Jeez, it's really called maid?
They're fond of "helpful" acronyms here. Yes, it's called MAiD. Medical Assistance in Dying.
Aimee is absolutely correct in that the disabled have been ignored, belittled, condescended to, and forgotten in this pandemic. I truly, honestly hate the current government of Alberta, the Minister of Social Services in particular.
The Alberta budget came out recently, and I dodged a bullet. This time. Those on the disability benefit I receive were told to expect cuts, but thankfully the government was persuaded not to do it. Instead, they're going to change the eligibility requirements and kick as many people off as possible. Their targets are those with mental illnesses. Apparently they've learned nothing from the suicide of a veteran on the steps of the Legislature last year, when he couldn't get the supports he needed. The irony is that at the time he killed himself, the government was introducing a bill that would have excused doctors who already had conscience rights from referring patients to other doctors who are willing to provide MAiD.
This legislation was flawed from the get-go. The Supreme Court of Canada set out very specific requirements for the government to use when writing it, and the then-Minister of Justice smugly ignored them. The Supreme Court wanted mental illness included, and it wanted advance arrangements included, for the cases of people who wanted to make sure they could not be condemned to a living hell because their situation had deteriorated to the point where they could neither speak nor write.
Advance arrangment is still not included in this legislation. From my perspective, it needs to be. I saw both my grandmother and dad suffer from Alzheimers and dementia. I don't want to end up like that. If I get cancer (courtesy of my mother's genetic legacy - it's something that's afflicted women in the last four generations of her side of the family) and it's the kind that will affect my cognitive abilities or my ability to speak or write, I want to have my say BEFORE that point.
I know more than any other person what constitutes an acceptable quality of life for me. NOBODY gets to decide that for me. But Jody Wilson-Raybould, who smugly declared that "this legislation is fair" thought that she and her faith-based bias had that right.
Yes, it would be better if the disabled and others living with horrible chronic medical conditions and diseases could have better supports. Yes, the "system" and interconnection of "systems" tends to take a very condescending view of such people. Add in the religion angle, and you have situations of terminally ill people being forced to go to a bus shelter in the street in front of the facility they live in, because said facility is Catholic-run and the policy there is to not permit anyone to even discuss MAiD on the premises, let alone letting their residents have the final say over when and how they choose to handle their own terminal illness.
Shove people into institutions? Yeah, two years ago, when I had a panic attack in the hospital over learning new "normals" that will apply to me for the rest of my life (barring some cure), the nurse promptly got angry and told me I should move to a seniors' institution and said, "How about Bethany? Bethany's good."
Bethany is a Catholic-run institution. Sure, it's located next to the college, and I'd have library and Arts Centre privileges. But the people who live there are at least a generation older, and as much as I don't mind hanging around with senior citizens a generation older, I've already had over half a lifetime living with them. I don't want to do it again until it's the only option left. And of course it being a faith-based facility, that would mesh
so well with somebody like me. Not. The proselytizing would be relentless in a place like that, and if I were to end up like my grandmother and dad (Alzheimers and dementia, respectively), they would not honor my wishes to not have to live like that.
Not to mention, it's expensive - it's much more than I get from AISH, and when I pointed that out, the nurse said, "They'll find a way."
So yeah, I've already had a taste of the medical profession trying to coerce me away from living as independently as possible, with any cats I choose to share my life with.
Oh but euthanasia is so progressive...
It's not euthanasia. Nobody can make this decision other than the person him/herself. Not even their guardian, or in cases of mature minors, not even the parents.
Beats me how to even run it. Doctors would be violating there oaths similar to why they don't do executions?
Honestly, there are times when people are in such hellish pain, that refusing to let them die with some measure of dignity, painlessly,
is causing more harm.
I remember a conversation I had with my dad, after my grandmother died. He said, "If that ever happens to me, take me out and shoot me."
There was no MAiD legislation in 1997. Of course I couldn't do as he asked, even after there was MAiD legislation, because he would have had to request it himself. And the moment his doctor signed the diagnosis of dementia, it made it legally impossible for my dad to make such a request, because even though he was still reasonably lucid at the time, he was deemed mentally incompetent. I had a fight with the government just to be the one to make his medical decisions. But that's one decision I was absolutely not allowed to make, even though I knew it was one he would have wanted me to make.
It's easy to judge others for taking this route if you've never been in the situation yourself.
Easy peasy. Find some disgraced or discredited doctors who have no other employment options and their own powers of rationalization will do all the work for you.
That's not how it works. Unless they work in private clinics, doctors' billing is determined by the provincial or territorial government.
I don't have a problem with MAiD in itself, when it's for people who have a reasonably foreseeable death (like C14 did). But they removed that part.
It's only available to those with a "grievous and irremediable medical condition," better known as a disability. They single us out as eligible for suicide when we are not dying. Especially when a good part of our so-called "suffering" could be alleviated if we were provided the proper supports. Unfortunately, death is cheaper.
Agreed, for the most part. And yes, I read about the people who opted for MAiD because the only supports they could get were in another province and they couldn't afford to move there AND live while receiving the support.
That said... there are some types of disabilities that are hell on earth for the people who suffer from them. They should have the option
if they want it and truly have no other viable choices.
I can see both sides of this.
Does Canada’s Supreme Court have any role on oversight if they find it conflicts with Charter rights?
The Supreme Court can, and has, struck down legislation that conflicts with the Charter. They used to do it on a regular basis when Harper was the Prime Minister.
One would think they can't force a doctor to participate?
No, but the current law is that the doctor who opts out has to refer the patient to another doctor. Some provinces (including my own) are attempting to pass legislation that excuses them from doing this.
This is wrong. It's enabling a doctor to do an end run around the Charter, by imposing their religious beliefs on a patient's treatment. It's akin to (albeit in a much more serious way) a doctor or pharmacist refusing to prescribe or fill a prescription for birth control or to perform an abortion using religion as their reason.
Freedom
of religion must also include freedom
from religion. I'm not talking about doorknockers here. I'm talking about medical professionals refusing specific treatments or services to patients if it clashes with their religious beliefs.
