There are daily reports about euthanasia on the blog www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca, go to it. This is important so you can understand all the issues. At my age, replicating this information limits my life experience.
My fear is about the dangers of euthanasia evidenced by my experience with DNRs without full informed consent or any consent. Randy would have died if I did not intervene on November 18 2013 and call 911 as GPC (VCH) would not because Dr. Dunn had a DNR on Randy. It was Randy's DNR not Dr. Dunn's. Dr. Dunn was told earlier (7:00 pm) to take off the DNR and he said he would consider it after he returned from Prince George. So much for CHANGING YOUR MIND and who owns your body. DNRs are no different than euthanasia, in reality, will you be able to change your mind? Each year DNRs cause more deaths than euthanasia ever will. A DNR tells staff not to give aggressive treatment to a patient.
Euthanasia is quick and painless while a DNR can dictate a death that can be long, very painful and terrifying. A DNR is a red flag saying to staff not to treat you aggressively. Why would anyone want to look forward to a heart attack or torture by waterboard (unable to breathe) when euthanasia is much more inviting.
And guess what, you the consumer are blamed as you are the ultimate decision maker.
Randys anniversary of his death is rapidly approaching. Every where I go and I see him. I am not crying as much but the pain is so regretful. I could have done more I keep telling myself. . But the circumstances of his death is causing me flashbacks and I cannot do very much. If I was not banned from seeing him by VCH. VCH caused Randy and me irreparable and unforgivable pain.
Randy had a green burial under trees and a mountain cliff. The day I buried him was cold but beautiful. The trip home on the ferry from Victoria was fitting as it was a cold but a beautiful day.
I want to demonstrate downtown with my sign and little Owen, but I cannot. I feel paralysed by grief. I only want to stay home. Perhaps, when spring comes, I will feel better. The sign says: If you cannot trust doctors to do a DNR, how can you trust doctors to do euthanasia.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Friday, March 4, 2016
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Andrew Coyne: Society has lost its way
February 29, 2016
Canada is making suicide a public service. Have we lost our way as a society?
By Andrew Coyne
Assisted suicide has gone, in the space of a year, from a crime, to something to be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, to a public service
When the Supreme Court, overturning Section 241(b) of the Criminal
Code, several votes of the House of Commons and its own previous ruling,
legalized assisted suicide last year, it did so on a particular
understanding of to whom and under what circumstances the new regime
would apply.
It would permit a physician, normally obliged by the code of his profession to save life, to take a life instead, at the request of 1, an adult who is 2, mentally competent and 3, clearly consents, in cases of 4, a "grievous and irremediable" medical condition that imposes 5, suffering that is "intolerable to the individual."
On its own, this made it legal to assist in suicide in a much broader set of circumstances than had previously been contemplated. The emphasis in all previous discussion - the basis of the apparent widespread public support for legalization - had been on persons who suffered, not just from an irremediable, but a terminal condition, such that suicide would merely hasten the inevitable; who were in acute physical pain, rather than enduring subjectively "intolerable" suffering, which the court was clear could be physical or psychological; and who were, or feared they might become, physically unable to kill themselves on their own.
So the court not only opened the door to assisted suicide, but opened it a little wider than it had been asked to. Nonetheless, it remained confident that the door would open no further. Indeed, the ruling arguably depended on it. The Crown's case for retaining the prohibition, after all, had rested on the concern that the logic of assisted suicide would not permit it to be limited to the sort of narrow circumstances the court had in mind. Expert testimony was called on the experience in Belgium and other countries, where eligibility for assisted suicide has been extended to children, the mentally incompetent, and others.
The court found this sort of "anecdotal" evidence unpersuasive. These countries, it said, had a very different "medico-legal culture" than ours. In Canada, the "risks" of legalized killing could be limited "through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards."
That was a year ago. The court's ruling has not yet taken effect, and already we have the report of an all-party joint committee on "physician-assisted dying" recommending legislation that would go far beyond what the court prescribed.
To be sure, the report builds on the court's foundations. It would apply to both terminal and non-terminal conditions, physical and psychological, debilitating or otherwise. But its definition of a competent adult would not exclude people with mental illnesses - which is to say virtually all current suicides - nor people who had previously expressed the wish to be killed in the event they should later become mentally incompetent. Moreover, after a three-year trial period, it recommends extending the practice to what it calls "mature minors," a term left undefined.
Not only would "assisted dying" be legalized, under the committee's recommendation, it would be publicly funded.
Not only would doctors be permitted to kill their patients on
request, they would be obliged to, or provide "effective referral" to
others who will. And while the committee suggests that those seeking
assistance in killing themselves should be required to get two doctors
to certify they met the criteria, the criteria are so open-ended it is
hard to see in what circumstances they could say no. In any event: the
consent of two doctors? Where have we heard that before? What if none
are available? How long could it be before the Supreme Court rules on
the inequity of denying "access" on these grounds?
Indeed, no sooner had the report been released than advocates were pushing to expand its bounds. For example, should eligibility be restricted to "mature" minors? Could it, in law or conscience? As Dr. Derrick Smith, chair of the physicians' advisory council of Dying with Dignity Canada, told the CBC, "obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, 'Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering.' "
Well, of course. Once you have normalized suicide, from a tragedy we should seek to prevent to a release from suffering we should seek to assist, it is logically incoherent - indeed, it is morally intolerable - to restrict its benefits to some, while condemning others to suffer interminably, merely on the grounds that they are incapable of giving consent. So it is that assisted suicide has gone, in the space of a year, from a crime, to something to be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, to a public service. Perhaps you see this as progress. But I cannot help feeling that a society that can contemplate putting children to death has somehow lost its way.
It would permit a physician, normally obliged by the code of his profession to save life, to take a life instead, at the request of 1, an adult who is 2, mentally competent and 3, clearly consents, in cases of 4, a "grievous and irremediable" medical condition that imposes 5, suffering that is "intolerable to the individual."
On its own, this made it legal to assist in suicide in a much broader set of circumstances than had previously been contemplated. The emphasis in all previous discussion - the basis of the apparent widespread public support for legalization - had been on persons who suffered, not just from an irremediable, but a terminal condition, such that suicide would merely hasten the inevitable; who were in acute physical pain, rather than enduring subjectively "intolerable" suffering, which the court was clear could be physical or psychological; and who were, or feared they might become, physically unable to kill themselves on their own.
Assisted suicide was presented, paradoxically, as a way of extending lifeAssisted suicide was thus presented, paradoxically, as a way of extending life, rather than shortening it, sparing patients from what the court called the "cruel choice" to which they would otherwise be subject: kill themselves while they were able, at the cost perhaps of several years of life, rather than endure the pain and indignity that might come with waiting for nature to take its course. Yet the court's decision did not depend upon this dilemma being present. It was enough that a competent adult was suffering, intolerably and irremediably, and wanted help killing himself. The necessity of the assistance was not at issue.
So the court not only opened the door to assisted suicide, but opened it a little wider than it had been asked to. Nonetheless, it remained confident that the door would open no further. Indeed, the ruling arguably depended on it. The Crown's case for retaining the prohibition, after all, had rested on the concern that the logic of assisted suicide would not permit it to be limited to the sort of narrow circumstances the court had in mind. Expert testimony was called on the experience in Belgium and other countries, where eligibility for assisted suicide has been extended to children, the mentally incompetent, and others.
The court found this sort of "anecdotal" evidence unpersuasive. These countries, it said, had a very different "medico-legal culture" than ours. In Canada, the "risks" of legalized killing could be limited "through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards."
That was a year ago. The court's ruling has not yet taken effect, and already we have the report of an all-party joint committee on "physician-assisted dying" recommending legislation that would go far beyond what the court prescribed.
To be sure, the report builds on the court's foundations. It would apply to both terminal and non-terminal conditions, physical and psychological, debilitating or otherwise. But its definition of a competent adult would not exclude people with mental illnesses - which is to say virtually all current suicides - nor people who had previously expressed the wish to be killed in the event they should later become mentally incompetent. Moreover, after a three-year trial period, it recommends extending the practice to what it calls "mature minors," a term left undefined.
Not only would "assisted dying" be legalized, under the committee's recommendation, it would be publicly funded.
Fred Dufour/Getty Images
An all-party committee on assisted dying is recommending that it be publicly funded.
Indeed, no sooner had the report been released than advocates were pushing to expand its bounds. For example, should eligibility be restricted to "mature" minors? Could it, in law or conscience? As Dr. Derrick Smith, chair of the physicians' advisory council of Dying with Dignity Canada, told the CBC, "obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, 'Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering.' "
Well, of course. Once you have normalized suicide, from a tragedy we should seek to prevent to a release from suffering we should seek to assist, it is logically incoherent - indeed, it is morally intolerable - to restrict its benefits to some, while condemning others to suffer interminably, merely on the grounds that they are incapable of giving consent. So it is that assisted suicide has gone, in the space of a year, from a crime, to something to be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, to a public service. Perhaps you see this as progress. But I cannot help feeling that a society that can contemplate putting children to death has somehow lost its way.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
1.7% of doctors
How can we trust doctors when they refused to fill out a survey on medical assisted death. Only 1.7% of doctors in Canada filled out the Canadian Medical Association's survey. Every single doctor should have filled out the survey with comments. Maybe then they would know what is going on. I spoke to a doctor three weeks ago and he did not even know that euthanasia was on the table.
Earlier this year, the CMA invited its 80,000 members to participate in an online survey about assisted death. Of the 1,407 members who responded, 29 per cent said they would consider providing assisted dying, while 63 per cent said they would not, the CMA reported.
With a report by CTV’s medical specialist Avis Favaro
Earlier this year, the CMA invited its 80,000 members to participate in an online survey about assisted death. Of the 1,407 members who responded, 29 per cent said they would consider providing assisted dying, while 63 per cent said they would not, the CMA reported.
With a report by CTV’s medical specialist Avis Favaro
Friday, February 26, 2016
EPC Response to Recommendations for Euthanasia
Canadian government Assisted Dying recommendations will not protect people.
The
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is a national organization
representing groups and individuals representing medical, personal and
disability perspectives since 1999 with the purpose of protecting people
from euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Research proves that the misuse of Assisted Dying in jurisdictions where it is legal has resulted in deaths without an explicit request, assisted deaths of people with a wrong diagnosis, the under reporting of assisted deaths, and assisted death of people with treatable psychiatric conditions including depression.
Research proves that the misuse of Assisted Dying in jurisdictions where it is legal has resulted in deaths without an explicit request, assisted deaths of people with a wrong diagnosis, the under reporting of assisted deaths, and assisted death of people with treatable psychiatric conditions including depression.
EPC urges the federal government to:
Alex Schadenberg (London ON) EPC Executive Director, (519) 851-1434 (cell) info@epcc.ca
Hugh Scher (Toronto ON) EPC Legal Counsel, (416) 816-6115 (cell) hugh@sdlaw.ca
Amy Hasbrouck (Montreal QC) Toujours Vivant Not Dead Yet, (450) 921-3057, tigrlily61@gmail.com
Dr. Will Johnston (Vancouver BC) EPC – BC Chair, (604) 220-2042.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, 1-877-439-3348, info@epcc.ca, www.epcc.ca
- devise guidelines with clear oversight that cannot be abused.
- reject the concept that assisted dying is a form of medical treatment.
- reject assisted death for people who are incompetent to make decisions.
- devise clear guidelines to ensure that people, who are experiencing a vulnerable time of their life, will not die an assisted death, based on situational depression.
- protect the conscience rights of healthcare institutions.
- protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who reject that killing patients is an acceptable medical act. Medical professionals must not be forced, in any manner to participate in killing their patients.
- increase support for palliative care, home care for people with disabilities, mental health services and suicide prevention.
Alex Schadenberg (London ON) EPC Executive Director, (519) 851-1434 (cell) info@epcc.ca
Hugh Scher (Toronto ON) EPC Legal Counsel, (416) 816-6115 (cell) hugh@sdlaw.ca
Amy Hasbrouck (Montreal QC) Toujours Vivant Not Dead Yet, (450) 921-3057, tigrlily61@gmail.com
Dr. Will Johnston (Vancouver BC) EPC – BC Chair, (604) 220-2042.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, 1-877-439-3348, info@epcc.ca, www.epcc.ca
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Flashbacks
I haven't been posting to this blog as I have not been feeling well. Mostly attributable to flashbacks of how Randy died and how Vancouver Coastal Health treated us. VCH knew Randy was dying and yet it banned me from seeing him before he died based on false information. I was a victim of its psychological abuse. It was designed.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Canada's euthanasia lobby pushes euthanasia for people who cannot consent.
Sounds familiar. A senior gives power of attorney to her niece and the next day the niece finds a doctor who certifies the senior is incapable and the senior loses all her legal rights. She becomes a non-person. This is even better, the senior is euthanized.
Will a NHL hockey player who has a concussion and cannot remember your name will he be classified as dementia and his consent will not be necessary to be euthanized..
Call you MP (Member of Parliament and MLA) and say you are opposed to euthanasia except with court oversight. Busy doctors and social workers are not to be trusted. Doctors put DNRs on patients without consent so it would be equally easy for a doctor to put an euthanasia Order on a patient as well.
Like in Belgium, forget about hospice and palliative care, Belgium got euthanasia.
Justice Lynn Smith said that it was okay based on questionable statistics provided to the Court that it is alright for a few people to be wrongly euthanized as their lives could be written off as collateral damage.`
Canada's euthanasia lobby pushes euthanasia for people who cannot consent.
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
A recent poll commissioned by the euthanasia lobby was designed to pressure Canada's parliament to approve euthanasia for incompetent people with advanced dementia.
The Supreme Court February 2015 Carter decision permitted euthanasia for:
“a competent adult person whoThe Supreme Court decision stated that the person must clearly consent, but the euthanasia lobby is not satisfied with limiting euthanasia to consenting adults so they designed a poll to suggest that 80 per cent of Canadians agree that individuals with a terminal medical condition like dementia should be permitted to consent to assisted death in advance.
(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.”
According to a recent study from Belgium, where assisted death was legalized for competent adults in 2002, there were more than 1000 assisted deaths without explicit request in 2013.
The euthanasia lobby wants you to believe that they only support euthanasia for people who are competent, terminally ill and suffering, but in reality they also want euthanasia without an explicit consent for incompetent people.
The euthanasia lobby wants you to believe that they only support euthanasia for people who are competent, terminally ill and suffering, but in reality they also want euthanasia without an explicit consent for incompetent people.
If this is
about "freedom of choice," as the euthanasia lobby claims, how can it be
assured that the person with dementia is freely choosing to be killed?
The
euthanasia lobby is not satisfied with the Supreme Court decision to
limit killing to people who clearly consent, they also want death for
people who they define as better off dead and who cannot consent. Another soon to be constitutional issue: fFor equality under the Constitution anyone can ask to be dead without even being ill: everyone is entitled to a safe and painless death.
CARP wants euthanasia on demand (searchh Susan Eng)
The Humanists want euthanasia on demand.Dying with Dignity want euthanasia on demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)