UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio, as a person with a disability, have you, like Seeler, put some thought into what you want or don't want done in case you loose your mental capacity? Are you aware, that everything will be done if you do not declare your wish beforehand and determine a delegate? Are you wanting to be kept alive at all costs, even if it means you spend years in a hospital bed , unable to communicate or mobilize , completely dependent on others?

Don't you think, that, if Canada develops into a dicatorship, a dictator could make euthanasia laws in a heartbeat? It wouldn't need to be based on any pre existing laws.
It sounds like you think, that MAD would allow people with disabilities to commit suicide easier. I would argue, that people who apply for MAD out of financial reasons, would have the chance to be identified and helped, because they applied. Other as if they went on and committed suicide.
Statistics say, NS had sixtysome applications for assisted dying- half of which actually happened.

Kimmio, as a person with a disability, have you, like Seeler, put some thought into what you want or don't want done in case you loose your mental capacity? Are you aware, that everything will be done if you do not declare your wish beforehand and determine a delegate? Are you wanting to be kept alive at all costs, even if it means you spend years in a hospital bed , unable to communicate or mobilize , completely dependent on others?

Don't you think, that, if Canada develops into a dicatorship, a dictator could make euthanasia laws in a heartbeat? It wouldn't need to be based on any pre existing laws.
It sounds like you think, that MAD would allow people with disabilities to commit suicide easier. I would argue, that people who apply for MAD out of financial reasons, would have the chance to be identified and helped, because they applied. Other as if they went on and committed suicide.
Statistics say, NS had sixtysome applications for assisted dying- half of which actually happened.

I'm in my 40s and not likely to lose my mental capacity any faster than the average person unless, like the average person, I develop a condition that causes loss of mental capacity.


Read the latest full UCCan statement/ report posted by revjohn for its thoughts on how poverty could make people with disabilities more vulnerable.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I find this thread very disappointing. While I applaud the MAID legislation, I also think the topic opens up wonderful opportunities to really unpack issues related to life, death, disability, suffering, self-determination and so on. These conversations, while very difficult, are good ones to have.

For example, I am developing a university course right now that explores disability and the Christian faith. One of the topics we will explore is the perceived interrelationship between disability and suffering - and we'll try to nuance that conversation. Ultimately my point would be that you cannot arbitrarily conflate the two, but you also cannot deny (competent, adults) people with disabilities the right to self-determine and to define THEIR definition of suffering.

I would love to have a rich dialogue about this/these topics. I would find it very helpful. But it seems that every time we try, things get derailed - specifically by Kimmio. Her need to have the conversation align with her views, to have her experience and ideas rule the conversation, and her willingness to use every unhelpful logical fallacy and emotional form of blackmail available to do so, really undercuts healthy dialogue. It is too bad.

I used emotional blackmail? I was told that my views make people want to commit or incite violence against people with disabilities for God's sake. All you said about that was...nothing. Then the conversation turned to how I don't care about parents' suffering. And everyone piled on. You also played a part in
making the conversation about you, about your personal focus, about a different subject...and I am disappointed that by their silence, people, including you, validated chansen's horrible comments.

 

[paradox3]

If you want to start a thread I will commit to carrying a portion of the discussion and I will further commit to sharpening my focus to the actual subject at hand.

A new thread and a fresh start might be a good idea. The conversation on this one has become confusing to follow for a variety of reasons.

 

[Tabitha]

Back to the topic at hand
I support the right to die with assistance.
To me it is compassionate.
I prefer to have it in Canada rather than have folks travel to die with dignity.

It's not about making choices for others but allowing others to make their own choices.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's more complex than that. I'd recommend reading the whole report revjohn posted, and discussing that. I wish it had been a available earlier.

 

[revjohn]

It's more complex than that. I'd recommend reading the whole report revjohn posted, and discussing that. I wish it had been a available earlier.

The full draft is not completely different from the initial material we had to deal with. It does show that there was more nuanced engagement over the course of study.

What does not change is the conclusion reached:

The issue of Medical Assistance in Dying is one that needs ongoing reflection and dialogue in communities of faith. It may be chosen as a faithful option in certain circumstances. At the same time, there are many challenges that have emerged since this option became available, challenges both spiritual and practical. While the right of terminally ill patients under the legislation needs to be honoured, affirmation of this legislation must be accompanied by protection and care of the most vulnerable in our society and by universal, equal access to palliative care. It must recognize

Again the document is descriptive and not proscriptive. If I repeat that often enough maybe it will stick somewhere.

It outlines that Medical Assistance in Dying is not a one size fits all solution and that we proceed

To this end, we advocate community-focused and theologically robust discernment on a case-by-case basis that also ensures the protection and care of those potentially made vulnerable by this new law and others like it.

Which is how the Church is going to interact with the legislation and now how the Church expects to change legislation.

If the legislation needs to be changed this is not the thread in which to discuss it.

The legislation is here and it is now the document describes how The United Church of Canada intends to navigate with it in play. If that isn't good enough for some then their battle is best fought elsewhere.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The full draft is not completely different from the initial material we had to deal with. It does show that there was more nuanced engagement over the course of study.

What does not change is the conclusion reached:



Again the document is descriptive and not proscriptive. If I repeat that often enough maybe it will stick somewhere.

It outlines that Medical Assistance in Dying is not a one size fits all solution and that we proceed



Which is how the Church is going to interact with the legislation and now how the Church expects to change legislation.

If the legislation needs to be changed this is not the thread in which to discuss it.

The legislation is here and it is now the document describes how The United Church of Canada intends to navigate with it in play. If that isn't good enough for some then their battle is best fought elsewhere.

Would a faithful response not be to oppose legislation that leaves people with disabilities more vulnerable? - as the document aknowledges that we/ they are more vulnerable to abuses, coercion and negative attitudes about disability.

 

[revjohn]

Would a faithful response not be to oppose legislation that leaves people with disabilities more vulnerable?

Recognizing that legislation makes one segment of the societal whole more vulnerable does not prove that the legislation is designed as an attack on those vulnerabilities.

Opposing the legislation simply forces us to choose which segment and which vulnerability we will devalue.

The legislation currently in place exists because the Supreme Court of Canada recognized an inherent inequality which should not exist according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the current legislation suffer from a similar inherent inequality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That has not been proven yet, as soon as it is proven the Supreme Court will instruct the Government of Canada to fix it.

As far as I know we aren't anywhere upon that road so there is nothing, at present, to oppose.

The document acknowledges that there are some more vulnerable. It suggests proceed with caution on a case by case basis. It does not say alright everyone back to 2014.

If you want to voice your opposition to the legislation then start a thread on that legislation and go to town.

Since the UCCAN document is not legislation it binds nobody to anything. It offers direction and as I mentioned earlier anybody who pays attention to the UCCAN and how it has historically operated was able to see this conclusion at this time and this place. Which is that the process needs to be thoughtful and the driver needs to be the individual and that what holds true in one case may or may not hold true for the next one. Proceed with caution and be pastoral at all points.

Which means the only time I have a vested interest and am allowed to speak about how I feel is when I am the one suffering and I am looking for relief. The rest of the time I should be shutting the hell up and listening.

So, I know what the legislation permits and I know potential pitfalls. If I am called to observe or weigh in I will certainly mention when we are playing too close to the boundaries. Apart from that if I am not the patient in pain my role is to listen not dictate.

 

[Mendalla]

So, @revjohn , if a parishioner with a terminal condition comes to you and says, "I've met all the conditions of the legislation and am considering doing this. What is your advice?", how do you as a minister respond? It's curiosity question more than anything since I'm neither a minister nor terminal. Other ministers/pastors (@revsdd , @GeoFee . @Jae, who has been a student pastor) could chime in as well, of course.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Recognizing that legislation makes one segment of the societal whole more vulnerable does not prove that the legislation is designed as an attack on those vulnerabilities.

Opposing the legislation simply forces us to choose which segment and which vulnerability we will devalue.

The legislation currently in place exists because the Supreme Court of Canada recognized an inherent inequality which should not exist according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the current legislation suffer from a similar inherent inequality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That has not been proven yet, as soon as it is proven the Supreme Court will instruct the Government of Canada to fix it.

As far as I know we aren't anywhere upon that road so there is nothing, at present, to oppose.

The document acknowledges that there are some more vulnerable. It suggests proceed with caution on a case by case basis. It does not say alright everyone back to 2014.

If you want to voice your opposition to the legislation then start a thread on that legislation and go to town.

Since the UCCAN document is not legislation it binds nobody to anything. It offers direction and as I mentioned earlier anybody who pays attention to the UCCAN and how it has historically operated was able to see this conclusion at this time and this place. Which is that the process needs to be thoughtful and the driver needs to be the individual and that what holds true in one case may or may not hold true for the next one. Proceed with caution and be pastoral at all points.

Which means the only time I have a vested interest and am allowed to speak about how I feel is when I am the one suffering and I am looking for relief. The rest of the time I should be shutting the hell up and listening.

So, I know what the legislation permits and I know potential pitfalls. If I am called to observe or weigh in I will certainly mention when we are playing too close to the boundaries. Apart from that if I am not the patient in pain my role is to listen not dictate.

A problem is that the UCCAN didn't comment on the whole host of concerns in a statement until after the law was passed - after that particular road was concluded. Some of the concerns in the report are very familiar - but it's a little too little too late - unless they care to take a stand on those concerns now. One of the reasons why that road is not being travelled yet, if ever, is because people with disabilities on the whole lack a strong platform and voice and resources to oppose the legislation.

 

[revjohn]

So, @revjohn , if a parishioner with a terminal condition comes to you and says, "I've met all the conditions of the legislation and am considering doing this. What is your advice?", how do you as a minister respond?

Fair question.

Initial response is to acknowledge the process that the individual has taken to arrive at this point. If they are a parishioner I shouldn't be hearing about this pain for the first time in this conversation. It would mean I have not been pastorally attentive to this particular member.

Next questions explore where they are on their particular island?

Having arrived at this decision how do you feel about it?
You have shared this decision with me have you shared it with your family?
--if yes, How does your family feel about this decision?
--if no, When do you plan on telling your family? How do you imagine they will react to this decision? Are you prepared for them to resist this decision? Do you want me to be there when you tell your family?
Have you talked to your family doctor about this decision?
--if yes, Has the doctor suggested how you proceed from here?
--if no, How do you expect your doctor to respond to this decision?
Do you have a date set for when you would like this procedure to occur?
What can I do to help you in the time you have remaining?
Can I pray with you?

Prayer is rather intimate and yet the general gist would be:

Ancient of Days, you have held your son/daughter in the palm of your hand since before his/her birth and you have carved their name on the palm of your hand. Without fail your love for X had endured much and will endure much more. In all of our human weakness your divine strength is proven. Here and now in the midst of broken body and spirit we trust in your strength and your mercy to prevail. Open our hearts and minds that we might become more confident in our knowledge of you. Open our eyes so that our conviction of your majesty and graciousness can be affirmed and strengthened. Give peace to your servant X and may your grace surround their family in the days and weeks to come.

Lord God you have looked upon the many tears and many trials which X has endured to this point so you are aware of their longing for your Kingdom where no tears of pain or sorrow fall. Redeeming Christ, you have stood beside the grave of a loved one and wept genuine tears for death's powerful reach into the lives of us, your weaker siblings. Holiest of Spirits, you dwell within our hearts and guide us further into a deeper understanding of your heart, do not abandon X in the days and the weeks to come when his/her need for guidance will multiply.

You have called us to follow and as we do we often stumble, grow weary and feel faint. X's strength and resolve are failing and here O Lord is where we have need for you to carry him/her. We trust in your love, your mercy, your grace and we ask that you would grant X the favour of continuing to love him/her and be present for him/her in the days remaining. Amen.

 

[revjohn]

A problem is that the UCCAN didn't comment on the whole host of concerns in a statement until after the law was passed - after that particular road was concluded.

Not formally no. It still actually hasn't commented formally on the legislation.

Which is par.

It is not, despite what many choose to believe, an issue of black and white. It was black and white legislation which the Supreme Court struck down.

What has not been decided yet is how much grey currently exists.

The United Church of Canada, in this report, is more concerned with the here and the now. It has heard the cheery optimism and the prophecies of doom and has concluded reality will most likely lay somewhere in between. So how do we navigate to that point? That is the question this document seeks to answer.

And that, quite honestly is the only legitimate criticism that can be directed at the document. Holding it to account for legislation it did not implement is a goose chase. If you don't like the direction it gives that is fine show what falls short and how to fix it. That would be a profit to everyone.

If the real concern is the legislation itself then it is misplaced as a criticism of this document.

 

[GordW]

So, @revjohn , if a parishioner with a terminal condition comes to you and says, "I've met all the conditions of the legislation and am considering doing this. What is your advice?", how do you as a minister respond? It's curiosity question more than anything since I'm neither a minister nor terminal. Other ministers/pastors (@revsdd , @GeoFee . @Jae, who has been a student pastor) could chime in as well, of course.

To be honest I am not yet sure...certainly where the discussion goes from there will depend on the relationship I have with that person. The closest I have come thus far was with someone who said his wife was hopeful but has been told that she will never qualify under the legislation because by the time death in imminent enough she will not likely be capable to make the decision.

I do know there are other people in the congregation who lean towards MAiD being preferable to what members of their family have gone through. As yet none of them have health issues that would make the discussion relevant.

 

[Jaebius]

So, @revjohn , if a parishioner with a terminal condition comes to you and says, "I've met all the conditions of the legislation and am considering doing this. What is your advice?", how do you as a minister respond? It's curiosity question more than anything since I'm neither a minister nor terminal. Other ministers/pastors (@revsdd , @GeoFee . @Jae, who has been a student pastor) could chime in as well, of course.

Speaking in the context of an evangelical Baptist church here. The first thing I would do is to thank them for sharing this heartfelt desire with me. I would ask them their story - how they had come to this decision, and who else they had shared this information with. I would listen closely and confirm with them what I had heard. Then, as we tend to do, I'd discuss with them how they believe God feels about their desire. Have they searched the Scriptures concerning how God might feel about their choosing death? Have they prayed about their desire? Sought other wise counsel? What is the Spirit of God saying to them about it? After listening to their answers, I'd read Scripture and/or pray with them if they desire. If they asked me for my opinion regarding chosen death, I would share it. At the end of our conversation, I'd share with them that there is comfort and hope in the God who has good plans for them. I'd also invite them to meet with me, call me, or email me as they feel the need.

 

[dreamerman]

Speaking in the context of an evangelical Baptist church here. The first thing I would do is to thank them for sharing this heartfelt desire with me. I would ask them their story - how they had come to this decision, and who else they had shared this information with. I would listen closely and confirm with them what I had heard. Then, as we tend to do, I'd discuss with them how they believe God feels about their desire. Have they searched the Scriptures concerning how God might feel about their choosing death? Have they prayed about their desire? Sought other wise counsel? What is the Spirit of God saying to them about it? After listening to their answers, I'd read Scripture and/or pray with them if they desire. If they asked me for my opinion regarding chosen death, I would share it. At the end of our conversation, I'd share with them that there is comfort and hope in the God who has good plans for them. I'd also invite them to meet with me, call me, or email me as they feel the need.

What if the person has already prayed about it several times and feels God is okay with whatever decision this person chooses. Maybe God has spoken to this person in one way or another and has told this person that they have suffered enough. What would be your advice to this person then?

 

[Jaebius]

What if the person has already prayed about it several times and feels God is okay with whatever decision this person chooses. Maybe God has spoken to this person in one way or another and has told this person that they have suffered enough. What would be your advice to this person then?

Good question dreamerman. I'd ask them in what way(s) they thought they have heard this message from God, and whether they've checked what they consider to be God's message against what God has already said in Scripture.

 

[Luce NDs]

Good question dreamerman. I'd ask them in what way(s) they thought they have heard this message from God, and whether they've checked what they consider to be God's message against what God has already said in Scripture.

Could it be malware from an earth-based system?

 

[dreamerman]

Good question dreamerman. I'd ask them in what way(s) they thought they have heard this message from God, and whether they've checked what they consider to be God's message against what God has already said in Scripture.

They felt the presence of God while praying and God spoke to them through prayer and the answer was it is your decision not mine. If this was the case then what?

 

[Jaebius]

They felt the presence of God while praying and God spoke to them through prayer and the answer was it is your decision not mine. If this was the case then what?

I might they ask them why they felt it important to talk with me about it.

 

[dreamerman]

I might they ask them why they felt it important to talk with me about it.

Well if they went to your church and they valued your opinion I guess then they might feel compelled to talk to you. It could happen.