[RD] They passed Bill C7.

[Evie]

Speaking as someone with an actual Canadian legal background (as opposed to medical, political and moralizing sources):

Appealing the Truchon decision would have been a waste of everybody's time. Carter (2015) made the Supreme Court's position on Assisted Suicide painfully clear.

Even before Carter, the Supreme Court had been signaling for a few years it was going to reverse its 1993 ruling against assisted suicide - law professors were openly telling students that this one would change the moment the court got a new case. And indeed, the moment they got their hand on Carter, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, and established, in so many words, the existence of a right for people who are immediably and grievously ill to assisted suicide. They did not provide exceptions, though they allowed the process to be regulated. Most pointedly, they never discussed that it would be possible to limit it to a subset of people who are grivously and irremediably hill.

"Foreseeable death" was never more than a political hail mary by the house, to avoid shocking too many people by changing too much at once. The Senate called the House out on it and told them that it was, unquestionably, unconstitutional under the Carter decision. Legal experts said the same. The House refused to listen and pushed on ahead anyway because they wanted the political benefit of appearing to limit assisted suicide as much as possible. The "But not a MENTAL illness" restriction they snuck in this time is more of the same: an attempt to gain time. They're even more blatant about it this time, because they let the Senate add the two-years twilight clause to that rule, after the Senate (again) called them out on writing unconstitutional legislation.

(And incidentally, considering that it was two disabled people who brought Truchon to the court in the first place, saying "No disabled organization support this!"...is not that compelling an argument. The organization may not want it, but the very existence of the case proves that there are disabled people who do want it. And disabled organization speaking over those individual members...is not very respectful of disabled people either).

C-7 was essentialy unavoidable, and the next bill over that expand it another step probably is, too.

None of which changes the fact that we should be doing more to help disabled people, of course.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Did they drop the requirement that a doctor do it?

D. "health care provider" means any of the following individuals authorized pursuant to the New Mexico Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act to prescribe a medication to be used in medical aid in dying:
(1) a physician licensed pursuant to the Medical Practice Act;
(2) an osteopathic physician licensed pursuant to the Osteopathic Medicine Act;
(3) a nurse licensed in advanced practice pursuant to the Nursing Practice Act; or
(4) a physician assistant licensed pursuant to the Physician Assistant Act or the Osteopathic Medicine Act; .

E. "medical aid in dying" means the medical practice wherein a health care provider prescribes medication to a qualified individual who may self-administer that medication to bring about a peaceful death;
F. "mental health professional" means a state licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor;
G. "prescribing health care provider" means a health care provider who prescribes medical aid in dying medication;
H. "qualified individual" means an individual who has met the requirements of Section 3 of the Elizabeth Whitefield End-of-Life Options Act;
I. "self-administer" means taking an affirmative, conscious, voluntary action to ingest a pharmaceutical substance; and
J. "terminal illness" means a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, in accordance with reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within six months.

 

[Farm Boy]

So it keeps the gatekeepers and calls euthenizers "medication" in order to maintain the pretense of expert medical care in dosage and administration being a required input.

You only need the medical professional for the diagnosis in this situation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You get a prescription and then fill it and then use it. From What I can tell the medical professional just writes a prescription (after evaluation process) and then is done.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is the prescription a required service?

Most pointedly, they never discussed that it would be possible to limit it to a subset of people who are grivously and irremediably hill.

That's already a subset with two mushy qualifiers. Tinkering with subsets to create different functional sets without "creating something new" is what overpriced dickheads that are good with words are for!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because that is the way they wrote the law. Read the law. I'm off to bed.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, no, that's not the why. But fair enough. Good night!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And disabled organization speaking over those individual members...is not very respectful of disabled people either).

"The disabled" of Canada tend to be treated as one homogeneous whole. We're presumed to all have the same disability, the same degree of disability, the same problems, the same attitudes, the same... everything, and legislation reflects this.

Have a look at the manual that Elections Canada workers follow, in the section regarding In-home Special Ballots. Unless they've changed it since I made my complaints in 2019, anyone applying for this is automatically assumed to be incapable of reading and writing (though that incapacity is conveniently ignored for the purpose of signing the declaration of eligibility to vote and the back of the envelope, and an "incident" form if the elector wants to make a complaint). This section of the manual makes no effort to differentiate between disabled people who are blind, mobility-impaired, deaf, or whatever. I told them my disability was related to mobility, not vision (though this wasn't long after my cataract surgery and my vision was blurry, I was able to read using a magnifying glass), I could write, so I wanted to fill in the ballot myself.

Nope. They wouldn't let me. It was either reveal my vote to two other people or not vote. That's discrimination on the basis of disability, since everyone in the country is supposed to be able to vote by secret ballot (unless disabled and needing help - help which in my case I neither needed nor wanted).


I've seen "rules" posted in articles giving instructions on how to talk to disabled people, and what to call us. Apparently I'm not supposed to call myself "disabled."

Sorry, but I use the term I am comfortable with. "Differently-abled" is clunky. "Handicapped" is the provincial government's term. It'll do, up to a point where it comes to the disabilities that aren't immediately visible. Then you get the obnoxious attitudes of "You don't look handicapped to me!" (often said to people who use handicapped parking, and do in fact have the wheelchair placard for their vehicle and are in fact people with one or more disabilities).

D. "health care provider" means any of the following individuals authorized pursuant to the New Mexico Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act to prescribe a medication to be used in medical aid in dying:
(1) a physician licensed pursuant to the Medical Practice Act;
(2) an osteopathic physician licensed pursuant to the Osteopathic Medicine Act;
(3) a nurse licensed in advanced practice pursuant to the Nursing Practice Act; or
(4) a physician assistant licensed pursuant to the Physician Assistant Act or the Osteopathic Medicine Act; .

E. "medical aid in dying" means the medical practice wherein a health care provider prescribes medication to a qualified individual who may self-administer that medication to bring about a peaceful death;
F. "mental health professional" means a state licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor;
G. "prescribing health care provider" means a health care provider who prescribes medical aid in dying medication;
H. "qualified individual" means an individual who has met the requirements of Section 3 of the Elizabeth Whitefield End-of-Life Options Act;
I. "self-administer" means taking an affirmative, conscious, voluntary action to ingest a pharmaceutical substance; and
J. "terminal illness" means a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, in accordance with reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within six months.

If everyone in this situation were able to self-administer the prescribed drugs, that would solve a lot of objections.

But the fact is that many of the diseases that are terminal also render the victim incapable of doing anything for themselves. They essentially become a mind trapped in an unresponsive, pain-ridden body. That is why help is necessary. Medical help is necessary in order to do it correctly, because most people are not trained in how to do even the basics.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why is the prescription a required service?

'Cause you're not supposed to steal from pharmacies?


Oh, about the IVF being okay because it creates life... there are a lot of people who were not okay with that, because it wasn't creating life the natural way and there was a lot of scaremongering about creating genetically modified children.

 

[Samson]

IVF isn't killing people it creates life

To do IVF you inevitably create more fertilised embryos than you implant.

 

[Farm Boy]

'Cause you're not supposed to steal from pharmacies?

So don't. But there is no sensible reason to gatekeep the access to those chemicals, for this use, behind an MD. Nor is there a sensible reason to gatekeep their administration behind an MD for those who need assistance using them as intended. The only thing you need the MD for is the diagnosis. The rest is a pissing match of what can we force people to do because we want to and how can we keep the cost of mercy high and profitable.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So don't. But there is no sensible reason to gatekeep the access to those chemicals, for this use, behind an MD. Nor is there a sensible reason to gatekeep their administration behind an MD for those who need assistance using them as intended. The only thing you need the MD for is the diagnosis. The rest is a pissing match of what can we force people to do because we want to and how can we keep the cost of mercy high and profitable.

I am so friggin' tired of the deliberate obtuseness I see from certain people in this thread.

Do try to keep in mind that the health care system in Canada is not like that in the States. I can walk into any hospital in this province and expect to be treated without receiving a bill for anything but what isn't covered under my health plan.

Unfortunately that's not the same in other provinces. If I needed a hospital in Saskatchewan, I'd have to pay, not having that province's coverage.

The only expenses I've had with my recent surgery have been transportation to and from multiple appointments and a change in diet. There will be other expenses later on, but none are doctor-related.

I've explained that many people are not trained in even simple procedures, let alone MAiD and making sure it goes as intended.

You'd really want someone to be in the situation where it didn't go as intended? What would you suggest then - application of the nearest weapon?

 

[Farm Boy]

And I'm being stupid. Sorry, obtuse. Yes, the only plausible way a society can control potentially and intentionally lethal substances, distributed on demand as a controlled substance, is through a medical doctor. The only possibly qualified people to treat the end of somebody's life with precision and respect, and to competently administer a lethal dose of a substance, is an MD. They certainly never have anything go wrong whereas the rest of us *******s, boy howdy, that seems like it'd be pretty tough.

Precise point of payment is not the point. It gets paid for one way or another. It takes somebody's time one way or other.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And I'm being stupid. Sorry, obtuse. Yes, the only plausible way a society can control potentially and intentionally lethal substances, distributed on demand as a controlled substance, is through a medical doctor. The only possibly qualified people to treat the end of somebody's life with precision and respect, and to competently administer a lethal dose of a substance, is an MD. They certainly never have anything go wrong whereas the rest of us *******s, boy howdy, that seems like it'd be pretty tough.

Precise point of payment is not the point. It gets paid for one way or another. It takes somebody's time one way or other.

Of course doctors can make mistakes. But they would make fewer than somebody with no medical training.

In my case... I'd know what to do for someone as a quick fix before going to the hospital or clinic if I came across a person with Type 2 diabetes who was having either a high or low (assuming they were still conscious). I've been there myself. I know how to do glucose testing and how to administer insulin. But whether I'd be willing to trust just anybody off the street to do it for me?

Giving someone an injection, whether someone else or yourself is scary the first time you try. There's an instinctive wish not to stick that sharp pointy thing in, because it's painful.

And injecting insulin and dealing with something like an IV needle are entirely different. Injecting insulin with a pen is no big deal for me. I do it once or twice every day of my life and have done for over the last two years. I've never started an IV line or stuck the needles into anyone. I have no idea how to do it. It would take a medical professional to do it, so would you please get off your sneering soapbox about doctors.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is the alternative to a doctor somebody "off the street?" Like a mistake leading to "whatever next crowbar comes to hand." That's insane.

It does not take medical school itself to competently run an IV.

 

[Samson]

Of course doctors can make mistakes. But they would make fewer than somebody with no medical training.

In my case... I'd know what to do for someone as a quick fix before going to the hospital or clinic if I came across a person with Type 2 diabetes who was having either a high or low (assuming they were still conscious). I've been there myself. I know how to do glucose testing and how to administer insulin. But whether I'd be willing to trust just anybody off the street to do it for me?

Giving someone an injection, whether someone else or yourself is scary the first time you try. There's an instinctive wish not to stick that sharp pointy thing in, because it's painful.

And injecting insulin and dealing with something like an IV needle are entirely different. Injecting insulin with a pen is no big deal for me. I do it once or twice every day of my life and have done for over the last two years. I've never started an IV line or stuck the needles into anyone. I have no idea how to do it. It would take a medical professional to do it, so would you please get off your sneering soapbox about doctors.

I do not see any inherent reason why euthanasia drugs should need to be IV, but we clearly should not be giving them out without a prescription.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why does that prescription require a doctor? It does not. Clean, humane ways to die, if there is a right to die, being more tightly controlled than messy nasty ways to die that are uncontrollable is just damned mean. The diagnosis of terminalness(if required) does need a doctor. After that, the doctor can be asked to help, or they can go **** off. Unless we have some weird ass fetish here.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Why does that prescription require a doctor? It does not. Clean, humane ways to die, if there is a right to die, being more tightly controlled than messy nasty ways to die that are uncontrollable is just damned mean. The diagnosis of terminalness(if required) does need a doctor. After that, the doctor can be asked to help, or they can go **** off. Unless we have some weird ass fetish here.

It requires medically qualified personnel who would presumably have the same right of refusal on grounds of conscience as a doctor.
Who administers the lethal dose is a side issue.
The main issue is that patients with the right to a legal procedure should have access to that.

 

[Farm Boy]

If they have an affirmative right to have it done for them, if you can obligate society to kill you, there is still absolutely no justification for not putting in a system that makes it so that nobody who has a problem with killing is pressured to do so either through their profession or their pocketbook. Doctors will bill like doctors. Hospitals will bill like hospitals. There is no reason to pay those rates, that gatekeeping. There is no need to be stupid, horsehockey little gangsters over a basic right if that's what we're discussing. And no. While euthenasia is life planning and medicinal treatment is life planning, euthanasia is not the same skillset as medicine. It's really not. It's much less complicated. Even when it's done with respect, and professionalism, and best practices.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If they have an affirmative right to have it done for them, if you can obligate society to kill you, there is still absolutely no justification for not putting in a system that makes it so that nobody who has a problem with killing is pressured to do so either through their profession or their pocketbook. Doctors will bill like doctors. Hospitals will bill like hospitals. There is no reason to pay those rates, that gatekeeping. There is no need to be stupid, ****** little gangsters over a basic right if that's what we're discussing. And no. While euthenasia is life planning and medicinal treatment is life planning, euthanasia is not the same skillset as medicine. It's really not. It's much less complicated. Even when it's done with respect, and professionalism, and best practices.

In Canada and the UK we have health services paid for through taxation. The patient is not billed for using them.