Andrew MacFarlane

I came across a newpaper article about the Connections.  It is a centre for addiction.  Andrew MacFarlane of Vancovuer Coastal Health spoke to the Province about it.

I would like Andrew MacFarlane to speak to me.  I have been trying for months maybe a year for him to explain why he took away my Representation Agreement and Power of Attorney just days before my husband died.  He will not explain why.  He just signed the Order. He rubber stamped something from someone from somewhere. I do not understand how he can sign such an Order without even talking to me.  But then that is how Vancouver Coastal Health works.  When MacFarlane can sign a fiat Order based on what I suspect is collateral evidence, evidence that is gossip, no verification, some low bureaucrat telling him to do it, not telling me, not allowing me to question it, then there is something wrong with what he is doing.  There is not much anyone can do if these dubious officers of the court will not talk to you.  What recourse does one have.  How do you make him accountable.  Complain to who.  How can they go against the legal wishes of my husband. What is the purpose of the law when a robot can take your legal rights away at will.

VGH refused to investigate Randy's near death on November 18 2013

I really do not understand how our medical system works.  I told VGH that Randy had an illegal DNR on  him and he would have died if I did not intervene with his care on November 18 2013.  VGH did nothing. That incident should have been investigated as VGH was  aware of it.

Owen died 15 June 2016 at 6:45 pm in my arms

Randy's doggie, Owen, died peacefully in my arms on Thursday.  He was 16 years plus 4 months old.  It was his time. You are invited to his pet memorial service.

Until We Meet Again
#4, 839 West 1st Street,
North Vancouver, B.C.
(near Capilano Mall)
604-924-1160
contact person: Jacqueline

1:00 pm Sunday June 19 2016

MAID is a white thing, mostly middle class, mostly educated, and mostly want control

Anita Cameron: Blacks and the Anti Assisted Suicide Movement by Diane Coleman

[Editor's Note: Anita Cameron has served on the national NDY Board since late 2013. She is a longtime community organizer with ADAPT and I have had the honor of knowing and working with her since 1987 when I joined ADAPT. She is one of the leaders of Not Dead Yet Colorado. Her article, Blacks and the Anti Assisted Suicide Movement, is very important and I'm grateful for her permission to reprint it below.]

As a disability rights activist, a critical part of disability rights advocacy and activism is, for me, the fight against assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I have been involved in this aspect of the movement for quite some time, upwards of 15 years. I am a member of, and sit on the board of Not Dead Yet, a national, grassroots disability rights organization opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination.

I've always noticed, but it has never really hit me until now, that very few Blacks are a part of the movement.

While we do get support from other Blacks, and there may be a token Black or two at local Not Dead Yet events and protests, as far as I know, I'm the only Black person in the country who is consistently active in this movement. I could be wrong. I hope I am.

Why is this? Why don't more Black folks get involved with the anti assisted suicide movement?

It is well-known that the face of the anti assisted suicide movement, indeed, the disability rights movement, is White. It is well-known that often, contributions of Blacks to the disability rights movement are erased or unacknowledged. Even if Blacks are seen as leaders, the ones in front of the cameras or receiving the awards and accolades are usually White.

A 2013 Pew study showed that 65% of Black folks are against assisted suicide. Still, there is scant involvement of Black folks in campaigns to stop legislation that would legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I have some ideas why there's almost no Black participation in this movement.

1. This isn't a part of our culture.

Frankly, assisted suicide isn't something that is discussed in the Black community. I'd never heard of it, even though my birth mother lived with chronic illness and lived to see the end results of her condition. Not once did she complain. Not once did she ask to die. None of the folks in my church or community wanted to die because they were sick or disabled. I'm not saying that suicide doesn't exist in the Black community, but in my experience, it was due to depression related to situational issues, such as the loss of a job, a spouse or loved one or something else entirely. When we get sick or become disabled, we or our families often turn to prayer or the church.

2. Assisted suicide is considered a White thing.

Many Black folks who I talk to about the anti assisted suicide movement say "that's a White thing, we don't do that stuff". They ask me why have I devoted myself to a predominantly White issue.

3. Blacks with disabilities have enough specific issues to work on without working on an almost exclusively White issue that doesn't affect us.

Some Black activists have told me that I'm wasting time on a movement that has nothing to do with us and that I should be involved in working on issues that directly affect Black folks.

The reasons above are valid but I've never let my race be a reason why I don't do certain forms of activism. I have always been a pioneer, being the first or only Black in my class or my town to do something.

When I first got involved with the social justice and change movement at age 16, I was part of the anti nuclear movement. Yes, I was the only Black person in my group, and that would be true of every group I was a part of until I discovered ADAPT.

I joined the anti assisted suicide and anti euthanasia movement because I felt that it was important to fight against the devaluation of the lives of people with disabilities. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia of people with disabilities is a deadly form of discrimination resulting from the fact that doctors and others do not see the lives of people with disabilities as valuable. This mirrors society's beliefs that our lives are not worth living and that it is better to be dead than disabled.

The legalization of assisted suicide sets up a two-tiered system where if a non-disabled person is suicidal, they will receive treatment sometimes against their will, while people with disabilities experiencing the same get assisted suicide as an "option" or "choice". Society frames the suicide of a non-disabled person as, at worst, a very selfish act or at best, the act of a sick person, while suicide by someone with a disability is considered to be brave and considerate, rather than a tragedy.

Assisted suicide legalization supporters see it as a choice to end their lives when they want to, but there are already options available without legalization.

Sometimes it feels odd as a Black person to be involved with the anti assisted suicide movement. It feels lonely to be the only Black face in my local group. I know that many people feel that I'm only a token.

It has only been very recently that there has been any form of conversation about the involvement of Blacks in the anti assisted suicide/anti euthanasia movement. I can only guess at the reasons for this. There needs to be far more conversations with, and outreach to the black community.

My presence as part of the movement is important and valuable. As we fight potential ballot initiatives in our state that would legalize euthanasia by lethal injection, Blacks will get caught up because due to medical racism, the lives of Blacks are already seen as less worthy than Whites. That's even more so with Blacks with disabilities. Our families are pressured to withdraw life support for loved ones or we fall under state's futility laws.

If euthanasia and assisted suicide laws that aren't restricted to terminally ill folks goes into law here in Colorado, Black folks will surely join the movement as more and more of us are coerced into dying by the medical establishment.

Even if we win the fight in Colorado and defeat those ballot initiatives, groups like Compassion and Choices, formerly, The Hemlock Society, and other groups won't stop until there is assisted suicide, at the very least, in Colorado.

As more states try to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, we Blacks, especially those of us with disabilities, will have to stop seeing this as merely a privileged White people's issue and see that this touches us too. We can't afford for the only voice in this to be White. We bring a unique and valuable perspective to the movement that cannot be understated.

I call on both the Disability and the Black community around the nation to come together and work on how we amplify Black voices and Black participation in the anti assisted suicide movement. We must be in solidarity with each other. Too many lives are at stake.

BC Physicians are fast becoming Checklist Robots.

I just downloaded the College of Physicians and Surgeons BC regulations for MAID.  Like Bill C-14 it is open to question/interpretation.  It can be circumvented.

No where in the safeguards does it say that the health professionals should ask the patient not to opt out of death. There is no encouragement that says we do not want you to do this.  All you have to say is that you want death and it is a done deal.

The safeguards  are nothing more than a checklist. Two physicians are a joke. There is only one physician (and who is to say that the physician kept proper records) and the other physician only has to agree with the notes of the first physician.  The second doctor does not even have to physically examine the patient to ask him if he really wants MAID or explore other reasons why he might want death nor does the second physician see a patient's complete medical file. Only what the first physician wants him to know.  The second physician does not even have to be licensed to practice doctoring in British Columbia.

This document clearly confirms that physicians are on the path of being insensitive robotic technicians.

How can robots assess the nuances of competency.  I still do not understand why the SCC did not consider the conclusion that the BCCA said that physicians are not reliable to arbitrate competency and that Carter was wrong.

I  want to see where it is definitively written that MAID is treatment. Is killing now treatment.

And I want to know where does it say that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health care.  Whatever the federal government gave to the provinces, the federal government can take it away.

Whatever is happening is dangerous.  Why is no one wanting the MAID process videotaped.  If Switzerland does this, so should we.  I recently viewed You Tube in which an euthanasia process was documented in Belgium:  Allow Me To Die Euthanasia in Belgium.  A case was described of a woman who wanted a psychological death because her daughter died three months earlier and it was granted.  The grief she said was unbearable. She seemed to be coping quite well.  It is haunting me.  It is very inviting to have a safe and painless death under cover of sleep.

Speech in Senate by Mobina Jaffer (June 2 2016)

The speech explains in simple language the problems senators are facing with Bill C-14.   It is done very well.  It explains the Charter and Cartier.


June 2, 2016

Yesterday I spoke in the Senate Chamber at 2nd reading of Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying.

This is one of the toughest bills I have ever worked on.  I would like to share my speech with you.
I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Mobina S.B. Jaffer, Q.C.
Senator for British Columbia

1st Session, 42nd Parliament,
Volume 150, Issue 42

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the second reading
of Bill C-14. It is the hardest bill that I have ever worked on. I have stayed up many
nights thinking about it and thinking about those who would be affected by this
legislation. My entire life I have fought for the rights of the most vulnerable in our
society. As a senator, I have fought to protect our constitution. Bill C-14 brings
together these aspects.

This issue is deeply personal to many Canadians because we have all lived it in some
way. We all know someone who has suffered intolerably. Maybe it is a co-worker or an
acquaintance, or maybe a distant relative or loved one. We all hold the story of
someone close to us.

Honourable senators, I would like to share with you the story of Elayne Shapray of
Vancouver, British Columbia. She was in an advanced state of decline from secondary
progressive multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is not terminal, but it causes intolerable
suffering to many. It is a disease that affects more than 100,000 Canadians. Elayne's
condition caused her suffering for several years and left her completely incapacitated.

Elayne was a long-time advocate of medical assistance in dying and offered her
gripping affidavit after the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the B.C. Supreme Court
ruling in favour of Gloria Taylor and the BC Civil Liberties Association. In the words of
Elayne's husband, Howard: "Elayne had a peaceful and serene passing, surrounded by
friends and family"on May 2.

Elayne was able to apply for an exemption from the Supreme Court's declaration of
invalidity and was afforded dignity in death. Under the restrictive criteria of Bill C-14,
however, Elayne likely would not have been eligible for medical assistance in dying.

Instead, she would have been forced to turn to self-starvation, something that is
beyond cruel, to be eligible.

Honourable senators, I share Elayne's story with you to highlight the importance of this
issue and the care and deliberate consideration that it deserves. As senators, we are
the absolute protectors of the rights outlined in our Constitution. As senators, we must
uphold our responsibility in this matter.

Today, I would like to talk about how medical assistance in dying and the Supreme
Court's decision in Carter are related to the Charter. I would also like to outline how Bill
C-14 restricts access to medical assistance in dying based on the parameters
established in Carter and highlights the need to pass the right law.

Medical assistance in dying addresses the most fundamental of our constitutional rights
as Canadians. Section 7 of the Charter says that each and every Canadian has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  It says that we as Canadians are guaranteed the right not to be deprived of these basic rights except in accordance with the principles ofamental justice.

The Supreme Court's responsibility in Carter was to respect section 7 of the Charter
with respect to sections 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code. Section 14 of the Criminal
Code says:

No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does
not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on
the person by whom consent is given.

Section 241(b) says:

Every one who. . . aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or
not, is guilty of an indictable offence. . . .

Honourable senators, Carter is not the first time that the Supreme Court has faced a
challenge on the issue of medical assistance in dying. Before Kay Carter and Gloria
Taylor, there was Sue Rodriguez. In 1993, Ms. Rodriguez, who suffered from ALS, lost
her challenge at the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. Between 1993 and 2015, public
attitudes changed and society evolved. Other jurisdictions began to legislate on medical
assistance in dying and positive advocacy by the BC Civil Liberties Association and
people like Gloria Taylor, Kay Carter and Elayne Shapray showed the public that
medical assistance in dying could be dying with dignity. The public and health care
personnel began seeing that medical assistance in dying could be an act of compassion.

If we listen to Canadians on this issue, we can begin to understand that medical
assistance in dying is intended to be compassionate.

The principles of fundamental justice that the Supreme Court once used to deny
medical assistance in dying have evolved. As a result, so did the Supreme Court. On
February 6, 2015, it set out the parameters for which medical assistance in dying
should be allowed in Canada.

Bill C-14 is a legislative response to the delayed declaration of invalidity by the
Supreme Court in its unanimous decision in Carter v. Canada. Bill C-14 falls short of the
standards that the Supreme Court has set and that the public has set on this issue.

The Supreme Court was definitive in Carter. The Supreme Court was unanimous
in Carter.

In its declaration of invalidity, the court says that sections 241(b) and 14 of the
Criminal Code were no longer valid if they prohibited medical assistance in dying.
The court introduced parameters that said medical assistance in dying should be
allowed

. . . for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and
(2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or
disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the
circumstances of his or her condition.

The Supreme Court went on to add, critically, that "irremediable" . . . does not require
the patient to undertake treatments that are not acceptable to the individual."

This is the language that the highest court in our country used in its landmark and
unanimous decision. This, however, is not what was tabled.

Bill C-14 introduces some parameters and eligibility criteria that are restrictive. Yes, it
says an individual must suffer from a grievous and irremediable condition, but it also
says that an individual must have a ". . . serious and incurable illness, disease, or
disability." It goes on to say that the individual must be in ". . an advanced state of
irreversible decline in capability." Third, the criterion says that the ". . . illness, disease,
or disability or the state of decline that causes an individual enduring physical or
psychological suffering must be intolerable to the individual." Lastly, Bill C-14 says that
an individual is only eligible if ". . . their natural death has become reasonably
foreseeable."

In Carter, there was no mention of incurable. In Carter, there was no euphemism for
terminal illness such as "natural death has become reasonably foreseeable." Yet,
honourable senators, these words were included in Bill C-14. This language creates
eligibility criteria that are restrictive and they do not meet the threshold set by the
Supreme Court in Carter.

I will go on to explain why I believe that the restrictive eligibility criteria found in Bill C-
14 should be replaced with the parameters established by the Supreme Court in Carter.
Bill C-14 involves both legal aspects and medical aspects. On the one side, there is the
legal question. On the other side are the doctors, nurse practitioners and regulators
who have to interpret Bill C-14 once it becomes law.

They are ones who must administer medical assistance in dying. Medical personnel
from Montreal and Vancouver to Yukon and Thunder Bay need to be able to interpret
what "grievous and irremediable"means and act accordingly. Incorrectly interpreting"
Bill C-14 is not an option. Yet, the medical reality will be filled with misinterpretation if
we do not replace the restrictive criteria of Bill C-14 with the language we found
in Carter.

Requiring that an individual suffers from an incurable illness, disease or disability is
restrictive. We heard that, from the medical standpoint, the requirement that conditions
be incurable suggests that patients must seek out and undergo all forms of treatment in
order to cure the disease, even if these are unacceptable to the individual.

The Supreme Court of Canada clearly said that "irremediable"does not require the
patient to undertake treatments that are not acceptable to the individual. Clearly, there
is a disconnect between the Supreme Court's decision and Bill C-14. Requiring that an
individual's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable is restrictive.

The Minister of Justice at our pre-study told us that requiring a person's death to be
reasonably foreseeable provides health care practitioners with flexibility to take into
account all the person's medical circumstances.

Honourable senators, the minister's response at the pre-study stuck with me
throughout the whole process of our pre-study. Yes, it is the lawyers who wrote this
bill, but it is the medical personnel across Canada who will interpret this bill.

I asked Douglas Grant, President of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of
Canada, how his organization will interpret "reasonable foreseeability" He was fairly
straightforward. He told me he doesn' know. He then went on to say he worries that if
this language remains in Bill C-14, there will be a variety of interpretations from
province to province, health authority to health authority, and physician to physician.

This, honourable senators, is how many people in the health care sector feel about Bill
C-14. The language of "reasonably foreseeable"does not appear in the medical lexicon.

Health care personnel were looking for clarity. They were looking for guidelines on how
to move forward. What they got instead was inconsistency and confusion.

Honourable senators, our most important responsibility moving forward is to ensure
that Bill C-14 is the right bill for Canadians. We must ensure that it protects the rights
and freedoms of all Canadians. It is essential for parliamentarians to give it the
appropriate amount of time, effort and rigorous study that it deserves.

If Bill C-14 does not pass by June 6, there will be no federal law governing medical
assistance in dying. This does not mean that there will be a massive void in terms of
safeguards, as the government has suggested. The colleges of surgeons and physicians
in all the provinces and the Government of Yukon have established considerable
regulations that outline eligibility criteria and procedural safeguards. Nunavut and the

Northwest Territories are currently working on regulations, and they will also have them
in place by June 16.

Honourable senators, I have provided all of with you a map of Canada that sets out,
right across the country, what regimes exist in each province. Yes, a federal law is
ideal, but we must stay true to our role. We must give Bill C-14 the sober second
thought it deserves. Expediency absolutely should not take precedence over accuracy.
 
An inadequate Bill C-14 means that someone like Louise Laplante of Quebec is not
helped with medical assistance in dying. Louise passed away on March 13. One of the
most emotional times during our pre-study was when her daughter, Léa Simard,
showed tremendous courage in telling us about her mother. Léa offered emotional and
gripping testimony of how the restrictive nature of Quebec's assisted dying bill, which
requires a terminal illness, made her mother, Louise, ineligible. Louise was not offered
death with dignity. Instead, she was forced to starve herself and suffer cruelly and
intolerably. Under Bill C-14, people like Louise would not be treated any differently.
They would not be able to find peace and serenity, and they would not be eligible.

Honourable senators, we should not sacrifice our duty for expediency. As I conclude, I
ask you to look forward.

Honourable senators, all of you here know that I am practising Muslim. From a young
child, I was taught that death arrives when your time is over in this world, and you are
not to hasten death by doing something like committing suicide or taking tablets. It is
when the Creator is ready for you to die that he will accept you. All my life, until this bill
came in front of us, I believed that I will live here as long as my journey expects me to
live. I can make that choice. Nobody is asking me to do anything differently, and I
personally will go with my religious beliefs.

Honourable senators, in the last few weeks since we have had this bill before us, I have
had to look inside and say, "I am a practising Muslim, but my country has given me this
greatest privilege of being a legislator." As a legislator, I am a leader. Sometimes people
follow you; sometimes they have to be followed.

May I have five more minutes?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Jaffer: Sometimes they follow you; sometimes we have to ask them to follow
us. We certainly listen to people. To all the senators in this place, I say we are leaders.

Whatever our personal beliefs — and I have opened up mine; for me, my personal
belief is that I will stay on this earth as long as the Creator wants me. That's my
personal belief. But as a legislator, I believe I have to listen to Canadians, I have to
look at the Charter, and I have to rise beyond my personal beliefs.

It has taken absolutely everything I have — I think it has aged me 10 years — to
understand that, as a legislator, I have to protect the most vulnerable and make sure
they die with dignity.

Thank you.

mobina.jaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca