs because that is the law of the country that you are currently in, then that's the law. If euthanasia is legal in the country that you go too then no consquences should follow that. If things are illegal in Canada then go where it is legal to do what you want to do.

But one should only have to suffer the consequences there, not in their home country. Look at how many American Gays came to Canada to get married because it was illegal in the US. They have not been persecuted for their actions.

Nothing happened in Canada, so nothing can be charged here. If the Switzerland clinic determined that her wishes were unselfish then that should be enough.

Respecting all life is all fine and good. Until you force someone to suffer in pain , unable to move in a hospital bed. That is not respect. That is torture.

This man should be left alone to grieve.

As I understand, our laws require the authorities to prosecute Canadian citizens who commit violations in other countries (example would be pedophiles that travel to asian countries because of child sex trade).

In this case though, it is unfortunate, because we need to question why assisted suicide, or even suicide itself is illegal. My understanding is that the law is based on religious principles of "sanctity of life". Separation of church and state, in my opinion, requires legal acknowledgement of a person's "right to die."

If we weren't so stubborn about this issue we wouldn't have to waste investigative and legal resources making Mr. MacDonald suffer more than he has to over the loss of his wife. The members of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Council should be ashamed for participating in such acerbic acts against victim's of terminal diseases and their families.

I think it is time we equate ourselves with the Pets we keep, I can assure you, most Pet owners would not want their Pet to suffer and will arrange to have them put down in a humane way, even allow the kids to say goodbye.

However we as Humans do not get that privilege, we because of the number of idiot fundamentalist Christians in this Country who look south of the border for their inspiration and never ever use the small amount of grey matter that they have between the ears.

So lets get with the times and allow those that want to leave us, because they feel they have suffered enough to go, lets face it for those of us that realize there is nothing after this life it is no big deal, you get one life and that is it. The fantasy of a heaven is pure conjecture, and even if it were true then those fundamentalist should not stop anyone from going there sooner, unless they are worried that maybe the ones that go sooner will spoil the place for the group still here on earth.

Leave this man alone. The humane thing to do is allow anyone suffering, as this woman did, to die with dignity. Hopefully one day our country will follow the example set by the Swiss. We often treat our pets with more compassion - how odd.

In reply to Josh of Hamilton who writes

If it is okay to euthanize a sick or suffering animal, then it should be okay to do the same to people.

The forced ending of a life is still murder be it animal or human

If a person would rather die than live in pain until they die, then that is their decision and nobody has the right to tell them differently.

I have an Uncle who has dementia & alzhimers (sp?) He has made similar comments. My question that I know can not be answered given his condition is this. Is that him or the dementia / alzhimers talking? None of us are certain beyond any shadow of a doubt

Those of you that don't agree, you will change your mind when you yourself or a close loved one is lying on their death bed asking you to let them go because they or you are in such pain that you just want it to stop. Let people live their own lives, it has nothing to do with you!

That I do not agree with a day alive is a day closer to a cure. It does affect the ones left behind who have to live with out the other person who has died.

Want proof? Yes Star Trek is fiction but the subject matter is real today. In Star TRek 5 The Final Frontier Dr. McCoy pulled the life support plug on his own father and a week later they found a cure for the fatal disease his father was suffering from. He had to deal with the fact that if he hadn't done that his father would still be alive. Sound familiar?

Yes you may be in pain but like I said earlier a day alive is a day closer to a cure. Hang on life is worth living regardless

It,s about time Canada grew up. How come the law and the police allow real criminals to "get away with it" and at the same time interfere with private citizen's own wishes.

What a waste of time and resources this case is.

The RCMP should leave the husband alone. What happened in Switzerland should be none of their business in this case.

When a totally incapacitated human being suffering from a relentless and hopeless disease wants to die, their decision should be respected.

Canada will have to openly deal with euthanasia sooner, rather than later, since so many ageing Canadians accept euthanasia in principle, and will want a choice in the next twenty years or so.

If it is okay to euthanize a sick or suffering animal, then it should be okay to do the same to people.

If a person would rather die than live in pain until they die, then that is their decision and nobody has the right to tell them differently.

Those of you that don't agree, you will change your mind when you yourself or a close loved one is lying on their death bed asking you to let them go because they or you are in such pain that you just want it to stop. Let people live their own lives, it has nothing to do with you!

My sympathies to Mr. MacDonald.

The RCMP are out of line on this one.

A bit odd?
A man goes to Dubai with $5 worth of hash, and is jailed for 4 years. People here and the government basically say "well, you gotta follow the rules of the country you are in, we have no interest in helping you"

Now a man does exactly this, and the RCMP are after him?

I am surprised here, I didn't think the arm of Canadian law was penetrable into Switzerland.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses.