The right to die with dignity

Unionist wrote:

Let me start your list with Section 287 of the Criminal Code - yeah, it's still there, intact, and no one has been prosecuted under it for about 30 years now. Notwithstanding the wannabe boyfriends grieving the loss of "their" "child", etc.

Quote:

CCC 287

The passage of time rendered that old law from the 60's irrelevent.  That and several tragic cases in Ontario stemming from C-43, and the fact that Parliament has not seen fit to re-submit legislation that turns a former 'criminal' matter into a purely medical discussion between doctor and patient.  In the Ontario medical marijuana case, R. vs. Parker, the court suspended it's ruling of invalidty of the applicable controlled substance laws because it made no provision for medical use.  The one year suspension was intended to allow government to review and change it's policies by amending the relevant acts.  So there is precedence for a grace period where the court tosses the ball back to the makers and amenders of law.  So we're talking about February 2015 for the Supreme Court ruling on assisted suicide, not quite one year, and there's been a government transition since.  In terms of assisted suicide, to my knowledge there has been no widespread ignoring of the relevant laws in favour of such personal decisions, with which a precedence by way of practice might be established, as was the case with abortion or personal marijuana consumption for medical purposes in several jurisdictions.

Montrealer, have you been smoking something?

Court tells opponents of physician-assisted suicide to drop dead... for 8 days! This drama is getting more gripping by the day. Too bad the Trudeau government didn't act courageously and tell Québec to just go ahead:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-s-assisted-dying-law-comes...'s assisted dying law comes into effect today[/url]

Quote:

Starting today, it is legal in Quebec for terminally ill patients to choose to die.

The province's end-of-life care bill, which was adopted in the National Assembly in June 2014, went into effect at midnight.

"People in this province have made the debate. They have concluded. There is a law….the principle of having the choice is something that people want to have," said Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette.

But patients may only have that choice for the next eight days, due to pending legal hearings. [...]

The Quebec Justice Ministry has already instructed Crown prosecutors not to pursue any doctors under the Criminal Code who perform medically assisted death operations.

And that's not all:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bloc-quebecois-special-co... Québécois holds up parliamentary committee on assisted dying[/url]

Quote:

The Trudeau government wants a special parliamentary committee to consult broadly on medically assisted dying and report back with recommendations for a new law by the end of February.

But the government's attempt to put a rush on the matter has been obstructed, for now, by the Bloc Québécois.

Bloc MPs are refusing to give unanimous consent to create the committee, protesting the fact that they won't have membership on any parliamentary committees because the party is two short of the dozen MPs required for official party status in the Commons.

And Elizabeth May tweeted

Elizabeth May wrote:

Bloc is blocking unanimous consent on a number of motions. It's a fight for rights of smaller parties. If I was there, I'd do the same. #hw

History in the making!

Slumberjack wrote:

What an idiot statement from May.  Its about the rights of the terminally ill, not of her stupid party to use the palliative body as a soapbox.

Re-read her tweet - it's less than 140 characters, shouldn't take long. She's obviously talking about a series of different motions, not the right to die issue.

Quote:

That aside, this does indeed represent progress for the individuals and/or families.  If buttons the cat can be put down, why not Uncle Bob, or better yet, Uncle Gary.

Seems you're trying to say something about assisted dying. Why not formulate your thoughts and write them down, for our benefit?

Unionist wrote:

Intentionally left blank

Ah, ok.  The matter at hand involves Quebec and so you're up on your haunches.

While I agree with both May and the Bloc caucus about the rights of smaller parties (and that is a matter of democracy, not what I think of either party), I do find it unfortunate that the Bloc was blocking unanimous consent, given Bloc MP Francine Lalonde's long and courageous fight for the right to die with dignity and for the person whose life is at issue to have the say in this matter.

Slumberjack, I really don't see what you are getting at here.

Though I support assisted suicide in other cases as well; as a matter of self-determination. Yes, there have to be safeguards against pressures on "bed-blockers", but most of the hysteria about that has been raised by so-called pro-lifers who have an animus to such choice, and dearly love to meddle in other people's lives.

Yes, I think the Bloc has been more forthright on this issue than the NDP has. They have also tended to take a better stance on Palestine, and have fought for EI to be used for its intended purpose and for an Algonquin group in Témiscamingue, where there was no political capital to be made.

Yes, I think it is a done deal and we don't have to worry about Margaret Somerville and her ilk trying to get their hands on our suffering bodies, come the time.

I can't for the life of me understand Paul Saba, whom I remember as a generally progressive figure - here is a short article about his activism back then:

https://voir.ca/societe/2000/05/03/debout-dr-paul-saba/

Unionist wrote:

I have no clue where SJ stands, and I invited him above to speak to the actual issue if he wanted to (you know, instead of engaging in mockery).

Well that's just too fucking funny coming out of you.  Anyway, I am in favour of assisted suicide if I have your leave to comment on an issue relating in some way to Quebec.  After all, one musn't overstep the well established boundaries that have been set down. Among the agenda items held up by the BQ, deliberations around assisted suicide were included, a procedural action which May seems to feel is a stand in favour of party 'rights.'  Well, I suppose it is, but it does nothing for anyone else's.

Great!

The Canadian Medical Association sheds crocodile tears and asks for death with dignity to remain a criminal offence just a little bit longer, so that it can get its communication materials together.

Thankfully, their concerns will not apply in Québec, which has spent six years preparing its physicians. I wonder what the CMA has been doing in the meantime??

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/cma-backs-request-for-court-extension-on-do... backs request for court extension on doctor-assisted dying deadline[/url]

Quote:

CMA spokesman Dr. Jeff Blackmer says the doctors group is "acutely sensitive" to concerns that an extension could be seen as prolonging the suffering of some patients.

But the CMA is able to overcome this momentary moral lapse.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/assisted-suicide-archdiocese-toron... of Toronto speaks out against assisted dying[/url]

Thomas Collins is the same hatemonger who publicly condemns the right to contraception and abortion, as we have [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/ratzinger-names-another-enemy-wome... previously[/url].

Didn't his God die for our sins? Couldn't Collins follow that example? Without assistance, of course.

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/manitoba-patient-wins-right-to-ph... patient wins right to physician-assisted death[/url]

Quote:

A terminally ill Manitoban has won legal authorization to have an immediate doctor-assisted suicide in the province's first case of its kind.

[...]

Court heard the patient in question is actually suffering from two terminal illnesses and likely has less than a month to live. The patient is seeking an immediate end to their life based on the fact they are experiencing "intolerable pain and suffering."

Court heard the patient has undergone rigorous medical and psychological evaluation and has been deemed competent to make the right-to-die decision based on criteria established by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/17/toronto-man-granted-right-to-... man granted right to physician-assisted death[/url]

Quote:

An 81-year-old man with aggressive, advanced stage lymphoma became the first person to be granted a physician-assisted death in Ontario after a ruling Thursday by Toronto Superior Court Justice Paul Perell. [...]

“Having reviewed the evidentiary record, I have concluded that A.B. satisfies the criteria,” for a physician-assisted death, Perell said, becoming emotional at times as he read his ruling.

The judge found that A.B. is an informed and competent adult with an irremediable illness who is suffering from great pain and has doctors willing to assist in his death.

A.B. was not present in court, but in a statement read by his lawyer, Andrew Faith, after Perell’s judgment, he said: “This decision allows me, with support of my caring physicians, to die with dignity.” [...]

A.B.’s request follows that of an Alberta woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, who was recently granted a constitutional exemption by a Calgary judge in order to have an assisted death. She died with the help of physicians in British Columbia soon after the ruling.

An exemption for an assisted death was also recently granted by a Winnipeg judge, Faith said in court Thursday.

RIP, A.B.

So the Liberal government, true to form, decides that human rights and Supreme Court decisions and committee recommendations are a ceiling - not a guideline. I'm sure these folks won't mind if I quote their release in full:

[url=http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/assisted_dying_bill_tabled]Dying With Dignity Canada responds as assisted dying bill tabled in Parliament[/url]

Quote:

Dying With Dignity Canada is raising serious concerns about the federal government’s newly announced legislation for physician-assisted dying.

Tabled on Thursday, the new legislation ignores keys recommendation’s put forward by the government-appointed Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying and risks depriving Canadians with dementia and other catastrophic chronic conditions of access to their hard-won right to die with the help of a doctor.

“We are deeply disappointed because we would expect this of the former administration, not from a government that came into power vowing to respect Canadians’ Charter rights,” said Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, the leading organization working to help Canadians avoid unwanted and unnecessary suffering at the end of life. “These harsh, discriminatory rules fly in the face of that expectation and will create unfair barriers to access to medical aid in dying. We expected better.”

Gokool condemned the government for apparently proposing to limit access to physician-assisted dying to individuals at end of life, a restriction that may contradict the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter v. Canada. “This rule could force thousands of Canadians with excruciating chronic illnesses to suffer against their will for years or even decades,” she said. “Our hearts go out to these individuals and their families.”

She also spoke out against denying Canadians with dementia or other catastrophic degenerative conditions the option to, while they are still competent, make advance requests for assisted dying, to be honoured once certain strict, pre-stated conditions are met. According to a recent poll commissioned by DWDC and conducted by Ipsos Reid, eight in 10 Canadians support this proposal, which was endorsed by Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying.

“Without the option of advance consent, Canadians with devastating conditions who want to exercise their right to physician-assisted dying may face a bleak choice: end their lives too early, while they are still competent; or risk waiting until it’s too late,” Gokool said.

In addition, DWDC is concerned that the ban on advance requests for assisted dying will effectively exclude most individuals with dementia from their right to die with the help of a physician. For a patient to be eligible for access to assisted dying under the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court, they have to be suffering intolerably as the result of a “grievous and irremediable” medical condition.

In the days ahead, Dying With Dignity Canada will be mobilizing its supporters to push Parliament to ensure that its legislation is compliant with the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter v. Canada and also with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“Canadians grappling with horrible diagnoses need to know that their right to a peaceful death will be respected in new legislation,” she said. “We ask for Parliamentarians to hear their call.”

And all three "major" parties will allow a free vote on this truncated bill, because, you know, human rights are a matter of individual conscience - not the human being's conscience, but the "conscience" of the politician.

Isn't death reasonably foreseeable for every living thing?

The backgrounder is actually worse than the bill.  By using "reasonable foreseeability" rather than "proximate" or "imminent", the was govt clearly hedging its bets and not wanting the law to be too openly contrary to Carter.  But the explanation makes the intention to apply this narrowly pretty clear.  Of course that doesn't mean it will be interpreted that way.

As a reporter asked the Ministers at a press conference this am, "This law seems to be focussed on avoiding an intolerable death.  What about those who wish to avoid an intolerable life?"

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/glos.html

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/16/liberals-have-met-only-bar... C-14 barely meets the threshold of the Supreme Court ruling that prompted its drafting. It falls far short of the recommendations of the majority of senators and MPs of all political stripes who studied the issue.[/url]

[url=http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/a_great_pity]Dr. David Amies: 'Milquetoast' assisted dying bill is a great pity[/url]

Quote:

Surely, no one was surprised when "nasty" Stephen kicked the issue into the long grass last year. That kind of stuff was not his cup of tea. Came October and White Knight, St. Justin entered the lists on his prancing steed, promising to write new legislation just as quickly as he could. Some Dying With Dignity Canada supporters pricked up our ears and said, “A Daniel has come among us!” In double quick time, a joint Parliamentary committee was set up, extensive hearings undertaken, scores of witnesses with skin in the game, gave evidence both for and against and a long and thoughtful report was issued and delivered to Parliament.

That report raised our hopes considerably. Among other things it suggested that mandatory waiting periods serve no purpose; that consideration should be given to requests from emancipated minors; advanced directives were recommended for acceptance and above all, those with serious mental health issues could be considered as candidates for medical aid in dying.

Comes the draft bill and we see that the joint Parliamentary committee was merely a charade — smoke and mirrors if you prefer. St. Justin turns out to be “all hat and no cattle” as they say in Texas, “no bottle” as they say Down Under or best of all, “… sound and fury signifying nothing.” (Macbeth, Shakespeare)

It very much looks as if the forces of the right wing and the anti-euthanasia brigade have got at him and that he has had an attack of cold feet.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oliphant-assisted-dying-1.3577663]Liberal MP Rob Oliphant says he can't support assisted-dying legislation[/url]

Quote:

Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, who the government appointed to co-chair a special committee study of medically assisted death, says he cannot support the government's bill to regulate the practice.

"I won't be supporting Bill C-14 as it currently stands, even with the minor amendments," Oliphant says.

The joint committee on physician-assisted dying was struck to consider how Parliament should respond to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Carter case. The court found that a total ban on medical assistance in death was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The committee, co-chaired by Oliphant, made 21 recommendations, particularly that medically assisted death be made available to "individuals with terminal and non-terminal grievous and irremediable medical conditions that cause enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition," including those suffering from mental illness.

After further consideration, the committee suggested, the practice should be opened to "mature minors." Individuals would also be able to provide "advance requests" before their illnesses became intolerable.

The government took a narrower approach in its legislation, not allowing advance requests and limiting access to those whose death was "reasonably foreseeable." 

Oliphant says he has three reasons for not supporting the bill: the Carter decision, the concerns of constituents and his conscience. He believes the legislation does not meet the thresholds of the court's decision.

 The family of Kay Carter and her lawyer have said they believe she would not have been eligible for medical assistance in dying under the Liberal bill and, having consulted with lawyers, Oliphant similarly believes the legislation fails to meet the thresholds of the court's decision.

He is concerned with the bill's requirements that an individual be dealing with an "incurable" illness and that the death be "reasonably foreseeable." After speaking with doctors he wonders, for instance, whether a prognosis of death within three to five years would be considered to be within the reasonably foreseeable future, referring to the case of Patient No. 2 in Manitoba.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

He is concerned with the bill's requirements that an individual be dealing with an "incurable" illness and that the death be "reasonably foreseeable."

Telling people that they can only end their own life if their death is forseeable is like telling people they can only wash their car today if it's probably going to rain tomorrow.

Exactly.

Or more specifically: "You can request medical assistance to die only if you're dying."

No idea how I missed this on Wednesday - this is potentially huge:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-appeal-court-assisted-dying-c14-... appeal court rules against federal approach to assisted dying[/url]

Quote:

The federal government's rationale for a restrictive approach to medically assisted dying has been shot down in flames by the Alberta Court of Appeal, even before its controversial legislation is put to a vote in the House of Commons.

A panel of three appeal court judges says the government is flouting last year's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court when it argues that assisted dying should apply only to those who are close to death.

It's also not complying with the top court's ruling, known as the Carter decision, when it excludes people suffering solely from psychiatric conditions, the judges say.

jjuares wrote:

I am not sure how this will play out. I assume the new law will be in force until it is challenged in the supreme court and of course the challenge would have to be successful.

Maybe.

But in Québec, we don't need to wait for another court challenge and decision. Since December, the courts have decided that the Québec law is in effect. And it does not require "terminal illness", nor does it exclude "psychological pain".

So if the rest of the provinces simply did what Québec spent years doing - just copy and paste our legislation - they can easily bypass the Liberals' draconian and anti-democratic manoeuvres.

I don't expect any province will have the courage to do that any time soon.