Toronto Maple Leafs goaltender Joseph Woll makes a glove save during an NHL hockey game in St. Louis in March.Connor Hamilton/The Associated Press
Sucker’s game
Re “Alberta’s risky bet on online gambling” (Editorial, June 13): The two profiteers of online gambling are provincial governments and licensed gambling operators.
This puts governments in the awkward position of regulating companies that could be described as business partners. If online gambling is too tightly controlled, both groups lose revenue, thus defeating the main purpose of their involvement.
Online gambling companies emphasize parlay bets. They are generally derided as “sucker bets” because winning means succeeding on multiple bets at once and winners are most often paid off at odds less than the wager’s true probability. Hence the frequent promotion of parlay betting.
Several researchers posit the need for governmental duty of care for individuals exploited by gambling operators: For example, knowingly enticing players to gamble beyond their means or not intervening when metrics clearly show gambling addiction. A duty of care would protect players from unscrupulous operators.
Garry Smith Edmonton
On MAID
Re “Ten years of MAID, and suffering averted, is cause for celebration” (June 16): “If these patients … weren’t dying from assisted deaths, how would they be spending their final days and hours?”
Normal dying is when a person with terminal illness and their family prepare for loss, with the same “tears, laughs, music and all manner of deeply personal gestures” as described for medical assistance in dying. People gather, suffering is managed, stories and grief are shared.
Most dying persons have some days or hours of dwindling consciousness until, peacefully and naturally, breathing slows then stops, and life ends. The difference is we don’t know exactly when, but this time provides for golden moments: Smiles, love, hands squeezed, care exchanged.
MAID is a legitimate end-of-life choice and so is normal dying. Let’s not forget to describe it.
Jessica Simon Palliative care physician, Calgary
A necessary and appreciated reminder of what the law in Canada means to the majority of citizens.
Personally, it means I can spare my children the agony of watching their mother suffer before death, as I experienced almost 30 years ago.
The right to choose medical assistance in dying is precious. Others are free to reject it for themselves; I honour that choice.
Honour mine to choose it.
Pamela Edwards Burlington, Ont.
Re “A decade after MAID became legal, life has become cheap in Canada” (Opinion, June 13): I do not want to minimize the real suffering of others, mentally or physically, but I agree that the fate of our collective soul as a country hangs in the balance, should we continue to normalize medical assistance in dying as a solution to suffering.
I fear the impetus to seek out remedies or research concerning serious physical or psychological illness would be lost. I believe it betrays medical practitioners who carry on and do not accept the inevitability of illness while we do not have all the answers.
I feel a poverty of spirit at the heart of MAID that diminishes our capacity for caring, compassion and comfort. I weep for lives lost through despair, failure of community, failure of awareness or failure of pharmaceuticals.
We can do much better.
Joan McNamee Kamloops
I am alarmed, especially by the conclusion that “the value and sanctity of life has become so cheap in this country.”
My biggest fear as I age is losing self-determination. When the time comes, I – and I alone – want to make the decision.
Who are we to say that a person with mental illness or who has lost their sight should be denied that liberty and somehow taught to “live better?”
I’ve lost my husband and four other family members to medical assistance in dying over five years. How dearly I miss them, but how ferociously I will always defend their right to leave this world on their own terms.
Diane Sewell Vancouver
Having travelled this path of medical assistance in dying alongside people with significant disabilities and clear need for home support, I can attest to the precarious nature of the MAID-versus-support debate that is troubling in the extreme.
The devaluation of vulnerable people requires unwavering and public opposition, especially considering the alternative of death. Canada should do better than facilitating needless and untimely deaths for vulnerable people.
Douglas Cartan Front of Yonge, Ont.
At 82, my father died following a serious fall in 1993, sad and alone. He was also plagued with cancer.
During one visit, I asked what he’d eaten that day. “Nothing,” he answered.
I was shocked. “Dad, you can’t stop eating.” His reply was along the lines of, “Why? I’ve got nothing to live for.”
I feel certain that if MAID was available, he would have given it serious consideration.
Les Dominy Renfrew, Ont.
Canada has not lost its soul – it has lost its nerve to raise taxes on the wealthy to build a robust social safety net for health care, housing and transit, all the things that make life livable and demonstrate compassion.
It’s easy to talk about the nation’s “soul” and lament the breakdown of its “ethical idea” and “rational institutions.” It’s harder and less philosophical, but more productive, to have a conversation about funding the good life everyone deserves.
Peter Mountford and Susie O’Brien Hamilton
End of an era
Re “CBC to stop airing NHL games after 74 years, marking end of free hockey on Canadian TV” (June 17): Ending Hockey Night in Canada on the CBC after 74 years is unacceptable.
Saturday night hockey for free, from coast to coast to coast, should be written into the Canadian Constitution no matter who broadcasts it. Nobody should be forced to pay for a hockey broadcast in Canada.
Elbows up. Let’s show our hockey patriotism.
Blair Boudreau St. Catharines, Ont.
Not there yet
Re “‘Shrink it and pink it’ thinking is not good enough for female athletes” (June 8) and “Does not fit all” (Letters, June 15): Back around 1970, I took up canoe racing in college. I knew I was lucky to have small breasts; the lifejackets had huge, huge padding in front.
If I had big breasts, I could not have gotten my arm across my chest far enough to get the paddle deep enough in the water. I would not have gone on to earn almost two-dozen gold medals at nationals and a few gold at worlds.
I notice today there are lifejackets with space scooped out in front, which can be helpful for some, but not all, women.
Faye Hallett Red Deer, Alta.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com