Indifference

I find it incredible to believe that my alerts to the authorities that my cousin, Allan Barton,was a abusing my aunt has met with nothing. Because my aunt is "competent" whatever that means does not mean that she is not being abusing.

This is the second time my cousin put my aunt into a nursing and attempted to sell her home from under her. He knows he is not a beneficiary under her Will as she is giving her home to charity so he has to get ahold of the money before she dies.  A power of attorney is a dangerous document in the hands of someone who thinks he is entitled.  A power of attorney is not a blank cheque.  Because Allan is also the executor of my aunt's Will, he does not have to tell anyone anything.  He is doing it now with the Power of Attorney.  He controls all the evidence so he cannot be made accountable.   If you are a crook it does not matter what the law says.

I suspect I am not considered credible but someone who has an agenda to defraud her has.  And the agencies will not do anything because they did not do what they were suppose to do in the first place.  As to her medical condition and housing she was not given informed consent.  All of them believed my cousin who said she needed nursing home care.  This is a lie. She has always had for the last two decades had hired help/companions.

A few years ago my cousin volunteered to look after my aunt, she did not want him to do so. To keep peace she just let him.  He made her redecorate her house at great expense.  She told me she did not want him to do it but like aways she agreed to keep peace.  The reason for the redecoration was to make the house easier to sell.  Of course my aunt did not know that.  He told her it was to freshen up the house.  Her house was immaculate and tasteful there was no need for him to force this on her.

In defense of my cousin, when he was young he was very very good, but now that he is old, he is very very bad.

I was at a recent meeting where Isobel MacKenzie, BC Senior Advocate, said once you go to a nursing home you never leave. Helen escaped once in 2014 but this time she may not be able to if she does not have a home to go to.

I have no agenda except to follow what Helen told me and what I believe is her true wishes and that is she does not want to live in a nursing home and she does not want to sell her home. She told me some stupid reasons why Allan told her she had to live in a nursing facility.  I told her not to believe him and just say you want to go home. I do not know what happened after that as I have not been able to talk with her since. And when I tried to talk to Allen he said it was none of my business. My cousin is a control freak.

I cannot say Helen cannot be influenced to make a bad decision but at 100.5 years old who would believe that she has free will.  Being competent does not mean that she cannot be abused.

My cousin wants to spend all his time in Chilliwack. He has a love interest there. He wants to abandon Helen and leave her to die alone. He was never in Vernon full time anyways. He just supervised her care.

At her assisted care facilitly she does not have 24/7 care.  She only has a call bell.  Let us say she is in medical distress, her door is closed, she cannot access her call bell, what then.  Even if she could access her call bell what happens if a nurse's aid does not come running.  Helen might as well have a call bell at home with a direct alert to 911.

Prior to Allan's attempt to sell her home in 2013 I thought he would never try it again.  He did.  This time he did everything possible to poison my relationship with my aunt. Up until 2014 I had no problem with Allan.  My cousin worked for over a decade in nursing home administration so he knows how easy it is to defraud an elder.  He would have seen it happen every day at his work.

And for all the authorities I will be demanding how did they handle my complaint. Just telling me they investigated it is not going to to be good enough. What are they going to do, talk to the abusers: those that did not do their jobs.

Telling me that my aunt at 100.5 years and is allowed to make a bad decision isn't good enough. No one is so stupid to believe a woman of that age is totally competent.

Because her doctor, Dr. Tim Gilhooly, recommended that she be put in a nursing home because my cousin told him that would be the best place for her to go because he does not want to supervise her and there was no one else, is not true. Dr. Gilhooly is the one that cemented what would happen to her based on $administrative expediency. He did not want to determine if Helen had other alternatives.  He is more to blame than my cousin for forcing her to do something she does not want to as his true duty is to protect my Aunt from abuse.    He abandoned her. Therefore, he also abused her.  My first contact was with Dr. Gilhooly on July 4 2016.  He refused to talk to me although I left messages.  Instead of reassessing the situation he hide.

I cannot believe that no one understands what elder abuse is.  Lying to a senior is despicable.  And that means keeping pertinent information from her that would affect her ability to make a good or bad decision. And also preventing those that might be advising her.  From what is in the legislative acts a patient is entitled to have others counsel her and also for time for her to make a decision.  This is not what happened.

Just a note.  My aunt does not require COMPLEX care so there is no reason for her not to be in her home which is also the mandate of the government that seniors remain in their home for as long as possible. That means the health authorities and doctors have to have a good reason why they are being removed from their homes. Nursing homes are the place of last resort and not for the convenience of relatives. I have not been able to determine how much the government is subsiding/paying for her incarceration.  I am sure they are as she was getting home support from Interior Health.


I was just at a senior's meeting at Oakridge yesterday and the talk was about living in assisted/supportive housing. It took all my restraint to be polite and not to argue as to the cons..


In recent months I have been to three meetings about seniors and each one of them said no to power of attorneys because they are abused so frequently.  There is no need for someone to pay one's bills.  Pension monies are now automatically deposited and other bills can be paid automatically as well.  So what is the argument for them except to defraud.

The terrible thing about a power of attorney is that the giver can believe that she cannot tear it up.  She might not know or she might fear retribution from her family.

Isobel MacKenzie the Seniors Advocate of BC said that she has seen over and over again competent seniors being forced to believe that they are becoming incapable when in fact it is because those around her keep telling them and they soon become to believe it themselves or it is easier for them to acquiesce than fight. Who is to protect them.

Another note: once you are in nursing care, you always die alone.  Even if staff knows you are dying, and they do know, they will wait until the next shift who will call you.  And it is always a "painless" death in the middle of the night. And it is common for those with powers of attorney to tell the nursing facility not to contact them until the relative is death. Of course the relative does not know this and the relative dies alone and a natural death is not without pain.

Altruism

I suffer from Altruism. A perfect response when someone asks me why should I care. The problem with altruism is that no good deed goes unpunished.

Elder Abuse and Interior Health Authority

On July 4 2016 when I realized that my aunt was being elder abused by my cousin I did what is required report the abuse to Vernon Jubilee Hospital (Interior Health Authority) and they refused to do anything.  I was told my aunt was competent and that my cousin had a power of attorney. 

If they cannot recognize that elder abuse is usually done by those with powers of attorney then there is cause for alarm.  They tell me my aunt is competent.  So, what.  Does she even know that she is being abused. 

It was up to Interior Health to investigate suspected abused when it comes to serious decision-making that might affect a patient's health.

I was told by Vernon Jubilee Hospital when I asked for the name of my aunt's doctor so I could discuss this abuse they refused to give it to me as it was confidential.  What invasion of a person's privacy is that.  Even my aunt's wrist band which would tell me the name of her doctor was removed.  I was told that I would have to go to the abuser to get the name of the doctor.  The abuser would not even give me his cell phone number and he told my aunt not to give it to me either so how could I do that.

A few hours later I was told by the social worker/nursing that I was not to discuss my aunt's housing with her or I would get banned.  What a stupid demand when a patient has a right to privacy and to talk in private to anyone she wants to.  And she also has the right to be fully informed as to housing options not just what my cousin wants. And how would I know if she was being abused if I cannot discuss topics relating to her well-being. 

She did not need complex care so why would she want to go to a nursing home if she had a home of her own.

Elder Abuse and the RCMP

This past week I went to Vernon to visit my aunt who was in the hospital.  She phoned me and I decided to go and see her as she was there for ten days and no one called me.  I am her closest living relative.

To make a long story short I discovered my cousin was arranging to send her to a nursing facility with the complicity of Interior Health Authority.  My aunt is 100.5 years old and is reasonably mobile and reasonably competent but is subject to undue influence. In this case it was worse, she was given incomplete information as to her options for health care. No informed consent.

She told me that she did not want to go to the nursing home but she had to.

I asked the social worker why was that and was told that she might pee on her bedding in the middle of the night. And my cousin does not want to supervise her any more but he does not want to forfeit his power of attorney. For the past sixteen years my aunt has had paid help in her home. I told Interior Health to send her home and not to a nursing home. My aunt is capable enough: she does not need a power of attorney.

Later that day (Monday), my cousin, Allan Barton of Chilliwack, told me that if I returned to Vernon that I would have nowhere to stay as he was selling Helen's home.

It took me a few hours to process that information. Just before I left Vernon to return to Vancouver I  asked my aunt did she know Allan was selling her home.  She said no.  She said Allan cannot sell her home as she was on title. And she did not want her home sold until she died.

The point is I told the RCMP in Vernon that my aunt was being elder abused and it did nothing but give me stupid advice which was go see a lawyer. Why.

Elder abuse is a criminal offence (being the umbrella for other offences).  It is up to the police to investigate complaints and seek out the appropriate evidence and charge offenders accordingly.  This is done in Los Angeles within hours of a complaint the intent to stop the abuse from escalating.  So why is it not done here. It is all the fault of the mayor as he won't authorize a budget to pay for an elder abuse investigator.  The RCMP is too busy dealing with more serious issues, like giving traffic tickets.

And the City of Vernon is afraid that it might get sued as my cousin might sue them for harassment.  This is bizarre but as I sent an email to every member of council.  What blatant stupidity from elected officials. They should be looking after voters not just spent voters' money. Do you think my cousin the criminal is going to sue council. The much at City Hall are idiots. How did they even get elected.

When I phoned my cousin Friday evening, he told me it was none of my business where Helen was.  If I do not know where she is and the police will not help I am effectively banned so I would not be able to see her or know what is happening to her.  I suspect even her doctor will not tell me as it is confidential information. I left word a week ago with the doctor and today his receptionist would not even let me leave a message.

If anyone knows of elder abuse, the best way to deal with it is to speak out.  So I spoke out and those that should have done something did nothing. When I spoke to the RCMP it threatened to charget me for mischief.  He too did not want to listen to me.  This is why we have elder abuse and it is getting worse as more people learn that nothing is going to happen to them..  No one is going to spend their own dime to pay for a lawyer to try to eliminate a known abuse. Those that are suppose to protect do not and the abusers know it.  Even amateur abusers get into the act. It is so easy.

Theft by person holding power of attorney Section 331 and 336 Criminal Code of Canada

331 Every one commits theft who, being entrusted, whether solely or jointly with another person, with a power of attorney for the sale, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of real or personal property, fraudulently sells, mortgages, pledges or otherwise disposes of the property or any part of it, or fraudulently converts the proceeds of a sale, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of the property, or any part of the proceeds, to a purpose other than that for which he was entrusted by the power of attorney.

The RCMP in Vernon/Kelowna and also the Vancouver Police Department said that theft by a person holding a power of attorney is not a criminal offence as did Interior Health which should have investigated any allegations of abuse of a patient. They are all wrong. 

I hope the Vernon RCMP arrest my cousin, put him in jail with a cold floor and a pbj sandwich and then a week later ask him questions. Then, they can release him.   This is not the USA, my cousin does not have any civil rights. They might even want to arrest Chriz Mazurkewich, the CEO of Interior Health, who knew of this as well.  The two of them as they were/are partners in crime might want to become best friends in jail. I am sure there must be a charge of conspiracy to commit theft of elders if the house has not been sold yet which they can be jointly charged. I am with humour seeing a judge coming down on these two with all the power of the state saying "don't do it again."

What type of death is euthanasia

I am confused about Bill C-14.  Does Bill C-14 cause natural death or not.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is not considered a natural death.  In Belgium euthanasia is considered a natural death.

I go with the Netherlands.

Fall Out from Bill C-14 and other mischief

From www.epcc.com    June 28 2016.   Italics are my comments.

What do you do when your husband has been approved for euthanasia and you are opposed to euthanasia? This is the situation that we (EPC) faced last week when we received a call from a woman who needed help and advice after her husband had been approved for euthanasia. Due to privacy, I cannot provide more information, but the woman, who deeply loves and cares for her husband, was emotionally upset.

There is nothing in Bill C-14 that addresses confidentiality. When it comes to end-of-life decisions nothing should be confidential. 

Today we received a call from a woman whose husband became quadriplegic from an accident and now the hospital is pressuring her family to remove his ventilator.

The family has nothing to do with the decision of the husband.   A few weeks later the hospital might remove the ventilator and say the patient told it to do it and the patient did not want his family to know.  Who would know. When it comes to medical treatment or end-of-life options, the family as a courtesy, will be involved if the doctor/patient feels the family will not oppose. Otherwise the family does not have to know.  the family will be told that he died from his underlying medical condition and not from withdrawal of his ventilator.  

End-of -life decisions before a patient is euthanized should be published in the newspaper.  If public money is being used to kill someone, then we the public should know who is being killed.

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