October 2009

A 49-year old Australian quadriplegic who was on a ventilator and a feeding tube recently died shortly after winning his legal fight to refuse treatment and food. He said he was in constant pain, his life had become a living hell and he wanted the right to refuse food meaning not have the feeding tube planted in his stomach. The court finally agreed. Pro euthanasia groups cheered, but Right to Life ones said the patient should have been given psychiatric care instead. Wouldn’t that assume that wanting to be released from pain is a symptom of mental illness? To many, not wanting to endure more pain than necessary is rational. Holding on to life at any cost may reveal more about our ignorance about what life really is than our understanding. And then there’s the issue of imposing one’s belief on another, far from a spiritual act—all the more puzzling when spiritual values are the premise upon which the objections are made.

The Will to Intervene Project at the Montreal Institute and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University has issued a report which asks the world to find a way to intervene before genocides like the ones in Rwanda and Darfur occur. The report suggests that when one considers the dangers and risks, whether from pandemics, from pirates in Somalia, or from the requirements of genocide after they occur, that averting those crises is far less risky. The report also proposes to rethink the notion of not intervening on the basis of national sovereignty, suggesting the concept, no longer efficient, may be becoming outdated.
Whether we like to admit it or not, genocides will occur. We can usually anticipate where. If the report holds any truth, to avert them is not only preferable politically, economically and socially, it is also a way to prevent a lot of suffering—something that ought to give averting genocide priority status.