MAID Concerns - How Will Our Politicians Respond?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
Kimmio, had you cared to listen for a bunch of years, you'd have heard my consistent complaints about LTC and mental illness,

It sucks to be not fully "abled" in Canada, as anywhere else on earth. Many of us know that to some degree - disability, mental health issues, sight or hearing issues.

And if you think the way that you might die - in a home, alone, with no-one visiting - well, sorta welcome to the club. We're not making different plans for old age.

Well, that potential circumstance needs fixing, doesn’t it?

Jean Truchon was 51, and not dying, not old aged. You've already outlived him for a few years and I suspect you have at least a few more to go before you’re faced with what you describe. You're not facing death in any diagnostically foreseeable future, as far as we know. Even if you were you are not in that position. Are you saying it’s more important for able bodied people to make it to old age and live somewhere decent, with both care and autonomy, than it was for Jean Truchon?

It doesn’t necessarily suck to be not fully abled, it sucks to be up against arbitrary physically, systemically and socially placed barriers and discriminated against. Canada just enshrined into law, with this bill, that our right to die is more important than our right to live. They flipped the charter upside down, and broke international law. Law that was there to ensure that living our lives is more equal, out of a recognition that it isn’t, due to the aforementioned barriers. It wasn’t a favour by the mainstream to be nice to us. Indeed, it was largely made by people with disabilities themselves, and then signed by 163 countries, because history shows that the mainstream can’t be counted on without education and awareness, to observe the right to non-discrimination in a number of areas that include people with disabilities (though it eagerly embraced our “right to die”). To live on an equal basis with others is a human right. That’s what the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for...to address the rights of all including minority populations. Canada ought to be doing better than most countries, not falling into one of the worst spots.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
If every Canadian were to acknowledge the UN Declaration on Human Rights (not just pretend to), and applied that lens to our charter, there would be no argument here. This wouldn’t be happening. Canada was bound by an important commitment to do so, and it didn’t. Canada shouldn’t pretend we’re all progressive and more woke about human rights, when we let this happen. And the federal government of Canada wouldn’t be embracing a decision without challenge (or almost no challenge to the areas that breach our human rights to live) from a judge in Quebec - as per an ill conceived charter rights decision - either, if Canada was so progressive.
 
Last edited:

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
48,400
Humans don't have rights ... God does as worshipped for the power of emotion!

With sufficient attribute of emotional aspect ... all intelligence can be put down and denied as a crackpot!


Light is easy to shut out ... just throw up a hateful myth and most will go with the hate ... it is easier than the alternate!
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
19,053
Are you saying it’s more important for able bodied people to make it to old age and live somewhere decent, with both care and autonomy, than it was for Jean Truchon?

No, that is not what I said.

There used to be different institutions for the elderly, and for those who can't care for themselves. We closed the latter, calling them inhumane, and promising to integrate these members of society INTO society. But we didn't. We basically pushed most of them onto the street to die, into substandard rooming houses, and into LTC.

I'm saying that the quality of care is independent on the age and duration of stay of the person who is institutionalized.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
It was inhumane. A lot of abuse went on in several of those institutions and it was understood that they were human beings not space holders to be treated like farm animals or worse. We need to provide both care and autonomy if people are going to have to live in care homes because they've got nowhere else to go.

I'm sorry I forgot his name just now, but the man who opted for MAID because he couldn't get adequate home care to be with his son. I read that all he required was 2 more hours of care per day.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
Before those closed down, most parents just stuck people like me in those places for their whole lives. Then parents like mine said "No. They have lives, minds, they can go to regular schools, we can make room for them in society." The problem is that services are lacking when we become adults. And discrimination abounds, blocking opportunities to be fully part of society.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
No, that is not what I said.

There used to be different institutions for the elderly, and for those who can't care for themselves. We closed the latter, calling them inhumane, and promising to integrate these members of society INTO society. But we didn't. We basically pushed most of them onto the street to die, into substandard rooming houses, and into LTC.

I'm saying that the quality of care is independent on the age and duration of stay of the person who is institutionalized.
But it's worse to have to stay in one about 20 years longer, isn't it? That's why Jean Truchon wanted to die. So now the precedent is set because instead of challenging that and fighting for the right to life with better care, the courts just said, "Okay. We'll let you die Jean Truchon." And they called it dignity. They called it compassion.

Who Mr. Truchon was, was an unnoticed martyr of sorts. He was used by lawyers, I think, for the precedent setting case. He was propped up alongside Ms. Gladu, who is older, appears to be wealthier, and her circumstances and medical condition are different. People saw their disabled bodies and lumped them together in their minds. I think, really, all people saw was their disabled bodies on display and their discomfort with that gave way to an abusive law.


There was an opportunity there for the legal system to step in and say, "No. What this case is about is neglect - and Mr. Truchon is a human being who deserves better than to go to his death early, because of neglect." But that opportunity was missed and somehow went right over good progressive liberal's heads. And I am a progressive liberal on most issues - on all issues affecting marginalized groups as per sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability, etc - all have a right to live and be equal members of society - feeling really (fundamentally and absolutely to the core) let down by this.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
And I want to point out a rather sinister double standard. Governments everywhere have been willing to shut down society entirely to largely save the lives of people over 75 because they are at most risk of dying from covid. I'm okay with that. I don't want my parents and aunts and uncles dying of covid. I thought it was politically suspect at the beginning that everything was shutting down - but l accept that's what's necessary and helpful in the long run to halt the virus because it became apparent with all the people dropping dead quickly that it wasn't a ploy of some kind. And the only tools epidemiologists had/ have until enough people are immunized, are old fashioned measures.

What I don't accept is that if it's okay to shut down all of society to save a minority of people who are nearing the end of their lives in the next few years - and by then they might ask for MAiD - why can't we reconfigure the way things are done so disabled people can live to old age? Cost? Look at the cost of covid. I think we're still a society in denial because we haven't even come out of the pandemic, that things are irreversibly different now. So why hold on to the same capitalist values, and lives added up on a spreadsheet? It's absurd because it'll never be the same. It will either have to be more socialist-ic, or we are headed into fascist "solutions" again. We can't let it be the latter.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
They're not putting a large number of vulnerable people high on the priority list for the vaccine. It's going according to age. Disability doesn't factor into their plans...by the way. Even though our lives are more at risk from isolation or even to be denied hospital care if we get really sick. We're not worth anything, to save, when decisions are being made about whose life is more important to be saved. But we do have the "right" to die.
 

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
11,592
Location
British Columbia
Before those closed down, most parents just stuck people like me in those places for their whole lives. Then parents like mine said "No. They have lives, minds, they can go to regular schools, we can make room for them in society." The problem is that services are lacking when we become adults. And discrimination abounds, blocking opportunities to be fully part of society.

I worked in a couple of those facilities when I first graduated from college. They were not great places even though they had improved from their heyday. It was shocking to see people my age whose parents had been told to institutionalize them and forget about them. That was wrong and yes people like you were among them.

I liked the deinstitutionalization movement. Sadly it did not materialize the way it was intended. Of course there were not enough replacement community supports. One thing that happened is all residential care was shut. There were people who needed good care. The smaller facility where I worked would have been a good facility for a humane place to provide such care. It was shuttered after a brief stint as a young offenders centre.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
So they’ve agreed to collect data on us, and then form another committee to examine how many have availed themselves of MAiD due to discrimination, 2 years from now? Isnt like what they did with the original bill 5 years ago? They said, essentially, “We’ll see how it goes.” Then low and behold, far more people than was “expected” (my ass - they knew already, because so much positive “fanfare” was created about the ”dignity and compassion and courageousness ” of MAiD ) died by MAiD? And then they looked at their financial spreadsheets, and reported to us that MAiD had not cost the taxpayers more money. (Well, duh!) And then they pushed to broaden it as far as they could, yet, again. It‘s gone so far beyond its original (supposed) intent, it’s appalling. It was originally about legally ending suffering of the terminally ill at the end of life, instead of covertly upping their morphine to cause death and risk murder charges. That’s what it was originally about. Now they’re killing people with disabilities, and they want to provide suicide to depressed people, and mature minors and anyone who wants to “volunteer” to be killed, because almost everybody will have some kind of diagnosis for something at some point soon enough. And they used us, people with disabilities who society is uncomfortable with having around to look at and adapt to - who cost a bit more money to care for, under the capitalist model that mostly benefits a few - as the catalyst.

This is about killing poor people. It’s about saving money by getting rid of whoever volunteers because there’s no help left, no compassion left among the living, to help people out to live. So poor people will be backed into a corner, and the powers that be and that happily provide MAiD, can call it voluntary, and still sleep at night. That is what these amendments come down to.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
I want to see exactly what questions are asked on the forms. How comprehensive are they, how many areas of life do they cover and require to be diligently addressed - and who is even making sure the forms were filled out properly?!

I doubt they are 28 pages long, like disability income applications are.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
Another thing I think we need to do is give people avenues - anyone regardless of age, but particularly if they still have many years left to live in front of them I think it’s especially important not to just abandon people in institutions if options can be created - out of care homes, once they are there, other than death. Like what about 3 tiered facilities - that people can move in and out of levels of care or support as necessary...while looking at other options for living independently as much as is possible and desired, as well? To support people moving out of care homes into better alternatives. Also, people should be allowed and encouraged to do whatever they can, like work, socialize, shop, vote, (with an attendant if needed for outings) away from their care home - and be part of society - as much as they can, if and when they can.
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
19,053
*sigh*

Clear that you haven't helped a parent through the LTC maze.

It is, in Ontario, a frigging nightmare, with roulette-like results.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
*sigh*

Clear that you haven't helped a parent through the LTC maze.

It is, in Ontario, a frigging nightmare, with roulette-like results.
No. But it’s also pretty clear that it all needs improvement, ASAP. That’s doable if the will is there. If only the will to change that was as strong and efficient as the will that expanded MAiD in the past 5 years, or that halted everything and handed out covid cheques. I mean, we know things can happen really fast if the “ right people” want them to. We’ve witnessed how fast. I do not believe that the only solutions are to drop people in a nursing home where they’re trapped for 20 years or more unless they get sick and die - or that they can choose to die. Those are failures of society that need to change, and the public is responsible for demanding it, and participating in it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
29,140
Location
BC
The next 5 years of my life are not going to be fun. And it’s not as if the last 5 were, particularly, either. And that’s what anyone on board with change has to accept, too. They have to accept some “suffering”.
 
Top