Death Panels: When Bureaucrats in Canada Decide Whether You Live or Die

by Wesley J. Smith | LifeNews.com | 10/3/14 3:09 PM

Medical futility disputes often involve the question of harming the patient. Family/patient believe they should decide what constitutes “harm” in these cases, and that for the patient/family, the greatest harm would be death.  Hence, they insist that efficacious treatment to extend life continue–as the way to avoid harm. That is, after all, a fundamental purpose of medicine when staying alive is wanted.

Bioethicists and some doctors believe that they get to decide what constitutes “harm.” Thus, if a patient is unlikely to recover or ever lead a “meaningful” life, they insist on being able to stop wanted treatment.

Religion is also a large factor in many of these situations. The secularist view sees suffering as the worst harm. Many religions, particularly more traditional approaches to Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism, differ. Thus, forcing treatment to cease is often viewed as disrespecting freedom of religion.

At the same time, many futilitiarians believe in judging “harm” on a macro level. They look beyond the patient to perceived emotional harm to the family–and the morale of the reluctant medical team–as well as financial harm to society by “investing” resources on the patient supposedly more wisely spent elsewhere.

So who gets to decide the meaning of “harm” in a particular situation–the patient/family or the technocrats?
Canada has established a bureaucratic board to make these decisions when doctors/bioethicists and patients/families disagree. From the Toronto Star story:

In Ontario, intractable, life-and-death disputes between physicians and patients’ families sometimes end up before a unique provincial body charged with wading into complex issues of medicine, ethics and faith. The little-known Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) — the only one of its kind in North America, perhaps anywhere — is a working laboratory for the most pressing issue facing Canada’s healthcare system: the end of life.
When a physician’s treatment proposal is challenged by a family member whose loved one can no longer communicate their wishes, doctors can make an application to the CCB. The Board then convenes a hearing within seven days, often in hospital board rooms, headed by a lawyer, a public member and a medical professional, typically a psychiatrist.
The panel’s job is a mix of legal arguments and character analysis. It must ultimately determine an incapacitated patient’s “prior wishes” or “best interests.” The panel must then issue a binding order within 24 hours of the hearing’s conclusion — a remarkably fast and economical process relative to the courts.

It seems to me that these futility cases are so relatively few and far between that coercion should rarely–if ever–be used.

These are subjective decisions. Establishing bureaucratic boards would sow mistrust for the system
 and validate the concept of “death panels.”

And talk about the potential for abuse of power. Why should strangers to the patient be given so much authority,in effect, empowered to impose their values over those of the family?
No. Education and continual mediation should be the watchword. Doctors should be brutally frank about the consequences of continuing care. But barring very rare circumstances, the patient/family should have the final word.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism. 

I just read another report saying that the Consent and Capacity Board is flawed ... so there is no safeguards.  I will link it when I find it.

Your comments to Moira Stilwell, MLA, Vancouver-Langara moira.stilwell.mla@leg.bc.ca

When Does Suffering Begin

Quebec euthanasia law a bad precedent

By Farzana Hassan, Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 06:28 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, June 12, 2014 06:33 PM EDT

Article

The inescapable problem with any human being’s decision to end his or her own life is that the action is irreversible.
Of all the arguments against euthanasia, this for me is the most compelling.
Granted, many people endure situations that appear to be hopeless, where death will be the inevitable end for someone who is already suffering pain and anguish.
But on rare occasions such situations are resolved without the finality of euthanasia.
Diagnoses have been reversed. Patients thought to be terminally ill or near death have regained their health.
Sun News Network reported this week on the recovery of an eight-year-old British girl named Claudia Burkill, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer three years ago.
It is therefore baffling the Quebec National Assembly has voted overwhelmingly in favour of euthanasia.
Of course, Quebec MPs nominally voted to legalize “Medical Aid in Dying”, as the vague and disingenuous language of Bill 52 terms it.
Everyone knows euthanasia has now been legalized in Quebec.
The federal government has called it such and there is no way to disguise the decision with euphemisms.
Euthanasia legislation in countries like Belgium, whose model Quebec seeks to emulate, has taken their citizens down a dark path.
Two deaf Belgian twins were euthanized after they learned they would also go blind.
A 44-year-old man, who underwent a sex change operation, chose death because of “unbearable psychological suffering” after the surgery went awry.
It’s feasible that psychiatric counseling and medication could have helped this individual emerge from such a depressed state.
The original purpose of euthanasia was to relieve dying patients of unbearable physical pain.
It has now been expanded to include people opting to die because they cannot cope with psychological problems.
To consider death as the answer to all of life’s burdens is not a healthy trend for any society.
A death cult seems to be emerging in countries where euthanasia has been legalized.
Advances in medicine and psychiatry offer the prospects of relieving many types of physical and mental hardships people face in future.
An irreversible decision to die deprives individuals of the opportunity to face their psychological problems and, with help, overcome them.
How can a euthanasia law ensure patients won’t be pressured into it by others, even if they are well-intentioned, for which there is no guarantee?
Perhaps it may become the appropriate and loving thing to do for an ill and elderly parent whose children stand to gain an inheritance, to make a tidy exit with no fuss.
In this way, choosing death can become the norm — even expected.
The Quebec law allows doctors to end the life of patients with “incurable disease, incurable illness which is causing unbearable suffering.”
This is too broad a statement, and contains great scope for abuse.
Chronic back pain could be considered an incurable disease.
The sufferer may mention the possibility of euthanasia at some low point and eventually be pressured into going through with what started as a mere wish the pain would subside.
Laws have been put in place to protect such abuses in medical practice.
Let’s hope the federal government will challenge Quebec’s euthanasia law as unconstitutional.
It runs counter to the medical philosophy of doing no harm.
Its intention of curtailing pain is noble.
However, at the very least, it deprives people of hope, and runs the risk of normalizing voluntary death.
439.484

What a brain dead person could be worth to the economy.

Shocking Report Will Reveal How Doctors Hasten Death to Harvest Patients’ Organs

by Bobby Schindler, Brad Mattes | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/26/14 6:51 PM


A silent and deadly epidemic is moving across America. No one is broadcasting it. No one is writing about it. Almost no one is even talking about it. But every day in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices across the country, more and more of our medically vulnerable loved ones are being euthanized.

Indeed, some physicians have admitted to this behavior. A 1998 article from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that hastening death is occurring and is not rare. In a survey of 355 oncologists, “(15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or physician assisted suicide,” and “38 of 53 (72%) oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.¹

These decisions are being made by paid medical professionals. And loved ones, to their horror, are finding they’re not even part of the discussion. The patients’ crimes? They’re charged with having insufficient quality of life, being too expensive to keep alive, and being beyond the reach of medical science and therefore beyond hope.

Such judgments may lie behind what seems to be an increase in the “brain death” diagnosis. The difficulty of making a pinpoint diagnosis in such complex neurological matters—and the lucrative financial incentives to harvest organs—will ultimately propel this issue into the forefront of public consciousness and discourse.

Not surprisingly, the current procurement market for human tissues and organs in the United States is booming, driven by insufficient supply and heavy demand. According to The Milliman Report (see page 4), if all tissues and 11 organs could be harvested from a single patient declared brain-dead, however unlikely, the going rate for procurement would exceed half a million dollars. If all costs related to those 11 transplants are counted—preparation, physicians’ services, post-op care and the like—the money involved exceeds $5.5 million.²

For more information about this troubling issue, visit www.lifeissues.org and www.lifeandhope.com.

Sincerely for the vulnerable among us,

Bradley Mattes	Bobby Schindler
Executive Director	Executive Director
Life Issues Institute	Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network

Calder's Report

I keep thinking about Calder's Report and how inaccurate and misleading it is and the damage it caused me and Randy.  This is about health care not a covert CIA operation in which the government relies on  erroneous reports as truth.. How can the health authority be the author of this injustice.  And it is sitting in the courthouse for anyone to read and photocopy (No. S142003).  And there is nothing I can do about it. Sue them, what a joke that is.

I remember the times I was told by visitors to Randy that they would visit him with bubbles coming from his trach and no nurse to suction him.   What about the bad nursing he received and I wasn't there to make sure he was looked after because of the banning. This was the whole point of my banning I now believe and it had nothing to do with me being overfriendly. Like Randy said I am really really really stupid.The deceit and the abuse of authority is vomitoid. 

If nursing is understaffed then the nurses should be picketing outside on the sidewalk on their days off..

Quote from Bobby Schindler 6/13/2008 When your life becomes difficult, change your life, not your morals.  Faced with difficult life choices today, too many have become too comfortable acting immorally.

A thought, I will ask the new seniors advocate appointed by the government to do something: Isobel Mackenzie.What a joke, you say. Yes, a joke.  I already asked for her help from her months ago and she never answered my email. Appear that something is happening.  Another puppet of the Ministry of Health whose primary job is to refer individuals to appropriate agencies but first you must face your abusers. Delay, until the victims pass and the children inherit.

439,343

Musings

It is Saturday, September 20 2014.  I had a great deal of activity this past week.  I still do not understand how affidavits can go missing from the court house.  This time it was my Affidavit containing the police reports and all of them were not compatible with those of Paladin Security.. This in direct contrast with the dangers imposed by my behavioir towards staff, visitors, and residents.  I am pushing seventy and I do not recall any physical violence that I ever imposed on anyone.  VCH staff acted without forethought and in haste without regard to the law or the best interests of Randy.  On October 21, 2013, it was self-defence. I pushed the mob away from me and Randy. I should get an apologize and those that mobbed us should be arrested.

Deconstructing Calder's Report
Within days of Randy being first admitted to George Pearson Centre in 2010, he got an infection and had to be returned to Vancouver Coastal Health.  It was during this time that Randy wrote a letter to Dr. Roberts saying that he did not want to return to George Pearson Center and he wanted me to be involved in all decision making.  I scotched taped the letter to Randy's bed frame and bulletin wall.  Instead of discussing with us the problems, they abruptly moved Randy in Vancouver General Hospital and I could not find him.  This is what the first Paladin incident was about.  The next day when I went to visit Randy, Security was called and we left.  I had two friends of Randy with me then and no there was no shouting or disrespectful behaviour. The friends could not believe the actions of VGH.  I only wanted to see Randy and VGH choose to hide him. They even put a no contract order on without Randy's knowledge.  They imprisoned him.against his wishes. No police were called. This nonsense was documented by a document that was seven pages long by Paladin. VGH again sent Randy back to GPC against Randy's instructions..It is a joke to say that VCH are partners in care. Kim Sinclair authored this mess.

439236 
439322

Dr. Moira Stilwell

If you as a reader is disturbed by the way the medical establishment behaves, email Randy's MLA, Dr.Moira Stilwell.  

Moria.stilwell.mla@leg.bc.ca or phone her office at 604.660.8360 and tell her so. 

Her address is: 7283 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6P 3H2
(right across from George Pearson Centre).

If she gets 200,000 emails and/or phone calls, better yet letters, things will swiftly change. It has got to. We can't be bullied by the medical authorities to the detriment of our security of person. 

You might also want to tell your doctor that you disapprove of what is happening on my blog or your own personal experiences.  All the doctors are members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and they can institute changes quicker than the government.  


439,150

The day after Randy's fifth's month anniversary of his death

I survived yesterday quite well.  I was surprised.  I did not cry once.  However, I did have flashbacks.

When I first was banned from seeing Randy in 2011 I asked one of the nurses if she would wheel Randy in his wheelchair to the common visitor's room so he could look out and see me on the sidewalk.  This she did.  They left him there alone.  He did not know what was happening.  He could see me.  He was gnarling at the large windows trying to get to me.  It was heart breaking.  I never asked for the staff to do this again. Now I am crying.

I still have to finish deconstructing Calder's report.  What Vancouver Coastal Health has done to discredit me is so bizarre it has to be believable.  I asked this past week for the report of  Dr. Georgia Nemetz, a psychologist in private practice who had been brought in by VCHA to conduct debriefings with GPC employees following the October 21, 2013, incident: the incident in which I was attacked by staff and security at GPC when I attempted to remove Randy from GPC.I acted in self-defence. When I receive it I will deconstruct it as well.

In Calder's Affidavit paragraph 19 he states that if I continue to have any access to GPC that there is a significant risk that staff at GPC, including Dr. Jame Dunne, who is crucial to the operation of GPC's respiratory ward, will quit or refuse to work on the respiratory ward at GPC.  Where in hell did he get that from.  Yes, Dr. Dunne do us a favour and quit. Just to reiterate in three years I spoke to Dunne a total of three times: totalling twenty minutes. I sent him numerous emails and he never replied to one of them.  As far as I am concerned this respected member of the medical establishment is a cry baby and don't get me going about Dr. John Fleetham, a bigger cry baby than Dr. Dunne..

In paragraph 20, Calder says that VCH has done all that it can to accommodate me in my requests to access Mr. Walker.  VCH is under significant pressure from other residents of GPC, families of those residents, staff at GPC, and WORKSAFE BC to protect the safety of all parties involved.  What residents, what families, what staff and I was told by Worksafe BC that they would never ask for the banning of anyone. And how did VCH accommodate me. They abused their powers and flaunted the law, no broke the law.. And now my Randy is dead, him being robbed of the time we could have been together.

What is wrong with Calder's and Nemetz's reports is I speculate that they were never made aware of the fact that Randy was not a prisoner at GPC and I only acted in self-defence.  Neither of them talked to me or saw the police report. I did not hit a police officer which Calder alledges. How could I intimidate staff at GPC when the staff are the experts in how to intimidate. What about the bruising I received on October 22, 2013 to which I have a witness. 

The best one is in paragraph 21 where Calder says that my behavior increases the risk of injury to herself.  Does that mean that staff is going to physically attack me again.  How can Clark, Wilson, VCH's lawyers allow such garbage to be entered as evidence against me wanting to see Randy.  But then lawyers do exactly what their clients tell them.

The deconstruction will continue...next post...

439086