UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying

[Mendalla]

In the last couple of decades the push for inclusion - "full citizenship" is what it was also called - of people with disabilities, the UN convention - much of that was also piggybacking on the fact the baby boomers are getting older and it would be a win-win. That is a fact. It was reasonably factored into arguments for why things need to be more accessible going into the future. I see MAID as a competing political ideology that's taken hold - and was economically embraced by our previous government (the argument was made by Fletcher that if people with disabilities needs are not being met they need the option. He made that argument...and people didn't hear it fully - what was between the lines! They used him to make it.) That is very ugly for the future of disability rights proponents - as living persons being included in society.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how giving a dying person the right to decide when that death happens translates into "kill the disabled to free up hospital beds". It does not impinge on any right of yours that I can see. Do you then also want us to lose the right to put DNRs in our living wills and PoAs? Doctors obligated to keep people alive as long as technology allows because otherwise people might be DNR'd because they are disabled?

 

[Waterfall]

There are worse things like being on a feeding tube for 6 years after an overdose of drugs and irreversible brain injury. I've seen it, could have gone on for another 5 years.
Or someone with ALS, with no hope of ever recovering?
There's many examples....there needs to be options.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how giving a dying person the right to decide when that death happens translates into "kill the disabled to free up hospital beds". It does not impinge on any right of yours that I can see. Do you then also want us to lose the right to put DNRs in our living wills and PoAs? Doctors obligated to keep people alive as long as technology allows because otherwise people might be DNR'd because they are disabled?

Two people were killed who had mental illness. They were not dying. They had the same somatic disorder. Now one of their families is pushing for the option for people with mental illness. Enough will never be enough.

We have to differentiate between terminal illness, or total vegetative state that possibly necessitates a DNR and - chronic disability that can be adapted to, for Christ's sake!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how giving a dying person the right to decide when that death happens translates into "kill the disabled to free up hospital beds". It does not impinge on any right of yours that I can see. Do you then also want us to lose the right to put DNRs in our living wills and PoAs? Doctors obligated to keep people alive as long as technology allows because otherwise people might be DNR'd because they are disabled?

I never said it was to free up hospital beds. More of a long view than that - like cutting corners in social assistance, daily living supports, accessibility accommodations, employment rights and hiring practices, and so on...the fear is that those without family support,financial and otherwise, will have fewer options. And those with family support if they ever needed it...seem to be the ones most in support of this!

 

[DaisyJane]

My goodness. I haven't been around WC for about a year and its like I never left. I swear this thread, with the same players saying the same things, was in full steam when I last bailed.

For the record I like the UCC approach/statement. I think the option for competent adults to choose medically assisted death in the event of self-defined, unbearable suffering is a good and ethical thing. I value self-determination and I do not believe it is appropriate or ethical to impose one's values and beliefs on others in the absence of criminal activity. Now I know Jae will argue this is murder and therefore criminal. However, murder is the ending of a life without the victim's consent. I would argue that MAID is, alternatively, a self-determined medical decision, made in consultation with a team of trained professionals including spiritual care if chosen, in the face of suffering and likely death - and therefore not criminal in any way.

I have a profoundly disabled child who has lived on a feeding tube for most of his 18 years. While I am only speaking personally, at no point have I felt this legislation threatened his well-being and we have end-of-life discussions more often that I would like (he was in the ICU twice last year). Actually, what I think it has allowed is a more fruitful and rich dialogue about the interrelationship of QOL and disability and how disability should not be seen as synonymous with suffering. Similarly, while I agree with Kimmio that there remain significant barriers in the world for people with disabilities and funding is most certainly an issue, I do not see MAID as a conspiracy theory evolving into some form of eugenics.

 

[DaisyJane]

I never said it was to free up hospital beds. More of a long view than that - like cutting corners in social assistance, daily living supports, accessibility accommodations, employment rights and hiring practices, and so on...the fear is that those without family support,financial and otherwise, will have fewer options. And those with family support if they ever needed it...seem to be the ones most in support of this!

No need for a long view. A great deal of this is already happening and was LONG BEFORE MAID. That said, I don't think it is only those in privileged positions who are supporting MAID.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I used to think Hitler was just in history books, and president Trump sounded like some wicked satire (still does). I wish people were a little more discerning and vigilant about what a faithful choice might look like - I hope it doesn't turn into excuses that harm society.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No need for a long view. A great deal of this is already happening and was LONG BEFORE MAID. That said, I don't think it is only those in privileged positions who are supporting MAID.

No, it could also be those who have no other options who have no choice but to support it and we're never taught, so never imagined they have disability rights that are being eroded.The greatest push was coming from those who were more privileged though. I think that's the point. Getting the vulnerable on side with this? Reminds me of the Obamacare situation.

 

[DaisyJane]

I feel I should just start posting pictures of red herrings and straw men,

 

[chansen]

I think that those with your approach to this are extreme and should be left out of the discussion, along with anyone who advocates widespread promotion of MAD for economic reasons. You threaten to set Canadians against disabled people with this rhetoric.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No need for a long view. A great deal of this is already happening and was LONG BEFORE MAID. That said, I don't think it is only those in privileged positions who are supporting MAID.

the UN convention that protects those things, and initiatives that support them...were just really taking off before MAID - before the dying with dignity movement came along in full force. The whole concept of full citizenship was being promoted, not long before MAID. They are competing political ideologies.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think that those with your approach to this are extreme and should be left out of the discussion, along with anyone who advocates widespread promotion of MAD for economic reasons. You threaten to set Canadians against disabled people with this rhetoric.

if that happens just because we have reason to fear and want to be listened to...how much were people ever "for" us?

Nobody's going to advocate that 'openly'. Like I said...it reminds me more of Obamacare down south and how people can buy into ideas against their own better interests.

I don't have a right to discuss this because you think it's too extreme. You have never been an adult with a disability, who is poor, and seen how draconian the system can be. There was a rash of suicides in the 90s in BC because the government abruptly cut supports to people on long term disability - when the bureaucrats transitioned to a new way of doing things and screwed up. when governments cut needed supports, one way or the other, people die. And it's not just that they should ever have to choose it. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to discuss it out of extreme naïveté, if you're not an ally.

 

[chansen]

if that happens just because we have reason to fear and want to be listened to...how much were people ever "for" us?

I don't think you speak for the disabled. I don't doubt you can point to a disabled rights group that echos your thoughts, but I can probably find a conservative think tank that has a novel approach to reducing health care costs.

You're both extreme.

 

[paradox3]

Similarly, while I agree with Kimmio that there remain significant barriers in the world for people with disabilities and funding is most certainly an issue, I do not see MAID as a conspiracy theory evolving into some form of eugenics.

No, I don't see it as any kind of conspiracy either. I do, however, think we need to be mindful of the "slippery slope" that has the potential to arise.

There was a case before the courts recently where an RN was alleged to have counselled a family member inappropriately re: removing life support for a critically ill patient.

The UCCan statement calls for caution that acceptance of MAID not be used to make vulnerable individuals any more vulnerable. IMO this is an important aspect of the whole controversy and it needs to be considered carefully.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

And yes you can discuss it...I'd never tell you you have no right to discuss it.

I think MAID is what is getting extreme. The more fringe extremes are beginning to be normalized. It's not just about terminal illness or end stage decisions anymore. But anyway...carry on.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't think you speak for the disabled. I don't doubt you can point to a disabled rights group that echos your thoughts, but I can probably find a conservative think tank that has a novel approach to reducing health care costs.

You're both extreme.

No. I'm not extreme. This is the standard of most disability rights groups in Canada, following Tracy Latimer - they are called the Council of Canadians with disabilities and include disability groups across Canada - and they advocate other things like employment and community inclusion, public accessibility, the UN convention...the Dying With Dignity movement is a one issue movement with a lot of money behind it. They are the fringe that made their way in, in this scenario, but they got enough attention for it to get passed and be mainstreamed.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't think you speak for the disabled. I don't doubt you can point to a disabled rights group that echos your thoughts, but I can probably find a conservative think tank that has a novel approach to reducing health care costs.

You're both extreme.

Is the Canadian Medical Association Journal a conservative think-tank?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/medically-assisted-death-could-save-millions-1.3947481

http://www.bioethics.net/2017/01/physician-assisted-suicide-and-canadaagain/

@chansen...how out to lunch is that?

 

[chansen]

Sure it would save money, if people were allowed to die like they want instead of being kept alive in terrible states. That's a side benefit.

Want another one? If I'm in bad shape and I decide it's over, any doctors or nurses who would otherwise be compelled to care for me can care for someone with a chance. I like that idea - one last act of helping someone else.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

what about adapting and accepting their states, and that society ensures they be accommodated and that we learn to accept people as they are so life isn't so terrible for them, and they gain a new outlook?

So, you think the financial benefits will trickle down to those who need it most? Uh huh. Right. Excuse me for being cynical but when does that really happen, rather than excuses for more cuts?

 

[chansen]

I give up. I'm never engaging you on this topic again.

I will not discuss anything science or medically assisted death with you. [Sentence removed by Chemgal for Inappropriate comment]