revsdd
Well-Known Member
Yup. It was touch and go for a while. I'm not out of the woods yet.
UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying
- Thread starter GordW
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
I hope you feel better soon. There are some nasty bugs going around.
I don't want to put this in the new thread Revsdd started for responses to his letter. It's comment from Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the largest and most well respected disability advocacy umbrella organization in Canada (that includes agencies across the country run for, and by, people with disabilities) - they have a long history of championing disability rights.
CCD Alarmed by Blatant Disregard of MAID Legislation | Council of Canadians with Disabilities
CCD Alarmed by Blatant Disregard of MAID Legislation | Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Mrs.Anteater
Just keep going....
Exactly. If this has happened the way it was described, it would have been against the law and needs to be investigated.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
As I've said, there are all sorts of problems with this case which have pointed out some deficiencies with the Act which need to be addressed by the government and which I hope the government will address. The Act clearly needs to be tightened up and there needs to be some uniformity of medical regulations from province to province.
However, the CCD is a lobby group, and as such they spin things to promote their agenda. Which is fine. That's what lobby groups do. But the Act DOES NOT clearly say what they say it clearly says. The Act is more nuanced than that. The Act says that a request for MAID has to be "a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure" - but that isn't exactly the same thing as saying that a request has to be initiated by the patient before the doctor can even say anything about MAID. The Act says that a patient must "give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care." Thus they must be told about all other options first. But it isn't at all clear that a doctor can't say anything about MAID until asked. Indeed, they must give "informed consent." And one could argue that "the means that are available to relieve their suffering" would actually include MAID. I would suggest that this part of the law is somewhat unclear and needs to be clarified. The Act does forbid doctors from counselling, abetting or aiding a person to commit suicide apart from the provisions of the law, but I certainly don't read it as absolutely forbidding doctors from telling a patient that MAID is available. I would agree that the Act says they can't advocate for MAID - but holding it out as one option among others that the patient has already been made aware of seems OK under the Act to me. At most, the courts would have to weigh in on that, but I think a good defence attorney for the doctor would would simply shred the wording of the law to pieces if a charge were brought in the circumstances of the case under discussion here.
The CCD is correct that the patient has to give their own consent. Consent cannot be given by another person. So provincial laws around power of attorney for health/substitute decision makers would be irrelevant to MAID. Here is where this case broke down. The doctor seemed to believe that the family had authority to make this decision and so held this out as an option to the family. But the family did not have the authority to make a decision on MAID for the young woman. The doctor did not understand the Act - which perhaps should subject him to disciplinary action by the relevant authority in Newfoundland, because he should understand who can give consent for what under which circumstances, but probably not criminal sanction. Whether he advocated for MAID in this case isn't clear. If he did, then I'd agree that would be a violation of the Act, although even there a defence attorney would probably argue that recommending that a family avail themselves of the MAID option for a family member is not counselling "suicide" - since the advice isn't being given to the person directly.
As I say, the more I read it the more I become aware that the law is poorly worded and that a lot of clarification is needed. That could be provided by the courts, but unfortunately there would have to be a case to do that - which probably means someone would have to be put to death under questionable circumstances. I'd much rather have Parliament just take another crack at improving the wording and making things clear before something tragic happens. Indeed, I agree with the CCD that the ACT "has some serious gaps when it comes to protecting the vulnerable."
However, the CCD is a lobby group, and as such they spin things to promote their agenda. Which is fine. That's what lobby groups do. But the Act DOES NOT clearly say what they say it clearly says. The Act is more nuanced than that. The Act says that a request for MAID has to be "a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure" - but that isn't exactly the same thing as saying that a request has to be initiated by the patient before the doctor can even say anything about MAID. The Act says that a patient must "give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care." Thus they must be told about all other options first. But it isn't at all clear that a doctor can't say anything about MAID until asked. Indeed, they must give "informed consent." And one could argue that "the means that are available to relieve their suffering" would actually include MAID. I would suggest that this part of the law is somewhat unclear and needs to be clarified. The Act does forbid doctors from counselling, abetting or aiding a person to commit suicide apart from the provisions of the law, but I certainly don't read it as absolutely forbidding doctors from telling a patient that MAID is available. I would agree that the Act says they can't advocate for MAID - but holding it out as one option among others that the patient has already been made aware of seems OK under the Act to me. At most, the courts would have to weigh in on that, but I think a good defence attorney for the doctor would would simply shred the wording of the law to pieces if a charge were brought in the circumstances of the case under discussion here.
The CCD is correct that the patient has to give their own consent. Consent cannot be given by another person. So provincial laws around power of attorney for health/substitute decision makers would be irrelevant to MAID. Here is where this case broke down. The doctor seemed to believe that the family had authority to make this decision and so held this out as an option to the family. But the family did not have the authority to make a decision on MAID for the young woman. The doctor did not understand the Act - which perhaps should subject him to disciplinary action by the relevant authority in Newfoundland, because he should understand who can give consent for what under which circumstances, but probably not criminal sanction. Whether he advocated for MAID in this case isn't clear. If he did, then I'd agree that would be a violation of the Act, although even there a defence attorney would probably argue that recommending that a family avail themselves of the MAID option for a family member is not counselling "suicide" - since the advice isn't being given to the person directly.
As I say, the more I read it the more I become aware that the law is poorly worded and that a lot of clarification is needed. That could be provided by the courts, but unfortunately there would have to be a case to do that - which probably means someone would have to be put to death under questionable circumstances. I'd much rather have Parliament just take another crack at improving the wording and making things clear before something tragic happens. Indeed, I agree with the CCD that the ACT "has some serious gaps when it comes to protecting the vulnerable."
Poor wording ... polity, or just literary Eire? Could this happen if emotions are raised above intellect in a put down?
Is that de vial of Alice ... drink deeply and there's a hangover ... have second thoughts as B 'ETA! Dubious? Rethink it folks and sing ... thus the lyrics of darker noise ... tis in the pining ... mire myth? I believe not ... S'Moor tuit ...
Is that de vial of Alice ... drink deeply and there's a hangover ... have second thoughts as B 'ETA! Dubious? Rethink it folks and sing ... thus the lyrics of darker noise ... tis in the pining ... mire myth? I believe not ... S'Moor tuit ...
The CCD is not a "lobby group". They are a decades old, Canada wide, rights and anti-poverty advocacy group. They didn't just drop out of the sky to argue against MAID. They are underfunded and operate on skeleton staffs and volunteers. Not like the well heeled groups that suddenly formed and popped up to lobby for it. I used to work for one of CCDs member organizations, mainly helping people with their applications for disability. People who were at risk of homelessness, in many cases, were homeless. People who couldn't navigate the bureaucracy, many with mental health issues, surviving on a few hundred dollars a month. Collectively, Canadians with disabilities owe all of our equality gains, in daily life, to these organizations, and the people who work for them.
Dying with Dignity is not a disability rights org. They are a one issue lobby group with more money, an international presence, and a very narrow perspective on disability. To even call them disability advocates was fallacious to begin with.
Dying with Dignity is not a disability rights org. They are a one issue lobby group with more money, an international presence, and a very narrow perspective on disability. To even call them disability advocates was fallacious to begin with.
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Personally, I fail to see the distinction between an advocacy group and a lobby group. Advocacy groups do lobbying. If they don't they're not being very good advocates.
I never said that they did.Kimmio said:
Probably so.Kimmio said:
I assume you mean groups that advocated in favour of MAID. I'm not sufficiently in the know to be able to agree or disagree about such groups being "well heeled."Kimmio said:
And groups such as CCD perform an invaluable service. Nowhere did I suggest that they didn't.Kimmio said:
I never called them disability advocates. They are advocates for physician assisted death, I presume - a topic that's of interest far beyond the disability community. But as for DwD, I don't think I've ever mentioned the group and to be honest I'm not especially familiar with them.Kimmio said:
Disability to Schlitz street ...
Should be watched to the bitter end ...
Beyond that the Sami say are the uncultured ... Ahasazka ? Tis a twisted tree ...
Ridiculous? Maybe subtle icon of something else ...
Should be watched to the bitter end ...
Beyond that the Sami say are the uncultured ... Ahasazka ? Tis a twisted tree ...
Ridiculous? Maybe subtle icon of something else ...
People from dying with dignity groups have been infiltrating disability rights groups and changing the landscape, in a bad way. It's happened in various places, including U.S. and Canada.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
That strikes me as wyrd. Completely separate mandates. One is about living, the other about dying. Both about dignity, though. That is a common thread, but doesn't really connect them.
It certainly is wyrd. But the DWD movement can look like it has more support from the disability community - if they declare themselves part of it. Even though they're actually the fringe element. And then their lobbying efforts go further.
Disability should not have been worded into the law. It's a breach of international law pertaining to the UN Declaration on the rights of persons with disabilities. Some crafty lawyers managed to slip it in knowing that most Canadians - even doctors and judges, are not up to speed on the UN Convention. It is infuriating to see that word there - and makes me feel disappointed in Canada and Canadians.
Groups make political alliances for more power and influence all the time. It's also a mistake for disability groups against MAID to align themselves with religious pro-lifers - but I guess at one time maybe they had more influence and both shared similar concerns, for very different reasons.
Disability should not have been worded into the law. It's a breach of international law pertaining to the UN Declaration on the rights of persons with disabilities. Some crafty lawyers managed to slip it in knowing that most Canadians - even doctors and judges, are not up to speed on the UN Convention. It is infuriating to see that word there - and makes me feel disappointed in Canada and Canadians.
Groups make political alliances for more power and influence all the time. It's also a mistake for disability groups against MAID to align themselves with religious pro-lifers - but I guess at one time maybe they had more influence and both shared similar concerns, for very different reasons.
Last edited:
Fair enough.
I was sure that legalizing aid in dying was the right thing to do....
@BetteTheRed did you read this? It points out how the DWD groups have infiltrated. It is written by Ann Neumman, an author who has actually supported MAID in the States but her understanding of the dangers has changed and improved since befriending a fierce opponent to it. There is also a line in there that highlights that even doctors do not recognize the distinction between terminally ill and disabled - and this is from the U.S. - where the word disability is not included in their MAID laws, and where they have the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Canada, the word disability is included right along with illness - proving that even people in our legal system have ignored the distinction - a distinction, which is international law, that Canada is signatory to, no less. This creates real problems, even threatens lives - like that of Candace Lewis - if disability is not distinguished from illness.
Canadian law makers are not dunces, so I have a hard time believing that was a careless oversight. Maybe it was. But that's hard to believe.
@BetteTheRed did you read this? It points out how the DWD groups have infiltrated. It is written by Ann Neumman, an author who has actually supported MAID in the States but her understanding of the dangers has changed and improved since befriending a fierce opponent to it. There is also a line in there that highlights that even doctors do not recognize the distinction between terminally ill and disabled - and this is from the U.S. - where the word disability is not included in their MAID laws, and where they have the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Canada, the word disability is included right along with illness - proving that even people in our legal system have ignored the distinction - a distinction, which is international law, that Canada is signatory to, no less. This creates real problems, even threatens lives - like that of Candace Lewis - if disability is not distinguished from illness.
Canadian law makers are not dunces, so I have a hard time believing that was a careless oversight. Maybe it was. But that's hard to believe.
Jaebius
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
It being the final class of my history course yesterday, our professor spent the time forecasting into the future.
He talked about current changes going on in technology, climate, health care, etc.
One of my fellow students, much younger than me, then shared that one of his friends had an appointment to die. He said his friend has cancer and is terminal anyway.
I was a bit shocked by how calmly and openly he shared this. It seemed to just be an accepted thing by him - not something to be sad about. There was no anger either.
Just acceptance of the appointment to die - as though his friend was going to the dentist or something.
Of course, some people do mask their feelings more than others.
He talked about current changes going on in technology, climate, health care, etc.
One of my fellow students, much younger than me, then shared that one of his friends had an appointment to die. He said his friend has cancer and is terminal anyway.
I was a bit shocked by how calmly and openly he shared this. It seemed to just be an accepted thing by him - not something to be sad about. There was no anger either.
Just acceptance of the appointment to die - as though his friend was going to the dentist or something.
Of course, some people do mask their feelings more than others.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Also, he may have done all of his processing about this issue ahead of time. People with terminal cancer usually have enough time to come to terms with their death, and often to help their family and friends do so.
Jaebius
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The friend is not going to die of cancer now though Bette. Rather, he will be killed by a doctor. If I was in my fellow student's place, I would be more emotional about that.