revsdd
Well-Known Member
A few weeks ago in the thread on the UCC statement on Assisted Dying I promised to write a letter to several MPs and Cabinet ministers outlining my personal concerns about the law in the light of a case we were discussing. I got around to doing that today and put it in the mail at around 5:30 this afternoon. I sent it to:
Mr. Jamie Schmale, MP (My Conservative Member of Parliament)
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, PC, MP, Prime Minister
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, MP, Minister of Justice
The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, PC, MP, Minister of Health
The Honourable Andrew Scheer, PC, MP, Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, PC, MP, Conservative Justice Critic
Ms Marilyn Gladu, MP, Conservative Health Critic
Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the NDP
Mr. Guy Caron, MP, Parliamentary Leader of the NDP
Mr. Murray Rankin, MP, NDP Justice Critic
Mr. Don Davies, MP, NDP Health Critic
I'm going to use this thread to keep you updated on responses I receive. Since the people I wrote to are hopefully going to be replying to me personally and privately, I'm not going to reproduce their responses verbatim. I'll let you know when I receive replies, from whom, and try to give a brief summary (but no details or quotes) of what their response is.
To start with, here, once again, is the letter I said I would write. We'll take it from there.
January 3, 2018
Dear
I am writing to express some concerns about the application of "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)", which was assented to on June 16, 2016. I am writing specifically in response to an incident this past summer (of which I recently became aware) involving a young woman in Newfoundland and Labrador named Candice Lewis, whose situation has been well reported in the media. I want to make clear that I am not writing on behalf of any institution or lobby group, but as a private citizen with personal concerns.
Although I support the general thrust of this law - which as I understand it was intended to provide terminally ill patients the choice of ending their lives with dignity and with as little pain and suffering as possible with the assistance of a physician - this particular case in St. Anthony raised troubling questions.
First is the suggestion that the doctor in question inappropriately raised the possibility of medically assisted death with the family of Ms. Lewis. Section 241.2 (4) of the Act requires that in the event that a person is unable to make this decision for themself, another adult can make the decision "... on the person’s behalf and under the person’s express direction." But Ms. Lewis apparently had given no "express direction." Therefore, the suggestion of the doctor should not even have been made because Ms. Lewis's family did not have the authority to give consent. While I realize that issues of consent, power of attorney and the appointment of substitute decision makers fall under provincial jurisdiction, to the extent that these issues were in relation to a law passed by the Parliament of Canada, and that the federal law in this case seems clear as to who can make such decisions on behalf of another person and under what circumstances that decision can be made, it seems that the federal government should have some concern about the way the federal law was applied in this case. I would urge the federal government to raise this case and the broader issue with the provinces in order to ensure that "medical assistance in dying" (MAID) is not made available inappropriately.
My second concern is that Ms. Lewis was seen as eligible for MAID in the first place. Ms. Lewis's condition was not terminal - and according to media reports she has, in fact, apparently begun to recover from the illness that took her to the hospital on that occasion. I am aware that to be eligible for MAID, Section 241 (2) (d) requires that a person's "natural death has become reasonably foreseeable ..." This standard, given Ms. Lewis's subsequent improvement, does not seem to have been met. Again, the fault for that may lie not with the law, but with the doctor and the doctor's understanding of the law and when MAID is appropriate, but I would encourage the government to at least consider amending the law to make as clear as possible that MAID can only be administered in the event of a clearly terminal illness, which would require more just the opinion of one doctor. I would strongly prefer that at least two doctors be required to agree that a patient's condition is terminal before the possibility of MAID can even be considered by those empowered to make the decision.
I am aware that some advocates for the disabled have expressed significant concerns about this law - and that some of those concerns seem to resonate with the case of Ms. Lewis. Some have expressed worry that, in an era of increasing government debt and the impact of budget cuts on health care, such concerns might lead to a feeling that - to be blunt - money could be saved by terminating the lives of severely disabled people who may not be terminally ill. Since I am writing this during the Christmas season, I cannot help but think of the words of Ebenezer Scrooge as I reflect upon this concern: "they had better die, and decrease the surplus population." I am certain that this is not the intent of any government - federal or provincial - and I consider the possibly far-fetched. But it is a concern some have expressed, and I believe this law needs to be worded and administered in such a way that these fears are mitigated. Certainly there is no doubt that disabled Canadians compose a vulnerable community in this country, whose rights need to be safeguarded. There are statistics that suggest that disabled people suffer extremely high rates of abuse and/or neglect - and these statistics feed into the fear that this law could be abused at the expense of the disabled community. In response to that concern, while I again affirm that I support the general thrust of the law, I would re-emphasize my specific requests: (1) that the federal government work with the provinces to ensure that proper consent from the appropriate people under the Act is required and given before MAID is administered, and (2) that MAID should only be administered in the event of a clearly terminal illness, which would require that at least two doctors be required to agree that a patient's condition is terminal before the possibility of MAID can even be considered by those empowered to make the decision.
Thank you for your attention,
The Reverend Dr. Steven Davis
Mr. Jamie Schmale, MP (My Conservative Member of Parliament)
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, PC, MP, Prime Minister
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, MP, Minister of Justice
The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, PC, MP, Minister of Health
The Honourable Andrew Scheer, PC, MP, Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, PC, MP, Conservative Justice Critic
Ms Marilyn Gladu, MP, Conservative Health Critic
Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the NDP
Mr. Guy Caron, MP, Parliamentary Leader of the NDP
Mr. Murray Rankin, MP, NDP Justice Critic
Mr. Don Davies, MP, NDP Health Critic
I'm going to use this thread to keep you updated on responses I receive. Since the people I wrote to are hopefully going to be replying to me personally and privately, I'm not going to reproduce their responses verbatim. I'll let you know when I receive replies, from whom, and try to give a brief summary (but no details or quotes) of what their response is.
To start with, here, once again, is the letter I said I would write. We'll take it from there.
January 3, 2018
Dear
I am writing to express some concerns about the application of "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)", which was assented to on June 16, 2016. I am writing specifically in response to an incident this past summer (of which I recently became aware) involving a young woman in Newfoundland and Labrador named Candice Lewis, whose situation has been well reported in the media. I want to make clear that I am not writing on behalf of any institution or lobby group, but as a private citizen with personal concerns.
Although I support the general thrust of this law - which as I understand it was intended to provide terminally ill patients the choice of ending their lives with dignity and with as little pain and suffering as possible with the assistance of a physician - this particular case in St. Anthony raised troubling questions.
First is the suggestion that the doctor in question inappropriately raised the possibility of medically assisted death with the family of Ms. Lewis. Section 241.2 (4) of the Act requires that in the event that a person is unable to make this decision for themself, another adult can make the decision "... on the person’s behalf and under the person’s express direction." But Ms. Lewis apparently had given no "express direction." Therefore, the suggestion of the doctor should not even have been made because Ms. Lewis's family did not have the authority to give consent. While I realize that issues of consent, power of attorney and the appointment of substitute decision makers fall under provincial jurisdiction, to the extent that these issues were in relation to a law passed by the Parliament of Canada, and that the federal law in this case seems clear as to who can make such decisions on behalf of another person and under what circumstances that decision can be made, it seems that the federal government should have some concern about the way the federal law was applied in this case. I would urge the federal government to raise this case and the broader issue with the provinces in order to ensure that "medical assistance in dying" (MAID) is not made available inappropriately.
My second concern is that Ms. Lewis was seen as eligible for MAID in the first place. Ms. Lewis's condition was not terminal - and according to media reports she has, in fact, apparently begun to recover from the illness that took her to the hospital on that occasion. I am aware that to be eligible for MAID, Section 241 (2) (d) requires that a person's "natural death has become reasonably foreseeable ..." This standard, given Ms. Lewis's subsequent improvement, does not seem to have been met. Again, the fault for that may lie not with the law, but with the doctor and the doctor's understanding of the law and when MAID is appropriate, but I would encourage the government to at least consider amending the law to make as clear as possible that MAID can only be administered in the event of a clearly terminal illness, which would require more just the opinion of one doctor. I would strongly prefer that at least two doctors be required to agree that a patient's condition is terminal before the possibility of MAID can even be considered by those empowered to make the decision.
I am aware that some advocates for the disabled have expressed significant concerns about this law - and that some of those concerns seem to resonate with the case of Ms. Lewis. Some have expressed worry that, in an era of increasing government debt and the impact of budget cuts on health care, such concerns might lead to a feeling that - to be blunt - money could be saved by terminating the lives of severely disabled people who may not be terminally ill. Since I am writing this during the Christmas season, I cannot help but think of the words of Ebenezer Scrooge as I reflect upon this concern: "they had better die, and decrease the surplus population." I am certain that this is not the intent of any government - federal or provincial - and I consider the possibly far-fetched. But it is a concern some have expressed, and I believe this law needs to be worded and administered in such a way that these fears are mitigated. Certainly there is no doubt that disabled Canadians compose a vulnerable community in this country, whose rights need to be safeguarded. There are statistics that suggest that disabled people suffer extremely high rates of abuse and/or neglect - and these statistics feed into the fear that this law could be abused at the expense of the disabled community. In response to that concern, while I again affirm that I support the general thrust of the law, I would re-emphasize my specific requests: (1) that the federal government work with the provinces to ensure that proper consent from the appropriate people under the Act is required and given before MAID is administered, and (2) that MAID should only be administered in the event of a clearly terminal illness, which would require that at least two doctors be required to agree that a patient's condition is terminal before the possibility of MAID can even be considered by those empowered to make the decision.
Thank you for your attention,
The Reverend Dr. Steven Davis