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."

Really! Intolerable pain isn't the only reason for euthanasia; not even close..

"Almost all patients are in hospice, and almost all take the medications at home after telling loved ones of their decision," said Dr Blanke, who provided an update on Oregon's experience here at the Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium (PCOS) 2016.

It is relatively rare for patients to use DWD because they were suffering from inadequate pain palliation, he explained. The most common reasons were related to quality of life, autonomy, and dignity."

Because of a few, they have put us at all at risk.  One does not have to die in pain unless one choses to.  

Health Care Representation Agreement

This from the Health Professions Review Board:

2016-HPA-024(a); 2016-HPA-025(a); 2016-HPA-026(a); 2016-HPA-027(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia(Group File No. 2016-HPA-G03)
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of an Inquiry Committee disposition under s.50.6 HPA - Inquiry Committee disposition confirmed. The complaint to the College alleged that four Registrants ignored the Complainant’s designated health care representation agreement concerning his mother and that she was over-medicated with narcotics without proper consent. The mother subsequently passed away from numerous untreatable medical conditions. The original complaint concerned the actions of Registrant 1 and after the mother passed away was expanded to include the actions of three additional Registrants. The Inquiry Committee conducted a thorough investigation that provided key information. The investigation revealed the mother was experiencing significant severe pain on a constant basis and that treating health care staff were very distressed by her continued painful condition and the Complainant’s restriction on the use of pain analgesics through his enforcement of the health care representation agreement. Concerned that they were not acting in the mother’s best interests, on behalf of the mother, Registrant 1 removed the Complainant from the medical decision making role and began prescribing analgesics to alleviate her pain. In a disposition that is detailed, transparent, intelligible and justified the Inquiry Committee had no criticism of the Registrants’ actions. The investigation was deemed thorough and adequate. The disposition is detailed, transparent, intelligible and defensible with respect to the law and facts.
June 6, 2016 (Posted July 4, 2016)

----

copy to Andrew Macfarlane, VCH. I have been asking you why I was stripped of my representation agreement and power of attorney and you have arrogantly refused to tell me.  Am I to assume from your decision that you can do this without due process. What was your legal justification.  In Randy's Representation Agreement he said that he did not want a DNR and yet VGH put a DNR on him.

According to the following, you are going to have to do some serious explaining.  From this HPA- 024 it would suggest that a representation agreement (the voice of the patient) can be overruled by a possee of doctors after the fact.  One of the reasons for refusal of drugs is that some patients do not want to take drugs as drugs dull their senses.

In Carter on page 66

[212] The Court concluded that provisions of the Ontario Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 262, granting a physician the authority to override the competent wishes of a patient where deemed to be in the patient's best interests, unjustifiably infringed the security of the person guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter. 

How was the complainant removed from the decision-making process in HPA-024.  By an invisible wave of the hand!

It is not what is in the best interest of the patient, it is what the patient wants.

What is the purpose of a representation agreement when doctors can overrule it at any time.   And it now seems that the BC high medical tribunal can also overrule the Charter. I think not.

On the flip side of this no mention was made whether or not the mother was competent to make medical decisions.  From what I understand, you can be incompetent to make financial decisions but you can still make medical decisions that can hasten your death. Am I mistaken in this belief.

In Carter on page 66

[212] The Court concluded that provisions of the Ontario Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 262, granting a physician the authority to override the competent wishes of a patient were deemed to be in the patient's best interests, unjustifiably infringed the security of the person guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter. 

A first: A child comits euthanasia in Belgium.

Dr. Distelmans confirmed today that the first case of a child euthanasia has taken place in Belgium. Little is known as the case was held outside the public eye. What is known is that the child had a terminal disease and personally requested the euthanasia. It has not been made public what age the child was. The dossier is in Dutch which would indicate that it happened in one of the hospitals in the flemish speaking part of Belgium.

The news release can be found here: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160916_02472929

Why don't we go back to a simpler time and legislate again that suicide is a criminal act.