Expansion of MAID delayed until after next election

[Northwind]

Track 2 should not be an option, especially in this "cost saving" climate. I don't believe there's any cost saving for the record. It's an excuse to dispense with services deemed to be costly. Whatever that means. It isn't sensible.

But I digress.

Track one has its place. But aunt chose to use it in April. She felt she'd lived a good life and she was receiving good supports. It was her choice and she was ready.

A friend who died in October insisted she was going to use MAID. She met the criteria after having lived with metastatic breast cancer for over 10 years. She was tired. Her quality of life was seriously diminished. She also had good supports. She had to go through a very involved process to ensure she qualified for MAID that involved interviews, assessments, etc. There is no way anyone could say the government imposed it on her. It was her choice. Ultimately, she died in hospice, presumably of her disease.

Another friend felt she had MAID inflicted on her. A very unprofessional "screener" or whatever, called her a few times to ask if she was ready to start the process. She was understandably upset by this. She got support from friends to clear her head and ultimately told the woman not to call that she would call when she was ready. She has all the information she needs and is still alive a couple years later.

MAID used properly, can be done freely and as a choice. There are checks and balances. Of course the topic comes up in my circles occasionally. At this point, I have no idea whether I'd choose it. We do have a good palliative care unit at the hospital that I would prefer to use. Hopefully not anytime soon.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Track 2 should not be an option, especially in this "cost saving" climate. I don't believe there's any cost saving for the record. It's an excuse to dispense with services deemed to be costly. Whatever that means. It isn't sensible.

But I digress.

Track one has its place. But aunt chose to use it in April. She felt she'd lived a good life and she was receiving good supports. It was her choice and she was ready.

A friend who died in October insisted she was going to use MAID. She met the criteria after having lived with metastatic breast cancer for over 10 years. She was tired. Her quality of life was seriously diminished. She also had good supports. She had to go through a very involved process to ensure she qualified for MAID that involved interviews, assessments, etc. There is no way anyone could say the government imposed it on her. It was her choice. Ultimately, she died in hospice, presumably of her disease.

Another friend felt she had MAID inflicted on her. A very unprofessional "screener" or whatever, called her a few times to ask if she was ready to start the process. She was understandably upset by this. She got support from friends to clear her head and ultimately told the woman not to call that she would call when she was ready. She has all the information she needs and is still alive a couple years later.

MAID used properly, can be done freely and as a choice. There are checks and balances. Of course the topic comes up in my circles occasionally. At this point, I have no idea whether I'd choose it. We do have a good palliative care unit at the hospital that I would prefer to use. Hopefully not anytime soon.

What I’m also saying is that the oversights are already so poor we cannot be acting like the time we’re living in right now is in any way normal or business as usual and we can carry on like this is safe and the UN alarms are nothing? We’re a smarter country than that, I think (so if people want to pretend otherwise they’re being willfully ignorant to the problems). As we can already see, these laws are easy to exploit, and expand on. They were written that way - with disability as the catch word that left us unprotected from expansion, or to having our human rights upended and reinterpreted.

This is driving me bonkers. I don’t want to hash over everything again. I’ve explained this so many times and instead of looking at how this affects society, the conversation here always circles back to individuals and not really fully looking at the big picture and the risks it poses to marginalized people, going forward - risks to others - especially these days in this world! And the UN report means little. No historical analysis, no sociological or class politics or critical theory analysis will do. Red flags be damned. It’s not about “my opinion vs your opinion” at this point. The facts are there. Doesn’t matter how well they’re laid out or by whom. You’re (WC2) not going to change your thinking beyond where you’re at I guess but you can’t say nobody warned you if you end up on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to sound mean, but I’m serious.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

…and there are already NOT proper checks and balances. Hence the UN initial warnings as well as in the latest report.

I’m not trying to piss people off. It’s a serious matter and it potentially affects too many people. I have to leave WC2 for awhile. Too much repetition. I’ve said all I can say.

 

[Luce NDs]

Was there ever proper checks and balances ...?

I think specifically of balance when desires are paramount! Knowledge is sub dude ...

 

[Northwind]

and there are already NOT proper checks and balances. Hence the UN initial warnings as well as in the latest report.

I get that on one hand. Still, the people I've known who have pursued it had to jump through hoops to get it. Does that not count for anything?

 

[Mendalla]

I get that on one hand. Still, the people I've known who have pursued it had to jump through hoops to get it. Does that not count for anything?

Those hoops are, presumably, the checks and balances. The original MAID 1 (terminal) law was pretty strict to my eye, though I guess the medical definition of "terminal" is always going to be a judgement call by the practitioners.

For MAID 2, I don't know that you can ever have good enough checks and balances. It's much fuzzier area and I say that acknowledging that "terminal" can already be pretty fuzzy medically. Which is why I would prefer to see us roll back to the original law that covered only terminal cases.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Yes, life is terminal, if you define it loosely. We're all born to die.

 

[Northwind]

I agree @Mendalla and that is why I am concerned about Track 2. There is no place for it.

 

[paradox3]

Somewhat of a tangent coming up but it speaks to overall context, I think.

The birthrate for Downs syndrome babies is declining drastically in some countries. I don't know about Canada but I have read about this in Iceland and the UK.

Prenatal testing is becoming more available and less intrusive. Testing is being chosen by most women. I think there is a simple early screen that can be followed by amniocentesis if necessary.

Many women select subsequent abortion if the amnio is positive.

 

[WhyCzar]

Was there ever proper checks and balances ...?

I don't have a problem with individuals having the power to end their lives when they see fit.

I have a problem when it becomes a government funded program that helps them to do it.

Socialized medicine is a budget driven system where patients are viewed as costs to be minimized.

Patients draining resources make them a liability not a priority.

MAID balances the budget by eliminating the need for ongoing care.

As budget pressures mount expansion to non-terminal cases and looming plans for children and the mentally ill are the checks and balances.

 

[WhyCzar]

I found the The Atlantic article entitled “Canada Is Killing Itself” - which followed doctors gathering for a euthanasia conference in Vancouver, complete with lunch buffets, a disc jockey, and complimentary tote bags for the attendees - nothing short of horrifying.

MAID proponents see a relentless logic in providing the option of death to ever-larger groups of people.

Once the door was cracked open, the debate shifted to equity instead of morality – why should this group of people have access to MAID, but not that group? Why not everyone? And if everyone can have it, why should doctors not aggressively promote the option, especially when the Canadian healthcare system is overloaded to the point of collapse?

"Health workers" now speak of having multiple “procedures” per week, and soon it will be multiples per day.

Meanwhile, online startups have begun offering Canadians assistance with designing their “MAID experience” – from their final earthly hours through post-death ceremonies and helping children adjust to the loss of their parents. Suggestions for helping children adjust include holding “a pajama party at a funeral home” and “painting a coffin in a schoolyard.” Any resemblance between these services and the catered termination experience in the 1973 movie Soylent Green is purely coincidental.

Another booming industry in Canada is the “MAID House,” essentially a form of hospice care that gives patients a warm and comfortable space to be killed in, preferable to the clinical austerity of a hospital or potentially squalid and chaotic conditions at home. MAID Houses make the process of being killed brisk and calm, like saying farewell at an airport departure lounge. Patients spend their final minutes in a La-Z-Boy recliner.

When something is normalized, restrictions soon become abnormal.

As one Canadian doctor explained to The Atlantic, the early MAID law required prospects to be suffering from an untreatable disease – but if the patient adamantly refuses treatment, anything can become untreatable.

If Canada pushes ahead with authorizing MAID for children and the mentally ill, either a large number of doctors will have to master their unease, or more MAID specialists will have to be trained to meet surging demand.

 

[WhyCzar]

Somewhat of a tangent coming up but it speaks to overall context, I think.

Beyond MAID, a quieter but equally disturbing trend festers?

The unofficial encouragement of prenatal termination for fetuses with forecasted disabilities.

Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. The termination of pregnancy is available up to birth for any reason, including genetic anomalies detected via prenatal screening like Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), rolled out widely since 2013.

While not a formal “program” like MAID, healthcare providers often present termination as a default to parents receiving a disability diagnosis, framing it as a “compassionate” choice to avoid “suffering.”

Down syndrome, affecting 1 in 750 Canadian live births tops the list at 90% of such pregnancies ending in abortion, per Canadian Down Syndrome Society estimates.

NIPT boasts 99% sensitivity for Down syndrome but can’t forecast severity.

Many people with the condition live full and happy lives, defying dismal medical prognoses.

False positives (up to 5%) and misinterpretations of “soft markers” (e.g., nuchal fold thickness) further cloud accuracy, yet termination rates soar.

Parents report pressure, subtle or overt, from doctors citing care burdens or costs, echoing eugenics’ shadow.

No law mandates this push but devaluing disabled lives before they begin is happening.

Unlike MAID, it’s prenatal, not postnatal but the ethos aligns:

Disability as a problem to erase, not a life to support.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I get that on one hand. Still, the people I've known who have pursued it had to jump through hoops to get it. Does that not count for anything?

We can’t ignore the problems with it because of that.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The people with Downs Syndrome I’ve met are literally better people than the majority of society. I don’t agree with abortion on that basis but the main priority point is not abortion it’s MAiD - killing human beings who’ve got lives in this world.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I found the The Atlantic article entitled “Canada Is Killing Itself” - which followed doctors gathering for a euthanasia conference in Vancouver, complete with lunch buffets, a disc jockey, and complimentary tote bags for the attendees - nothing short of horrifying.

MAID proponents see a relentless logic in providing the option of death to ever-larger groups of people.



"Health workers" now speak of having multiple “procedures” per week, and soon it will be multiples per day.





When something is normalized, restrictions soon become abnormal.

The Atlantic article is correct but you interjecting your long winded posts on what you think from your libertarian point of view, on behalf of disabled people, isn’t. It just convolutes it.


The religious antiabortionists getting involved also have an agenda and it strays from the main point. We didn’t ask them to get involved and if they hadn’t the public might not have so hastily supported MAiD expansion (ie “if the religious right is against it we must be for it”). They turned it into a bipartisan issue rather than a non partisan human rights issue.

Disabled people affected get first priority viewpoint on this subject. Nothing about us without us.

 

[paradox3]

The people with Downs Syndrome I’ve met are literally better people than the majority of society.

The story of Reggie on Call the Midwife was very moving. Anyone remember?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The story of Reggie on Call the Midwife was very moving. Anyone remember?

Nope and I’m sure it’s a good show but this thread is not about that. Can we keep it to MAiD expansion?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Beyond MAID, a quieter but equally disturbing trend festers?

The unofficial encouragement of prenatal termination for fetuses with forecasted disabilities.

Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. The termination of pregnancy is available up to birth for any reason, including genetic anomalies detected via prenatal screening like Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), rolled out widely since 2013.

While not a formal “program” like MAID, healthcare providers often present termination as a default to parents receiving a disability diagnosis, framing it as a “compassionate” choice to avoid “suffering.”

Down syndrome, affecting 1 in 750 Canadian live births tops the list at 90% of such pregnancies ending in abortion, per Canadian Down Syndrome Society estimates.

NIPT boasts 99% sensitivity for Down syndrome but can’t forecast severity.

Many people with the condition live full and happy lives, defying dismal medical prognoses.

False positives (up to 5%) and misinterpretations of “soft markers” (e.g., nuchal fold thickness) further cloud accuracy, yet termination rates soar.

Parents report pressure, subtle or overt, from doctors citing care burdens or costs, echoing eugenics’ shadow.

No law mandates this push but devaluing disabled lives before they begin is happening.

Unlike MAID, it’s prenatal, not postnatal but the ethos aligns:

Disability as a problem to erase, not a life to support.

I agree with this but we have to look at MAiD first. People already alive and born who are at risk. We can do both, and there is a connection with ableist attitudes - but the focus of the vast majority of MAiD opponents is not antiabortion so let’s not use Downs Syndrome as the ticket to support the pro-lifers agenda and take focus away from MAiD.

 

[paradox3]

Nope and I’m sure it’s a good show but this thread is not about that. Can we keep it to MAiD expansion?

Respectfully I was responding to your comment. Which now has an edit, I see.

I did say I was getting onto a bit of a tangent by bringing up the subject of fetuses with diagnosed disabilities being aborted.

But it speaks to the general devaluing of those with disabilities. I don't think anyone here is attempting to divert the conversation from MAiD.

 

[paradox3]

I agree with this but we have to look at MAiD first. People already alive and born who are at risk.

Yes we get it and we understand your passion