Dr. Stefanie Green, President, Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers wrote this letter to the National Post on June 7
Take on MAID disingenuous
Jun 7, 2023
Re: Third of Canadians back MAID for poor: poll — Tristin Hopper, May 18; Killing ourselves in Canada — Colby Cosh, May 20; and How to not euthanize the homeless — Chris Selley, May 2A recent Research Co. poll asked Canadians for their views on the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program.
Poll analyses by the National Post’s Tristin Hopper, Colby Cosh and Chris Selley unfortunately created an exaggerated and disingenuous narrative over Canadians’ attitudes over the possibility of choosing MAID due to catastrophic societal failures, such as poverty and homelessness.
The current state of Canada’s MAID law is clear — a Canadian who lives in poverty or is homeless is not eligible for MAID as a result of such unacceptable social inequities. While these factors may indeed contribute to a person’s suffering, the law does not allow access to MAID based on these factors alone. There is an extremely rigorous process in place whereby multiple eligibility criteria and procedural safeguards must all be met before anyone in Canada can proceed with MAID.
As subject matter experts, and as the national association representing Canada’s health-care practitioners of MAID, providing support, education and training on all aspects of MAID, the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) does not support any individual’s ability to access MAID based simply on a person’s economic situation or living condition.
Dr. Stefanie Green, President, Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Catherine Ferrier MD, Montreal responded on Jun 14, 2023
"Re: Take on MAID disingenuous — Dr. Stefanie Green, Letter to the editor, June 7
Dr. Stefanie Green calls several National Post columnists disingenuous for expressing concerns about Canadians requesting MAID for poverty, homelessness and other social problems.
Dr. Green knows perfectly well that, contrary to her claim of an “extremely rigorous process,” the Canadian law is so broad that anyone with a serious chronic illness or disability is eligible for MAID, regardless of whether that is their reason for requesting it. There is no need to be close to death and no need to have tried other options to relieve suffering, or even have them available.
The 10-day waiting period for people close to death was eliminated in 2021, and the 90-day delay for other people still makes it easier to obtain MAID than to see a specialist in many parts of Canada.
Amir Farsoud stated on CBC’S The Fifth Estate that he was approved for MAID on the basis of his chronic back pain, but requested it because he could not find housing he could afford on his disability pension. Alan Nichols, whose case was documented in the National Post, died through MAID for an official diagnosis of hearing loss, which was not his real reason either.
The Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP), of which Dr. Green is the president, is well aware that poverty drives many MAID requests. An article by Alexander Raikin in the New Atlantis in December 2022 quoted from many CAMAP seminars discussing exactly this issue.
There are reasons why Canada has the highest MAID rates in the world after only seven years, and why over 10,000 Canadians died through MAID in 2021, compared with 486 through assisted suicide in California, which has a similar population to ours, and legalized assisted death the same year."
Re: Take on MAID disingenuous — Dr. Stefanie Green, June 7; and Poor seeking MAID — Dr. Catherine Ferrier, June 14
Dr. Stefanie Green, the president of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, defends her institution from a precarious position. She attempts to console us by saying that reporters, who write about well-documented cases of euthanasia occurring in response to impoverished social circumstances and inadequate services, are misleading us.
It is worth recalling that Jean Truchon himself, whose case eradicated the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” safeguard, confessed that he may not have sought MAID had he been able to access better care.
But Green’s own position is undermined by something far more serious than an unlikely bias in reporting. The very name of her organization tells us that the assessors and providers of MAID are the same persons: they are judge, jury and executioner. As a result, mistaken and unalterable determinations as to eligibility for death will continue to be made, no matter how “rigorous” the criteria. No doubt she will say this is an exaggeration, too, but in truth she presides over a monumental failure of fundamental justice.
Dr. Richard R. J. Smyth, Thompson Rivers University; University of British Columbia, (retired)
No comments:
Post a Comment