By Michael Swan June 9, 2017http://www.catholicregister.org/item/25392-one-year-later- the-reality-of-medical- assistance-in-dying Ontario doctors challenge policy forcing referrals for medically assisted dyingCollege's rules infringe on doctors' right to object on conscientious, religious grounds, groups argueAmanda Pfeffer · CBC NewsJune 15, 2017CBC Ottawa Morning Radio Live: June 15, 2017 with Hallie Cotnam - Interview with Dr. Sephora Tang and Dr. David Rouselle from the CPSO
Showing posts with label assisted death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assisted death. Show all posts
Monday, June 19, 2017
One Year Later, the reality of Medical Assistance in Dying
Monday, June 12, 2017
A doctor speaks out about conscience rights
By An Ontario Doctor
I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.
To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,
I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).
I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals. I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy. I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue. For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!
Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights - that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service. This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights. However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14. If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation? It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially. Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.
Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter. Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide. Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted). Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.
A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.
It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience. Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same. And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act. This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.
What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient. If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe. And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society. One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller. You may wish to read the full text here.
When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents. In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.
Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good. I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.
Sincerely,
your local physician
I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.
To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,
I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).
I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals. I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy. I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue. For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!
Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights - that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service. This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights. However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14. If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation? It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially. Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.
Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter. Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide. Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted). Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.
A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.
It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience. Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same. And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act. This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.
What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient. If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe. And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society. One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller. You may wish to read the full text here.
When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents. In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.
Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good. I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.
Sincerely,
your local physician
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Ont. Gov't still has no conscience protection in Bill 84
Dear Dr. Hoskins,
“Many of these same people, when they express their concern, they ask us to implement what’s sort of being referred to as the Alberta model...We are implementing the Alberta model.”
I understand that this is NOT the case. The Alberta model does not require any physician involvement – it does not require an effective referral, and the model is entirely patient accessed.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario still requires an effective referral from doctors if requested by a patient – even though a care coordination service has been created.
Many Members of Provincial Parliament and Ministers have been confused by this statement and are now under the incorrect impression that an effective referral is no longer needed with the model the government has implemented.
To protect conscientiously objecting doctors and health care providers here in Ontario we must implement a conscience amendment in Bill 84.
Can you please ensure that proper a conscience clause is inserted into Bill 84?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
cc Nathalie Des Rosiers
Kathleen Wynne
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Gov't still not addressing "duty to refer" clause in Bill 84
After complaining to our MPP Nathalie Desrosiers about the "duty to refer" clause as it relates to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), a group of us received a response.
Nathalie does not respond to our "duty to refer" concern.I responded to her with this letter:
Dear Nathalie,
Thanks very much for your email reply to us.
However I notice that you did not specifically address our very important concern regarding "duty to refer" as it relates to MAID.
Can you please do so?
This is a very important issue for all of us. It is also a very important for the doctors whose entire livelihood, and the livelihood of their families, depend on in that they do not want to be forced refer patients to be killed through MAID.
If they are forced to "refer" patients, many good doctors will leave the profession. This is not what the citizens of Ontario want or need.
As well, if we are assured of this provision being safeguarded, it also gives us the peace of mind that when we go to a hospital or doctor, that there WILL be doctors who are NOT participating in MAID, and we can feel safe and secure in that knowledge that, we will not be encouraged to prematurely end our lives by killing ourselves.
We look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
cc Kathleen Wynne
Dr. Eric Hoskins Minister of Health and Long Term Care
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Tell your MPP you want doctor's conscience rights protected
Yesterday I called my MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers' office regarding Bill 84 Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. She was in Queen's Park so this is what I said to her assistant:
"Regarding Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act: when Nathalie spoke in the legislature on this bill, I noted that there is no mention about a provision in the bill to ensure that conscience rights are protected. That's because there is no such provision in the bill. In fact The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is forcing doctors to make "effective referrals" which is against many physicians' freedom of conscience. This is of great concern to me."
I then told her assistant to make sure she relayed my concerns to Nathalie. She told me many people had already called her. Her assistant also told me that on Thursday March 20th there will be committee hearings in Toronto on this, and that people can request to call in to it to express their concerns about the lack of protection for doctor's conscience rights.
People can also send in a written submission to Peter Milczyn, MPP, Chair, Eric Rennie, Clerk erennie@ola.org
Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 84 on Thursday, March 30, 2017 should provide their contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address to the Clerk of the Committee by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.
Requests to present via teleconference will be accommodated.
Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but wish to comment on the Bill may send a written submission to the Clerk of the Committee at the address below by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
Telephone: (416) 325-3506 (Collect calls will be accepted) Facsimile: (416) 325-3505 TTY: (416) 325-3538
Please call your own MPP (Nathalie's email is NDesRosiers.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org) and tell them you want doctor's conscience rights protected. And send an email to the committee at erennie@ola.org.
It is very important we make our views known to the politicians. If we don't, we are in real danger of losing our doctors who will be forced into referring people for assisted suicide, or leave their practice.
We must make sure doctor's conscience rights are protected.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Monte Mcnaughton - Dr.'s conscience rights survey
MPP Monte McNaughton (the only MPP who I've heard speak out on this issue) has a one question survey on his website regarding doctor's conscience rights.
Please fill it out.
Thank God for one principled MPP.
Please fill it out.
Thank God for one principled MPP.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
A prayer for health care professionals
Yesterday morning during prayer I was filled with gratitude for the men and women who refuse to participate in assisted suicide and abortion. They need our continual prayers and support.
God bless them all and keep them strong in their resolve to protect and defend the most vulnerable members of our society.
God bless them all and keep them strong in their resolve to protect and defend the most vulnerable members of our society.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Principled Politician doesn't have to be an oxymoron
From: Patricia Maloney
Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Conscience rights for health care people and institutions
To: "Monte McNaughton, MPP" <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Cc: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com, kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, vic.fedeli@pc.ola.org, "bill.walker@pc.ola.org" pc.ola.org>, Bob Bailey pc.ola.org>, "ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org" <ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org>, "jack.maclarenco@pc.ola.org" maclarenco@pc.ola.org>, "jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org" <jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org>, Jim Wilson wilson@pc.ola.org>, "jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org" <jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org>, "john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org" yakabuski@pc.ola.org>, "julia.munro@pc.ola.org" <julia.munro@pc.ola.org>, "laurie.scott@pc.ola.org" <laurie.scott@pc.ola.org>, Lisa MacLeod <lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org>, "lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org" <lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org>, "michael.harrisqp@pc.ola.org" <michael.harrisqp@pc.ola.org>, "norm.miller@pc.ola.org" pc.ola.org>, "randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org" hillierco@pc.ola.org>, "randy.pettapiece@pc.ola.org" pettapiece@pc.ola.org>, "rick.nicholls@pc.ola.org" nicholls@pc.ola.org>, "steve.clark@pc.ola.org" <steve.clark@pc.ola.org>, "sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org" <sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org>, Ted Arnott arnott@pc.ola.org>, Toby Barrett <toby.barrett@pc.ola.org>, "todd.smith@pc.ola.org" <todd.smith@pc.ola.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Conscience rights for health care people and institutions
To: "Monte McNaughton, MPP" <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Cc: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com, kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, vic.fedeli@pc.ola.org, "bill.walker@pc.ola.org" pc.ola.org>, Bob Bailey pc.ola.org>, "ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org" <ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org>, "jack.maclarenco@pc.ola.org" maclarenco@pc.ola.org>, "jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org" <jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org>, Jim Wilson wilson@pc.ola.org>, "jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org" <jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org>, "john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org" yakabuski@pc.ola.org>, "julia.munro@pc.ola.org" <julia.munro@pc.ola.org>, "laurie.scott@pc.ola.org" <laurie.scott@pc.ola.org>, Lisa MacLeod <lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org>, "lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org" <lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org>, "michael.harrisqp@pc.ola.org" <michael.harrisqp@pc.ola.org>, "norm.miller@pc.ola.org" pc.ola.org>, "randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org" hillierco@pc.ola.org>, "randy.pettapiece@pc.ola.org" pettapiece@pc.ola.org>, "rick.nicholls@pc.ola.org" nicholls@pc.ola.org>, "steve.clark@pc.ola.org" <steve.clark@pc.ola.org>, "sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org" <sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org>, Ted Arnott arnott@pc.ola.org>, Toby Barrett <toby.barrett@pc.ola.org>, "todd.smith@pc.ola.org" <todd.smith@pc.ola.org>
Dear Monte,
Thanks so much for your principled stand on conscience rights in Ontario.
It is so refreshing to see an MPP stand up for what is actually the right thing to do, instead of what is the politically correct thing to do.
Conscience rights for the health care professionals, actually also helps patients, by their knowing that they can go to an institution where conscience rights are entrenched, and therefore feel safe themselves that they will not be put to death. As a volunteer in a long term care facility, I can't tell you how important this is. Many people in our nursing homes are alone and have nobody to advocate for them. Who will protect these people if society does not?
I applaud your efforts and encourage you to not give up your principles like some politicians do.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
The biggest problem with assisted death - patient safety
Thank goodness the Globe and Mail hasn't completely lost their way. Margaret Wente argues for the important question:
"Is there any place for conscience in medicine?"She argues that:
"Faith-based institutions are places where you’re most likely to find that elusive promise of “patient-centred care” (the cruellest cliché in medicine, in my view). The culture of an institution is what makes all the difference to the quality of care. Many secular people who work in faith-based institutions are among the biggest opponents of the idea that they must be made to offer medically assisted death.
The death dogmatists argue that people will suffer terrible hardship if they can’t get assisted death anywhere. They’ll be shipped around like so much freight, until someone takes them in and helps them die. This is rubbish. In fact, patients are transferred all the time for procedures (including assisted death) that aren’t offered where they are. Issues of access are pretty easy to resolve if people of goodwill put their heads together."But what about people who don't want assisted death? Where can they safely go? If I am dying, and I go to a faith-based institution to die, I can be assured that I won't be killed. I won't ever be assured of that in an institution where assisted death is practiced:
"Dr. Leung told me that at a recent conference on palliative care, people had already begun talking about when it might be appropriate to introduce the idea of medically assisted death to patients who might be eligible. In his view this is the slipperiest of slopes. “I’ve seen so many seniors in hospitals,” he says. “They’re alone, they’re frightened, and they don’t know what their doctors are doing. We need to keep safe spaces for them.”Having volunteered in a nursing home, I see this as a big concern. There are residents in these homes who are incapable of advocating for themselves, and many have no one else to advocate for them either. How do we protect them? We can't.
Residing in an institution where assisted death is not practiced, they will be safe. If these places do not exist, who can be safe?
Monday, December 12, 2016
Pro-deathers also want access to information
It isn't only pro-life people who want accessibility to freedom of information from the Ontario government.
"Dying with Dignity Canada is concerned about the Ontario government’s commitment to transparency after legislation was tabled Wednesday that would exclude hospitals from freedom of information requests related to medically assisted death." [just like it is with abortion]
“While we support the privacy 100 per cent of clinicians and patients, we’re having trouble understanding why there’s a restriction on those requests as it relates to public health care facilities,” said Shanaaz Gokool, the CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada. [how long have I been saying this?]
In Ontario, medical assistance in dying is covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the drugs are available at no cost [just like abortion].
...Gokool [is] concerned about the limits it places public information. [as should we all be concerned]
If the government’s proposed legislation passes [Patients First Act], information about which facilities provide medically assisted death, and which don’t, will also be restricted. [just like it is with abortion]
More importantly, Gokool said, the public won’t be able to find out what communications have taken place between those institutions and the government. [yes, just like it is with abortion]
“We find it troubling,” [no kidding] said Gokool, adding that there are hospices across the province that are opting out of providing medically assisted death.
“Freedom of information requests have become a tool in democracy … for civil society organizations like our to find out what’s going on in government run programs and such. [I couldn't agree more]
“These are public health care facilities that receive public funds and they should be accountable to the communities and the province.” [I really couldn't agree more]
Hospitals are excluded from freedom of information requests for other services, including abortion, he noted. [thanks Dr. Hoskins, tell me something I didn't know]
“We are looking forward to the discussion now that the legislation is in,” Hoskins said, noting he hasn’t introduced any legislation that didn’t result in discussions and amendments. [what about when you snuck in the abortion exclusion clause Dr. Hoskins? you didn't even bother to discuss it then.]
“This is a sensitive subject and important to Ontarians and we want to make sure we get it right,” he said. [That's because they really messed it up when they decided to hide abortion information]"I guess it's settled then. All Ontarians believe access to information in Ontario is important.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
A message for Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown
In Fr. Dennis's homily at Mass today he told us the three things he always prays for when there is an election:
1) For the protection of life from the moment of conception until natural death
2) For traditional marriage and the family
3) For religious freedom
Good advice that I will remember. Especially timely, with our upcoming by-election in Ottawa-Vanier where Elizabeth de Viel Castel is running for the new STOP THE NEW SEX ED AGENDA party.
Are you listening Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown? We're talking to you.
1) For the protection of life from the moment of conception until natural death
2) For traditional marriage and the family
3) For religious freedom
Good advice that I will remember. Especially timely, with our upcoming by-election in Ottawa-Vanier where Elizabeth de Viel Castel is running for the new STOP THE NEW SEX ED AGENDA party.
Are you listening Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown? We're talking to you.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Doctor assisted death safeguards are an illusion
For anyone thinking that doctor assisted suicide is Canada is a good thing, I suggest they read this paper (A Right to Voluntary Euthanasia? Confusion in Canada in Carter) by John Keown.
The paper identifies all the abuses that have taken place in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland. It also details why the United Nations, the UK, the US and Ireland all have grave concerns about these abuses.
John Keown, is Senior Research Scholar, Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics.
Starting on page 29, Keown discusses the problems in jurisdictions where euthanasia has been legalized.
Pages 29 to page 45 will give the reader a good understanding of the abuses in Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland.
"...The first official survey [Netherlands] disclosed that in 1990 there were 2,300 cases of voluntary, active euthanasia and 400 cases of physician-assisted suicide; that over 80% of these cases went unreported; and that there were a further 1,000 cases of active euthanasia without explicit request (mostly, but by no means all, involving incompetent patients). The evidence from Belgium paints a similar picture: the common performance of non-voluntary, active euthanasia and a frequent failure to report. The evidence from Oregon is much more limited: there have been no comprehensive surveys like those in the Netherlands. Moreover, the safeguards in Oregon are in significant respects, not least the absence of review committees, even laxer than those in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Oregon law’s safeguards have been aptly described by leading health lawyer Professor Alexander Capron as “largely illusory...”
"...The undisputed empirical evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium shows widespread breach of the safeguards, not least the sizeable incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia and of non-reporting..."
"...the [Carter] judgment skates over the official condonation of nonvoluntary euthanasia of disabled infants by the Dutch courts and medical profession, and fails even to mention (despite it being cited in evidence) the repeated criticism of the Dutch by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The judgment also fails to give anything like adequate attention to important expert committee reports which have taken full account of the Dutch experience in their unanimous and considered rejection of euthanasia, not least the reports of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and of the New York State Task Force. The judgment states that there is now much greater compliance with the requirement to report than there was “prelegalization.” However, voluntary euthanasia was declared lawful by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1984—in 2002 the legal guidelines were essentially translated into statutory form. The low rate of reporting in 1990 (18%) was, therefore, discovered six years after legalization. The fact that the reporting rate rose to 80% in 2005 (three years after the enactment of the statute) is an improvement, but from a low base, and obviously had nothing to do with “legalization.” That 20% of euthanasia cases in 2005 year were still being falsely and illegally certified by physicians as deaths by natural causes, and that some 550 patients were euthanized without the required explicit request, is hardly evidence of effective control..."
"...the Dutch regime still falls far short of demonstrating effective control. If control were so effective, why the criticisms by the U.N. Human Rights Committee in 2001 and again in 2009? The assertion by Battin that the empirical data from the Netherlands “demonstrates that no or little substantive abuse has occurred” bears little relation to the disturbing reality disclosed by the Dutch surveys, unless she entertains the peculiar view that non-voluntary euthanasia is not a “substantive abuse.”On page 37 Keown discusses The Ireland case in Fleming VS Ireland:
"...The U.S. Supreme Court had also noted that the state may fear that permitting assisted suicide would start it down the path to euthanasia with and even without consent. If suicide was a right, it was a right enjoyed by every man and woman and could not be limited to competent, terminally ill adults, and the decision of a duly appointed surrogate decision maker was for legal purposes the decision of the patient. A limited right to physician-assisted suicide was likely, in effect, a much broader license, which could prove extremely difficult to police and contain. This concern was further supported, the U.S. Supreme Court had added, by evidence from the Netherlands, where the Dutch government’s own survey had disclosed 1,000 cases of euthanasia without explicit request, and the euthanasia of disabled neonates and demented elderly.
"...It noted also that the European Court of Human Rights had affirmed, in Pretty, the U.K.’s blanket ban on assisting suicide, concluding that “[c]lear risks of abuse do exist, notwithstanding arguments as to the possibility of safeguards and protective procedures,” and that in Haas v. Switzerland it had observed that “the risks of abuse inherent in a system that facilitates access to assisted suicide cannot be underestimated."The Irish Divisional Court on Carter:
"...the Divisional Court could not agree that the accumulated evidence from other jurisdictions supported Justice Smith’s conclusion that “the risks inherent in legally permitted death have not materialized in the manner that may have been predicted.”
It added:
“Neither the evidence tendered at the hearing before us or the evidence given before Lynn Smith J. regarding contemporary practice in either the Netherlands or Belgium can be regarded as encouraging or satisfactory. After all, it was not in dispute but that in 2005—the year for which the latest data is available for the Netherlands—560 patients (some 0.4% of all deaths) were euthanized without having given their explicit consent.“
Moreover, the corresponding figure for Belgium was apparently higher, “as 1.9% of all deaths which took place in the entirety of Flanders between June and November 2007 were without explicit request.” The corresponding figure for Switzerland was also high: “almost 1% of all deaths.” Justice Smith had also noted that evidence was given that in some cases euthanasia without request is lawful in the Netherlands. In short, observed the Divisional Court, the evidence showed that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, Belgium, and is “strikingly high.” Further, the evidence before Justice Smith also showed that “family burden” was more often cited as a reason for non-voluntary euthanasia, and that non-voluntary euthanasia predominated in respect of the elderly who were in a coma or demented, that is, “precisely one of the vulnerable groups most at risk.” Her finding that relaxation of the law did not disproportionately impact vulnerable groups such as the elderly or those with disabilities had to be measured against this evidence, as well as the evidence (apparently accepted by her) that disabled neonates were not infrequently euthanized in the Netherlands. The Divisional Court concluded, “Against that general background, the Court cannot at all agree with [Justice Lynn Smith’s] finding that the risks inherent in legally permitted assisted death have not materialized in jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands.” The court went on that, while it agreed with her that scrutiny of physician-assisted suicide would have to be “at the highest level,” she herself acknowledged that, more than thirty years after relaxation of the law, compliance with essential safeguards in the Netherlands was “not yet at an ideal level.”
The Divisional Court added: “In fact, it might well be said that this is altogether too sanguine a view and that the fact that such a strikingly high level of legally assisted deaths without explicit request occurs in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland without any obvious official or even popular concern speaks for itself as to the risks involved in any such liberalisation.” (All emphasis added)The Irish Supreme Court upheld the Divisional Court's decision.
Friday, June 17, 2016
The Carter decision and what it says
What does Carter really say about terminal illness?
6
Carter v.
Canada (Attorney General),
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, para. 66.
by Barbara Maloney
The federal government’s Bill C-14
has been loudly criticized for limiting “medical assistance in
dying” (MAID) to those whose death is “reasonably foreseeable.”
Critics say that in Carter the Supreme Court did not limit
“physician-assisted death” (PAD) to those with a terminal illness
and to do so in C-14 is unconstitutional. They point out that Kay
Carter, mother of one of the plaintiffs, was not terminally ill and
so would not qualify for MAID under Bill C-14.
However, importantly, the Supreme
Court was silent on whether Kay Carter would have qualified for PAD.
That’s because Kay Carter’s
right to seek PAD was not at issue in Carter. Gloria Taylor’s
right was. The court expressly stated it was pronouncing only on the
rights of Ms. Taylor and “people like Ms. Taylor” and only in the
“factual circumstances in this case. We make no pronouncement on
other situations where physician-assisted dying may be sought.”1
And Ms. Taylor did have a
terminal illness.
(Kay Carter’s daughter, Lee
Carter, challenged the law prohibiting assisted suicide as a
violation of her right to liberty, it putting her at risk of criminal
prosecution for assisting in someone else’s suicide. The
Supreme Court did not deal with this issue but confined its decision
“to the rights of those who seek assistance in dying, rather than
of those who might provide such assistance.”2
)
Consequently, whether or not Kay
Carter would be eligible for MAID under bill C-14 is irrelevant to a
discussion of the bill’s constitutionality.
What is relevant is whether
or not the Supreme Court intended that PAD must be available to those
who were not “terminally ill” / at the “end of life” (however
imprecise those terms may be). While the court did not explicitly
state that PAD may be restricted to those with a terminal condition,
it is reasonable to conclude that the court implied this,
based on the trial judge’s ethical analysis of PAD. The trial
judgment is of particular relevance because the Supreme Court relied
on it so heavily and unequivocally affirmed it.
The trial judge, Justice Smith, said
that a central question in this case “is whether it is ethical for
physicians to provide [PAD].”3
The ethical debate is relevant, she said, because “both legal and
constitutional principles are derived from and shaped by societal
values.”4
Her lengthy ethical analysis was
based on a comparison between PAD and existing end-of-life practices
which are lawful, such as withdrawal or refusal of life-sustaining
/life-saving treatments. She was persuaded by the ethicists who said
there is “no ethical distinction” between PAD and these other
“end-of-life practices whose outcome is highly likely to be
death.”5
It is important to note that Justice
Smith’s ethical analysis involved only a category of people who
would, without treatment, die. In short, her ethical analysis and the
analogy she relies on are only applicable to people at or near the
“end of life.” One cannot, therefore, assume that Justice Smith
(or the Supreme Court) would have applied the same ethical analysis
or arrived at the same conclusion with respect to people who were not
terminally ill.
It is entirely
reasonable to assume that the Supreme Court was considering only
that category of patients whom Justice Smith was considering in her
ethical analysis, that is, those who, but for a
life-sustaining/life-saving treatment, would die.
A further hint that the Supreme
Court was contemplating only terminal/end-of-life patients can be
found in its discussion about the types of treatments that those with
a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” are currently
allowed to request or refuse: the same treatments applicable to
end-of-life patients that formed the basis of Justice Smith’s
ethical analysis.6
Thus a reasonable reading of the
Supreme Court’s Carter decision permits Parliament to
restrict MAID to those who are terminally ill /nearing the end of
life. Parliament could choose, of course, not to require terminal
illness, but requiring it would not be contrary to Carter.
Barbara Maloney is a freelance
writer living in Nepean, Ontario.
2
Ibid.
para. 69.
3
Carter v. Canada
(Attorney General),
2012 BCSC 886 (CanLII), para 164.
4
Ibid. para. 317.
5
Ibid. para. 335
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Assisted suicide - may be legal but it isn't right
Archbishop Prenderagst in Saturday's Sun on Doctor's conscience rights and medical aid in dying (MAID): Allow doctors to follow their conscience:
"...Martin Luther King Jr. once remarked, “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question ‘Is it right?’”
We must sometimes take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but we must take it because our conscience says it is right.
Physicians who wish to be true to their conscience are a gift to the community. The compassionate, competent care they provide in a way that is congruent with their conscience demonstrates their virtue. Society should thank them for their service. Society should affirm their efforts to be agents of healing and moral integrity who accompany patients in their final days and hours. If they cannot live their convictions of conscience in their avocation as healers, if they are forced to be agents of death, not life, if freedom of conscience is discarded as meaningless, then society faces the danger of moral death."
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Assisted suicide - a message for Justin Trudeau
Protest yesterday on Parliament Hill against assisted suicide.
We must protect the most vulnerable. We must protect doctor's conscience rights. We want our doctors to help people not kill them. We must tell Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that we are against assisted suicide and euthanasia.
We must protect the most vulnerable. We must protect doctor's conscience rights. We want our doctors to help people not kill them. We must tell Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that we are against assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Assisted suicide in Canada - make your voice heard
Below are links on resources about assisted suicide in Canada, including suggestions on contacting our elected leaders to voice our objections to doctor assisted suicide. Also resources on doctor's conscience rights and how they must be protected.
Monday, March 7, 2016
How you travel down the slippery slope on assisted suicide
Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands. It has been legal for quite some time there. Clear and concise statistics and commentary on the dangers of a regulated Physician assisted Suicide law using the Dutch experience as an example. Scary and yet totally understandable in the way it is presented by Mr. Reitsma. 30 minutes long.
This is where we are headed here in Canada.
This is where we are headed here in Canada.
I hope Justin Trudeau and all his pro-choice MPs watch it. They need to see where we are going with this. And it isn't pretty.
The dangers of doctor assisted suicide
Cardinal Collins speaks out on doctor assisted suicide. Only Canada in the world insists a doctor act against his conscience. Cardinal Collins calls it religious discrimination.
Archbishop Prendergast also speaks out on doctor assisted suicide.
Both leaders encourage Canadians to register their opposition to doctor assisted death, and their support of conscience rights, to our elected MPs. You can do this at the link below.
Visit http://www.canadiansforconscience.ca/
Also send your own letter to Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau
Archbishop Prendergast also speaks out on doctor assisted suicide.
Both leaders encourage Canadians to register their opposition to doctor assisted death, and their support of conscience rights, to our elected MPs. You can do this at the link below.
Also send your own letter to Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The Grim Wiebe
From the Globe and Mail:
Interesting adjectives for a doctor who makes a living in ending the life of the very young, the old and the sick.
Some background on Dr. Ellen Wiebe:
Dr. Wiebe recently opened up a new clinic along with other like minded doctors to "help" people who wish to have doctor assisted death: Hemlock Aid in Dying (750 W Broadway #1017,Vancouver, British Columbia).
It is conveniently located next door to Dr. Wiebe's other place of business where she performs medical abortions: Willow Women’s Clinic, (Suite 1013 – 750 West Broadway),
It seems that salaries for abortion doctors are quite lucrative. While the average salary of a GP is $275,058 (Ref: The Medical Post, Vol 52 No 2 February 16, 2016, Page 14.), Dr. Wiebe has been earning about one million a year (Ref: MSC Financial Statement (Blue Book)) for the last number of years*.
"Dr. Wiebe is the Vancouver physician who this week oversaw the first court-sanctioned physician-assisted death in the country."The Globe calls Dr. Wiebe a "trailblazer", a "public service pioneer", "courageous" with "immense compassion" and "a deep understanding of the human condition."
Interesting adjectives for a doctor who makes a living in ending the life of the very young, the old and the sick.
Some background on Dr. Ellen Wiebe:
Dr. Wiebe recently opened up a new clinic along with other like minded doctors to "help" people who wish to have doctor assisted death: Hemlock Aid in Dying (750 W Broadway #1017,Vancouver, British Columbia).
It is conveniently located next door to Dr. Wiebe's other place of business where she performs medical abortions: Willow Women’s Clinic, (Suite 1013 – 750 West Broadway),
It seems that salaries for abortion doctors are quite lucrative. While the average salary of a GP is $275,058 (Ref: The Medical Post, Vol 52 No 2 February 16, 2016, Page 14.), Dr. Wiebe has been earning about one million a year (Ref: MSC Financial Statement (Blue Book)) for the last number of years*.
Back in
2001, Dr. Wiebe was in charge of clinical trials for RU-486, which
has now been approved in Canada. During those trials a woman died
after taking the drug. At the time Dr. Wiebe told the Catholic Register:
“that a specific decision was made to not inform the women about the drug manufacturer's warning.”
And Dr. Wiebe is now giving webinars on assisted death:
“The BC Pharmacy Association is pleased to announce a free webinar featuring Dr. Ellen Wiebe, who will be speaking about how physicians and pharmacists can work together in providing assisted death to patients. Dr. Wiebe, a Vancouver family physician who enabled a patient to access physician assisted death after a court approval last week, will be sharing her story on this case. This webinar provides an opportunity to talk about the issues raised because of this court case and the important issues facing interprofessional collaboration that came to light afterwards.”
Remember when doctors used to be healers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
2015 Wiebe, Ellen Ruth............................... 951,037.80
2014
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ............................ 1,062,590.49
2013
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth............................... 1,065,980.97
2012
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth............................... 1,013,016.22
2011
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth............................... 955,546.17
2010
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ............................... 932,935.30
2009
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ............................... 784,749.02
2008
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth........................... 704,824.53
2007
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ............................... 631,264.58
2006
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ........................... 548,520.41
2005
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth........................... 467,615.22
2004
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ........................... 375,626.95
2003
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth ............................... 417,439.83
2002
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth .............................. 392,353.01
2001
Wiebe, Ellen Ruth.............................. 380,583.09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)