Confusion Bill C-14

Confusion about Bill C-14 (Medical-Aid-in-Dying). It has to be rewritten so a Second Grader can understand it.

__________________________________________________________________

The Supreme Court of Canada changed Lynn Smith's Declaratory Orders (2012) and left out that MAID applicants had to be fully-informed and non-ambivalent.ne minute you might want MAID, next minute not sure.  These end-of-life decisions have to be videotaped (see Switzerland). These words function as safeguards and should be written in Bill C-14.

When something confusing is explained to me, I will initially understand it (trust the teacher), but it might be just a surface thing.  But given time I might not understand it as my life experiences will question it.

A person can be competent to marry but not competent to handle his finances.  Figure that one out.  This is true in British Columbia.  Mental capacity is hard to measure by a doctor especially if he is time pressured and the $resources are not available to do more than an adequate job.  A MAID applicant might be borderline incompetent but the doctor decides to approve a MAID assessment "in good faith" "best interest of the patient." He will say that the MAID applicant is competent enough to make such a decision.  The next day the applicant becomes incompetent (full dementia takes a long time, early stage dementia (forgetting where you put your car keys) means an applicant can still makes decisions). Since an applicant has to be competent to die he cannot agree to die if he is incompetent.  To avoid this possibility, the medics have to expedite death.  But if you have at an advanced medical directive saying you do not want medical treatment that would most probably cause death this advanced directive is to be followed. However if you want death (MAID) you cannot have an advanced directive.  Figure that one out.

Also, the safeguard that a MAID applicant can change his mind is questionable. 

Safeguard 3(d) (search “parliament” then search “ bill c-14”)
(d) ensure that the person has been informed that he may, at any time and in any manner, withdraw his request;

Who is the applicant to tell and in what manner. And may means maybe or ask permission.  The word may has to be replaced with can.  When I had the personal experience of asking a doctor to remove a DNR from my husband's medical chart, the doctor refused.  I was later told that my husband could not change his mind after he talked to me as I might influence him.  Of course I will try to convince him to live.  If I wanted him to die that would be different.  What does that mean, a hospital doctor knows more about what the applicant wants than his wife.  So now we are in the field of what is ambivalence.  A DNR is like MAID, it is an advanced directive.  Now we are into the territory of why is it that only three countries in the world have advanced directives. That is evidence to suggest that advanced directives are not a good thing.  I do not know, but I am sure that it has very little to do with pain but hastening death does save time and money for the health system.  How is suffering different than pain. I am confused.

I am very upset over a statement made on a Friday CBC news commentary that doctors can go to its only mandated “insurance company” CMPA, Canadian Medical Protection Association, to get legal advice on what a doctor should do. I thought that such information would be under the purview of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. This is very confusing as the CMPA is not an insurance company, it is a trade union for doctors. The doctors pay membership fees to it, most of which is reimbursed by government to the physicians (conflict of interest). The CMPA has $billions in funds to defend any doctor against any complaint be it malpractice or being rude to a family member. Since it is not an insurance company, CMPA is not subject to laws that insurance companies have to follow. Nothing happens to a member no matter how often he screws up or how much money the CMPA pays out on his behalf. Knowing this doctors do not lose any sleep over their errors.

It totally confuses me that we should trust doctors with euthanasia when in the USA in 2015 $200 billion was spent on medical litigation (Forbes magazine). Proportionally based on Canada's population that would equate to a little less than $20 billion in Canada.  If doctors are so trustworthy why are we $litigating them so much? Stupid me, we must allow doctors to make mistakes so our pain and/or suffering can be translated into a financial windfall.  Careless mistakes by doctors can end our lives. So why then do doctors make so many mistakes? Because they can.  Because nothing of consequence happens to them. The regulatory college might embarrass them if they sexually touch someone but there is no punishment for illegally hastening a patient's death.  And now with MAID health professionals have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Also Bill C-14 has to be rewritten so all of us can understand it (especially children as it is part of the government’s plan to add them later). The current Quebec End-of-Life Act is written as a template to fit this criterion.

Also Bill C-14 has to be rewritten so all of us can understand it (especially children as it is part of the government’s plan to add them later). The current Quebec End-of-Life Act is written as a template to fit this criterion.

Ask a senator or a member of parliament to enact the "notwithstanding clause” so MAID can be studied further.

We have to get Bill C-14 right as the whole world is looking at us.

----------

Email a senator and/or a member of parliament and send a copy to Caitlin Gropp, Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Caitlin.Gropp@sen.parl.gc.ca 1-613-943.4600.  

Search “parliament” then search “members” for their contact information. Letters are good too: Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0A6.   Believe me, a contact even at this late date can make a difference.

Further information (604.321.2276):  audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com

http://voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com

26 May 2016

Detroit Burning (2016)

Compassionate Eye CBC documented Detroit.  It now has a popoulation of 700,000 down from a population of 1,800.000.  In a year the fire department has to attend to 30,000 fires.  The evacutees are living homes vacate and up to 80 fires can start each day. Detroit looks like a war zone.  No, the homes are not insured.  Vacant homes are not insurable. So much for shipping jobs/industries out of America.

Bill C-14 - May 18 2016

Comments May 18 2016

I have been watching CPAC (cable channel 123) and I am getting addicted to it.  It is like a reality show but it is real.

Mulcair (NDP) is a lawyer and he is saying that Bill C-14 is unconstitutional. He said there was just a court case in Alberta that said Bill C-14 is unconstitutional.  I hope to hear more about that decision.  He said that the government is trying to pass the legislation by exhaustion.  Sitting in front of the television alone is exhausting.  I am developing a real respect for some of the legislators.  The hours they put is more than 8 hours a day.

I keep looking for discussions on safeguards. They seem to be worried about safeguarding professional health care workers.  And what safeguards do we have against patients. How do we do know that the physicians are doing their job in good faith.  It seems that a doctor only has to say that he made an error but he did it in good faith (i.e. he believed it to be true).  In any other work an error would get an employee fired but not true for doctors.

From reading Bill C-14 it says that only one doctor has to determine capability; the second doctor only approves the paperwork.  A doctor who is overworked and for expediency steers his bias towards death as he believes it is what the patient wants even though the patient might show uncertainty.  He can circumvent the minimal safeguards be they written in Bill C-14 or whatever the regulators (Colleges) mandate.

10:23 am

The Alberta Appeal Court decision reflected the Carter decision and not the proposed Bill C-14.  A woman was granted the right to MAID (medical aid in dying) and is not terminal (CBC) and had a psychiatric condition (severe conversion disorder).  C-14 says that a person cannot ask for MAID unless she is terminal and does not suffer from a mental illness.  The decision was affidavidized by four physicians (one was a shrink who did his assessment by Skype).

In the light of this (CPAC) the Minister of Justice still wants to pass Bill C-14.  Jody says the proposed Bill must pass fundamentally as is because there are many people out there that want MAID under the above criteria and it would not be constitutional for them to wait when they are suffering intolerably.  The Liberals want to enact a law that says no one under 18, no one who is mentally ill,  has to be terminal, and no to conscience objections of health care professionals. Time of reflection is ten days instead of fifteen. Carter says MAID has to be approved by a court (oversight) for Taylor; the government says doctors are best to do the MAID assessment.  Bill C-14 is not Carter. However, the BCCA said doctors are the worst people to know if a patient is competent or incompetent.

12:12 pm

Elizabeth May (Green Party) asked the House to amend Bill C-14 to comply with Carter.  Justin said that in committee this question was discussed with the Colleges.

I personally would like to see Bill C-14 rewritten so that anyone can go to the Act C-14 and understand it (especially medical personnel). A check list.  Considering how important this Act is, this should happen  The way it is now if someone does not understand Bill C-14 or the Carter decison he has to go and see a lawyer and the lawyer most like does not understand it and he will charge him $800 to do research (that is if he can find a lawyer to help him.)  Lawyers do not want to get involved with  regulatory health law.  So, you have no choice but to trust doctors/social workers who may not know what informed consent is.  Informed consent is legally complex. I personally do not believe that one can have informed consent when you are in the health care system.  You are in hospital, you are sick, you are vulnerable, you are relying on strangers to tell you what to do.

The crux of the Carter decision is the Constitution:  Canadians have the right to life but not a duty to live.  The right to life means you own your body.  A duty to live means the State owns you. Figure that one out.

Why is euthanasia singled out for legislative safeguards?

I have been following Bill C-14 (medical aid in dying) on CPAC (Channel 123) and PARLVU the best I could. Conventional media is not detailing very much.

I am not convinced about the safeguards. There is parliamentary discussion about safeguards if an applicant wants to die a safe and painless death "euthanasia".  But there is no parliamentary/legislative safeguards concerning refusal of treatment, withdrawal of treatment, palliative sedation (use of morphine), advance directives, or DNRs, the intent of all is to hasten death. Why protect euthanasia more so than these other methods.

There is a disconnect between the Government and the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Government says that a health care professional should have conscience objection protection but the College says that a physician's job is to treat a patient i.e. do what a patient wants.  So it comes down to whose constitutional rights are more important, a physician's or a patient's.

At this moment in time I would go with the senate who is asking for an amendment that doctor's have the right to refuse to assist MAID applicants.

Also the federal government should not download MAID to the provinces.  On this most important issue there has to be strong oversight.
--------------------------

Today it was reported that $86 million has been raised for Fort McMurray. It is not very much:only 86 houses X $1 million each

Should We Recriminalize Euthanasia

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Garnet Genuis MP: Without amendments, euthanasia Bill C-14 "will protect no one."

Garnett Genuis is the Member of Parliament from Sherwood Park / ­Fort Saskatchewan.

Garnet Genuis

I want to be clear that I do not believe in an all-or-nothing approach. Many of my colleagues and I who have broad philosophical concerns about what is happening here are still willing to vote in favour of legislation that does not re-criminalize euthanasia, if it advances positively in the direction of saving some lives, especially minimizing the risk to vulnerable persons. However, this legislation does not contain meaningful safeguards. Without amendment, it will protect no one.

We know that this law has written exceptions. However, it has exceptions to the exceptions; and may I say it has exceptions to the exceptions that are not at all exceptional?

This legislation has a requirement for the provision of written consent. However, if people cannot provide written consent, someone else can do it on their behalf.

This legislation prescribes a waiting period. However, the waiting period does not apply in the event of possible imminent death or loss of capacity.

There is so much ambiguity here.

The government has said that mental illness is excluded. However, in section 241.2(2) the legislation clearly states that physical or psychological suffering qualifies a person to seek premature death.

The legislation says that death must be “reasonably foreseeable”. May I say that death is reasonably foreseeable for all of us? It is those who think that death is not reasonably foreseeable who probably need the medical attention. Why not put in the word “terminal”? When I was learning to drive, my mother thought that death was “reasonably foreseeable” every time we got into the car. That is no criterion.

There is a requirement that two physicians sign off. However, given the huge ambiguities, obviously doctors are likely to have a wide range of interpretations of the rules. The estimates are that there are 77,000 physicians in this country, and the likely practice of doctor-shopping will ensure that people who think they meet the wooly and ambiguous criteria can somewhere find two physicians.

The member for Victoria said earlier today that this is something doctors do every day. No, it is not. Doctors do not take lives every day. This is fundamentally different from the normal practice of medicine. When we have so many different doctors and opinions to choose from, these are not effective safeguards.

Given these five comically ridiculous exceptions to the exceptions, there is no doubt that detailed provincial legislation or regulation will be required in every case. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me what this law is supposed to accomplish.

Further, there are two key areas where the prevailing rules under this law would leave us demonstrably worse off than the Carter ruling alone.

First, there is a terrifying clause in this bill, which states that if someone kills someone else but can demonstrate, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that he or she had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied then that person cannot be penalized. We can find that at 241(6). Therefore, we can kill someone who did not consent and escape prosecution on the basis of reasonable but mistaken belief. Whatever is done, I implore the government to take this very dangerous section out. This is going even beyond the Belgian model.

Second, this legislation provides no protection for conscience rights, despite the court's clear statement that nothing in this decision required particular health care practitioners to be involved, and despite the clear assurance of the Canadian Medical Association that access does not require taking away section 2 conscience rights.

This legislation constitutes a perfect storm. Ambiguous criteria, no advance legal review, no conscience protection, and allowances for doctor-shopping are not meaningful safeguards at all. The bill leaves patients, seniors, the sick, and the disabled vulnerable to error and systemic abuse. We have seen this in Belgium before. I have quoted the studies during questions and comments. We do not want to go down this road in Canada at all. . . .

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on May 2, 2016.

Nuances

Whatever is happening to me is very disturbing.  It seems that it has been forever that I wake up  in the morning soaking wet to flashbacks of what happened to Randy and me.

None of what happened was necessary.  The best I can conclude is that it was cultural; the professional health care personnel most of who I dealt with were professionals from other cultures rather than Canada and the nuances of their culture dictate negatively into our health care system.  Coming from regimes of corruption will only transfer to our culture.  At one time CBC was the standard of behavior we knew; now that does not exist. How can you quickly culturize new Canadians. Waiting two generations is too long.