A post by a neuro-oncologist in Texas: the way it is

You heard it here first: the uninsured, underinsured, lower socioeconomic
white and minority groups who have no family support will be "encouraged"
to consider assisted suicide when it becomes legal. Why? because those
are the same people who are being neglected and murdered by our healthcare
system now.”

“Physicians are under increasing pressure to not offer patients care.
Sometimes this pressure comes from the hospital or medical staff, sometimes
from the insurance company. One medical staff chief tried to force me to
withdraw from the hospital staff because the nursing staff had complained
to him that taking care of brain tumor patients is "depressing." Another
hospital tried to prevent my patients from being admitted to the ICU
because "it's a waste of resources." I have had numerous calls from
insurance case managers wanting to know why my patients were admitted
instead of being referred for hospice. One of my patients, a thirty year
survivor, was told by his insurance company that he should "consider"
hospice. And this is a man who has a KPS of 90 and has been in remission
over 25 years!


A like scenario happens in Canadian hospitals each day. 

from ALERT
 

Kathryn Judson, Oregon

Doctors use this type of rationalization to coerce DNRs and withdrawals of treatment.  Although the below happened in Oregon, I was a witness to it happening in Canada. 

Sometimes doctors take the lead in assisting suicide. The following classic letter from an Oregonian is an example.
"Dear Editor, 
Hello from Oregon. 
When my husband was seriously ill several years ago, I collapsed in a half-exhausted heap in a chair once I got him into the doctor's office, relieved that we were going to get badly needed help (or so I thought). 
To my surprise and horror, during the exam I overheard the doctor giving my husband a sales pitch for assisted suicide. 'Think of what it will spare your wife, we need to think of her' he said, as a clincher. 
Now, if the doctor had wanted to say 'I don't see any way I can help you, knowing what I know, and having the skills I have' that would have been one thing. If he'd wanted to opine that certain treatments weren't worth it as far as he could see, that would be one thing. But he was tempting my husband to commit suicide. And that is something different. 
I was indignant that the doctor was not only trying to decide what was best for David, but also what was supposedly best for me (without even consulting me, no less). 
We got a different doctor, and David lived another five years or so. But after that nightmare in the first doctor's office, and encounters with a 'death with dignity' inclined nurse, I was afraid to leave my husband alone again with doctors and nurses, for fear they'd morph from care providers to enemies, with no one around to stop them. 
It's not a good thing, wondering who you can trust in a hospital or clinic. Sincerely,
Kathryn Judson, Oregon"

3

Choice is an Illusion, a blog

Many jurisdictions without legal assisted suicide (medical aid in dying) Bill C-14 already have a significant problem with some doctors and nurses administering lethal drugs to non-consenting, non-dying patients. Or use other questionable end-of-life possible options. 

If you can't control the abuses now, why would you give doctors and nurses more power to abuse patients by legalizing it?

What is happening goes beyond euthanasia, it is the blatant abuse that is an everyday "doubling" practice.  These professionals hasten death because they believe that is best for whatever reason and then they go home to their families and churches without regret.  

If a patient asks for euthanasia, then, it is an expedited "green light."


 

How mean GPC was

I came across a memo dated February 2014 saying that a friend of mine and Randy's who was visiting Randy was told that he was not allowed to use his cell phone so Randy could hear my voice because Randy was not allowed to communicate with me.  This is how George Pearson Centre behaves.  Outrageous.  My bereavement over Randy's death is now escalating into a slow rage, justifiably so.  Who told Ro Ang to do this.  Ro Ang is the manager of George Pearson Centre and she caused us much pain and demoralisation and robbed us of being together during the last  months of his life. She managed to get me banned from George Pearson Centre. The staff was afraid of me as I might take a picture of them.  I could not see Randy. Instead of discussing any concerns she had, she reported me to the Public Guardian and Trustee. Why.  Randy was dying and she created a summit conference in January 2014 with the PGT to make sure I never saw Randy alive again.  And we must not forget that she was advised by VCH's lawyers that it was okay to do this. This woman did not even attempt to manage the situation. What did Richard say, zero tolerance.  I was 70-years old then. What did I do that was so grievous. What was grievous was Ro refusing to give me one of Randy's baseball caps (Steelers) so I could put it in his coffin.  No, that was not possible I was told because the cap was Randy's and not mine.  And, just as grievous was she would not let me go to Randy's memorial service or talk to any of Randy's friends.  Immediately after VCH had a meeting with the PGT in January 2014, I was 100% banned. These agencies are good at endorsing each other's recommendations "consults" that they can do what they want hyperbolized with "on the advice of its lawyer." The Public Guardian and Trustee supposedly an independent semi-judicial body, it is a body that has unique statutory powers, but it seems to do exactly what VCH expects of them.   Randy was a quad, could not talk as he had a tach, and he was often unresponsive because he was depressed.  They never asked me if Randy was depressed so they labelled him incompetent.  Of course, Randy would be depressed as he knew he was dying and he was prevented from seeing me.  Ro had a vindictive agenda, a path to ensure that I would never see Randy again. I can see her and her co-workers going to Whistler on a paid retreat to discuss me wanting to visit Randy and how to prevent it. Lamenting over drinks. I caught social workers laughing at me behind my back.  Perhaps, GPC concurred that it was in Randy's best interest to be divorced from me. That was not up to her to decide, it was up to Randy.  And to think she is still employed robbing others of their rights. Egregiously, mean.  But then she was of the opinion that Randy had no quality of life and that he should have a DNR/DNT on him. DNRs are dangerous as they can hasten death.

Help needed to tenant "teardowns"

One of my concerns is the lack of affordable rental housing.  In the Cambie, Granville, Oakridge neighbourhoods, there are hundreds of teardowns are vacant and could be rented even for a short period of time.  I was told that we should contact City Hall.

I have drafted out the following and if you so want can you call 311 and voice your opinion.

On Cambie I know of ten rental homes/houses on ONE block that are vacant because the new owners want to demolish them and rebuild.  The new owner might just want to flip them as it is easier to resell if the property is vacant. Or there maybe other reasons.

Such homes could be rerented until all the permits are issued which could take years. The may be  proposed $10,000 City fine for vacant units will not apply to teardowns. The vacant tax is designed for long term rentals not teardowns.


These homes are vacant, some are boarded up, they are an invitation to be vandalized, and for arson. Empty homes are a public safety issue.  A danger that the public purse will pay for.

The Riley Park housing complex (Little Mountain) was demolished eight years ago and it is still not developed.

Short term rentals would be good for students and families who are in housing transition.

Phone 311 "feedback" and ask 311 to message "Mayor and Council" and the "Housing Department." Say you want the teardowns to be rented until legitimate construction starts. Or email: housing@vancouver.ca.


Every call is put into the 311 data base for statistical purposes. 311 is open seven days a week from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm.

My cousin and the Power of Attorney Act

There it is:

19(3)  An attorney must do all of the following:

 

( a)  to the extent reasonable, give priority when managing the adult's financial affairs to meeting the personal care and health care needs of the adult;

( b)  unless the enduring power of attorney states otherwise, invest the adult's property only in accordance with the Trustee Act;

( c)  to the extent reasonable, foster the independence of the adult and encourage the adult's involvement in any decision-making that affects the adult;

( d)  not dispose of property that the attorney knows is subject to a specific testamentary gift in the adult's will, except if the disposition is necessary to comply with the attorney's duties;

( e)  to the extent reasonable, keep the adult's personal effects at the disposal of the adult.

My cousin managed to break four of these terms.  I do not know about (b).

For those that have not read my posts about my cousin who put my aunt in a nursing home/assisted living home on numerous occasions from 2014 to 2016 (see (d)) in an attempt to sell her home from out from under her so that upon her death her home no longer existed.  Her designated beneficiary was her church.  He did not consult with her.  He also did not consult with her honestly when he arranged to dispose of my aunt's car which was in excellent condition although it was 50 years old.  It was not a pile of junk which is what he told my aunt. 

I blame the lawyer, Debra Burden, who drew the power of attorney who did not impress on my cousin what his duties were.  She should have had him sign off on the above clause.

The most important part of this is (c) he cannot do anything unless my aunt is aware of whatever he is doing.  She was and is competent.  He cannot go behind her back.  How dare he.

I would like to know why the Public Guardian and Trustee did not rescind Allan Barton's power of attorney. 

Best interest for who

I came across a memo written by risk management in 2011 that said that it was going to allow me to be Randy's substitute decision maker as long as I had Randy's best interest.  What that means is as long as I agree to whatever VCH wants to do I could be his substitute decision maker.  It seems that a physician has legal arbitrariness to determine this.  Since I did not know anything medical, there was no fear of that. How could I, a rational person, go against what a doctor wants. I am not a health professional. I could comment on an observation respecting care but that is a remote outlier to a medical prognosis. Advocating for Randy, as he wanted to live, is not interferring with his care.  But it seems that according to VCH it was not in Randy's best interest to live.

How was it that Randy asked for a DNR to be placed on himself when he could not even talk or write and when he was unresponsive. When he was transferred from VGH to GPC on November 15 2013  he was not screaming that he wanted a DNR on him.  Not only a DNR but also a DNT (do not transfer order).  The DNT to guarantee if he was in medical distress that the nurses at GPC would not transfer him to acute care (VGH) so he could live. Randy was only 56 years at that time.

From the evidence from 2011 it is clear to me now but not then GPC was wanting to do damage control. The visiting ban would prevent me from seeing and hearing what was happening in the Ward.  For example, after I purchased a flat screenTV for Randy which I could ill afford it sat in a box for over a month.  It was not until a visitor phoned me and said "where is Randy's TV"....  And another time, a few days after Randy was first sent to George Pearson Centre, upon my visiting, Randy was very sick and it was I who brought this to the attention of the staff.  He immediately was transferred back to VGH. Then hell broke out for short period of time. There were numerous other narratives as well.

I just assumed that management was using incidents "red herring" that made no sense to me to have me banned (hours and days and access severely restricted) for being overly friendly which apparently upset patients, their families, and staff. The overly friendly part might be true but no one got upset. There was a big issue about wool bedding. About entering rooms when I had an implied invitation to do so.  And about flowers.  And about food.  Even a newspaper and a chair.   And the doggies. Doggies are allowed at VGH.  And the orchids I supposedly took from the garden. It got so bizarre that I was to be escorted to the toilet down a long hall when I went to visit Randy. So I decided to wear Depends.  I was also taking take a valium every time I went to GPC to curb my anxiety.

On the day I first met Nurse Ratchet at GPC in 2010 I was told that I would have to sign a visitation contract. I never did as she changed her mind. Randy had no rights, neither did I.  The rights only belonged to GPC.  They did everything possible to make me a basket case. I was negatively labeled and everyone acted as though I was to be avoided. I became a victim of prolonged psychological abuse by an alien fossilized institution that I did not understand. An institution that robs everyone of their civil rights "commonsense" including staff.

VCH took total advantage of an unequal playing field.  They abused their extreme superior power. It was brutal.  It was entrapment.  It was outrageous.  And they had a human hostage named "Randy."