Law ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws - Canada takes the /adv/ route on helping the disabled

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
By MARIA CHENG yesterday

TORONTO (AP) — Alan Nichols had a history of depression and other medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to “bust him out” as soon as possible.

Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.

His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss.

Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn’t using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.

“Alan was basically put to death,” his brother Gary Nichols said.

Disability experts say the story is not unique in Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive euthanasia rules — allowing people with serious disabilities to choose to be killed in the absence of any other medical issue.

Many Canadians support euthanasia and the advocacy group Dying With Dignity says the procedure is “driven by compassion, an end to suffering and discrimination and desire for personal autonomy.” But human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it.

Equally troubling, advocates say, are instances in which people have sought to be killed because they weren’t getting adequate government support to live.

Canada is set to expand euthanasia access next year, but these advocates say the system warrants further scrutiny now.

Euthanasia “cannot be a default for Canada’s failure to fulfill its human rights obligations,” said Marie-Claude Landry, the head of its Human Rights Commission.

Landry said she shares the “grave concern” voiced last year by three U.N. human rights experts, who wrote that Canada’s euthanasia law appeared to violate the agency’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They said the law had a “discriminatory impact” on disabled people and was inconsistent with Canada’s obligations to uphold international human rights standards.

Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”

During his recent trip to Canada, Pope Francis blasted what he has labeled the culture of waste that considers elderly and disabled people disposable. “We need to learn how to listen to the pain” of the poor and most marginalized, Francis said, lamenting the “patients who, in place of affection, are administered death.”

Canada prides itself on being liberal and accepting, said David Jones, director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Britain, “but what’s happening with euthanasia suggests there may be a darker side.”

___

Euthanasia, where doctors use drugs to kill patients, is legal in seven countries — Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain — plus several states in Australia.

Other jurisdictions, including several U.S. states, permit assisted suicide — in which patients take the lethal drug themselves, typically in a drink prescribed by a doctor.

In Canada, the two options are referred to as medical assistance in dying, though more than 99.9% of such deaths are euthanasia. There were more than 10,000 deaths by euthanasia last year, an increase of about a third from the previous year.

Canada’s road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their dignity and autonomy. It gave national leaders a year to draft legislation.

The resulting 2016 law legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide for people aged 18 and over provided they met certain conditions: They had to have a serious condition, disease or disability that was in an advanced, irreversible state of decline and enduring “unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions that patients consider acceptable.” Their death also had to be “reasonably foreseeable,” and the request for euthanasia had to be approved by at least two physicians.

The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left.

Today, any adult with a serious illness, disease or disability can seek help in dying.

Canadian health minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the country’s euthanasia law “recognizes the rights of all persons ... as well as the inherent and equal value of every life.”

___

The countries that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide vary in how they administer and regulate the practices, but Canada has several policies that set it apart from others. For example:

— Unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for two decades, Canada doesn’t have monthly commissions to review potentially troubling cases, although it does publish yearly reports of euthanasia trends.

— Canada is the only country that allows nurse practitioners, not just doctors, to end patients’ lives. Medical authorities in its two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, explicitly instruct doctors not to indicate on death certificates if people died from euthanasia.

— Belgian doctors are advised to avoid mentioning euthanasia to patients since it could be misinterpreted as medical advice. The Australian state of Victoria forbids doctors from raising euthanasia with patients. There are no such restrictions in Canada. The association of Canadian health professionals who provide euthanasia tells physicians and nurses to inform patients if they might qualify to be killed, as one of their possible “clinical care options.”

— Canadian patients are not required to have exhausted all treatment alternatives before seeking euthanasia, as is the case in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Still, Duclos said there were adequate safeguards in place, including “stringent eligibility criteria” to ensure no disabled people were being encouraged or coerced into ending their lives. Government figures show more than 65% of people are being euthanized due to cancer, followed by heart problems, respiratory issues and neurological conditions.

Theresia Degener, a professor of law and disability studies at the Protestant University for Applied Sciences in northwestern Germany, said allowing euthanasia based exclusively on disability was a clear human rights violation.

“The implication of (Canada’s) law is that a life with disability is automatically less worth living and that in some cases, death is preferable,” said Degener.

___

Alan Nichols lost his hearing after brain surgery at age 12 and suffered a stroke in recent years, but he lived mostly on his own. “He needed some help from us, but he was not so disabled that he qualified for euthanasia,” said Gary Nichols.

In one of the assessments filed by a nurse practitioner before Nichols was killed, she noted his history of seizures, frailty and “a failure to thrive.” She also wrote that Nichols had hearing and vision loss.

The Nichols family were horrified that his death appeared to be approved based partly on Alan’s hearing loss and had other concerns about how Alan was euthanized. They lodged complaints with the British Columbia agency that regulates doctors and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, asking for criminal charges. They also wrote to Canada’s minister of justice.

“Somebody needs to take responsibility so that it never happens to another family,” said Trish Nichols, Gary’s wife. “I am terrified of my husband or another relative being put in the hospital and somehow getting these (euthanasia) forms in their hand.”

The hospital says Alan Nichols made a valid request for euthanasia and that, in line with patient privacy, it was not obligated to inform relatives or include them in treatment discussions.

The provincial regulatory agency, British Columbia’s College of Doctors and Surgeons, told the family it could not proceed without a police investigation. In March, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cpl. Patrick Maisonneuve emailed the relatives to say he had reviewed the documentation and concluded Alan Nichols “met the criteria” for euthanasia.

The family’s parliamentary representative, Laurie Throness, asked British Columbia’s health minister for a public investigation, calling the death “deeply disturbing.”

The health minister, Adrian Dix, said the province’s oversight unit reviewed the case and “has not referred it for any further inquiry.” He pointed out that the euthanasia law does not allow for families to review euthanasia requests or be privy to hospitals’ decisions.

Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said it was “astonishing” that authorities concluded Nichols’ death was justified.

“This case demonstrates that the rules are too loose and that even when people die who shouldn’t have died, there is almost no way to hold the doctors and hospitals responsible,” he said.

___

Some disabled Canadians have decided to be killed in the face of mounting bills.

Before being euthanized in August 2019 at age 41, Sean Tagert struggled to get the 24-hour-a-day care he needed. The government provided Tagert, who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, with 16 hours of daily care at his home in Powell River, British Columbia. He spent about 264 Canadian dollars ($206) a day to pay coverage during the other eight hours.

Health authorities proposed that Tagert move to an institution, but he refused, saying he would be too far from his young son. He called the suggestion “a death sentence” in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Before his death, Tagert had raised more than CA$16,000 ($12,400) to buy specialized medical equipment he needed to live at home with caretakers. But it still wasn’t enough.

“I know I’m asking for change,” Tagert wrote in a Facebook post before his death. “I just didn’t realize that was an unacceptable thing to do.”

Stainton, the University of British Columbia professor, pointed out that no province or territory provides a disability benefit income above the poverty line. In some regions, he said, it is as low as CA$850 ($662) a month — less than half the amount the government provided to people unable to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heidi Janz, an assistant adjunct professor in Disability Ethics at the University of Alberta, said “a person with disabilities in Canada has to jump through so many hoops to get support that it can often be enough to tip the scales” and lead them to euthanasia.

Duclos, the national health minister, told The Associated Press that he could not comment on specific cases but said all jurisdictions have a broad range of policies to support disabled people. He acknowledged “disparities in access to services and supports across the country.”

Other disabled people say the easy availability of euthanasia has led to unsettling and sometimes frightening discussions.

Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”

Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s difficult to quantify it, because there is no easy way to track these cases, but I and other advocates are hearing regularly from disabled people every week who are considering (euthanasia),” she said.

Frazee cited the case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman who has cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Lewis’ mother, Sheila Elson, took her to an emergency room in Newfoundland five years ago. During her hospital stay, a doctor said Lewis was a candidate for euthanasia and that if her mother chose not to pursue it, that would be “selfish,” Elson told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

___

Canada has tweaked its euthanasia rules since they were first enacted six years ago, but critics say more needs to be done — especially as Canada expands access further.

Next year, the country is set to allow people to be killed exclusively for mental health reasons. It is also considering extending euthanasia to “mature” minors — children under 18 who meet the same requirements as adults.

Chantalle Aubertin, spokeswoman for Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti, said in an email that the government had taken into account concerns raised by the disabled community when it added safeguards to its euthanasia regulations last year. Those changes included that people were to be informed of all services, such as mental health support and palliative care, before asking to die.

Aubertin said those and other measures would “help to honor the difficult and personal decisions of some Canadians to end their suffering on their own terms, while enshrining important safeguards to protect the vulnerable.”

Dr. Jean Marmoreo, a family physician who regularly provides euthanasia services in Ontario, has called for specialized panels to provide a second opinion in difficult cases.

“I think this is not something you want to rush, but at the same time, if the person has made a considered request for this and they meet the eligibility criteria, then they should not be denied their right to a dignified death,” she said.

Landry, Canada’s human rights commissioner, said leaders should listen to the concerns of those facing hardships who believe euthanasia is their only option. She called for social and economic rights to be enshrined in Canadian law to ensure people can get adequate housing, health care and support.

“In an era where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity,” she said.

___

Nicole Winfield in Edmonton, Alberta, contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

SOURCE
 
I think euthanasia should be a last resort type of thing, but legal if the person is of sound mind and has consulted with their medical doctor and a psychiatrist about it. Oh, and there should be plenty of written, audio, and/or visual documentation for the euthanasia choice and prior discussions with the patient regarding it to prevent medical malpractice.

For instance, if a person has an incurable disease with a poor prognosis, they should be able to die with dignity instead of being hooked up to life support machines with an incredibly diminished quality of life because the family simply didn't want to let go. Euthanasia should not be used if the person has dementia or Alzheimer's (again, the person needs to be of sound mind to make decisions for themselves).


disagree with alzheimers/dementia

they're not minding the brain waiting for their sound mind to come back, that is their mind now. If what's left of it wants to die it's only killing itself
 
If that’s the case, then every Christian that’s ever killed anyone in war or self-defense (you know, those cases in which it’s supposedly morally justified) is apparently burning in hell now despite the assurances to the contrary I’ve heard over the years from assorted pastors.

Human intellect and ability are supposed to be used for the glory of God, are they not? That’s the message I was taught when discussing the Parable of the Talents, anyway. When medicine has reached the limits of what it can do, and the patient is damned to linger in agony until they finally die, how is leaving them in pain the moral choice? The knowledge is there to prevent that suffering—to ‘wisely invest the talent’ as the good and faithful servant did. Is doing nothing any different than the guy who buried his silver to ensure he wouldn’t make the boss mad losing it?
I think you misunderstand me. We follow commands of God. God commands us to protect the innocent, not kill them. We are also commanded by God to execute murderers. These can involve selfdefense. I’m not sure why you think its related to euthanasia, which is just the killing of a sick person.

God doesn’t say “well if it gets too tough go ahead and ignore me. Ask the pastor to slit your throat” He says endure to the end. God knows your suffering.

Suffering is not a reason to end life in and of itself, thats just secular humanist hedonism. Its the same reasoning abortionists give because the child might grow up poor or abused. Do you see how this goes?
 
Last edited:
The association of Canadian health professionals who provide euthanasia tells physicians and nurses to inform patients if they might qualify to be killed, as one of their possible “clinical care options.”

Okay this whole situation is pretty fucked, but imagine the catharsis from being able to suggest to an obstinate patient 'have you considered dying?'
 
Suffering is not a reason to end life in and of itself, thats just secular humanist hedonism.
While I've been lucky enough not to watch a loved one slowly perish I recall my mum relaying to me how she watched Grandad swell with fluid and turn yellow as the pancreatic cancer had spread to his liver and that was how he spent his final hours.

I wouldn't call not wanting to suffer from multiple organ failure as cancer eats through you "hedonism".

That said yeah, Canada is exercising some eugenicist horror and choosing to die should not just be a decision based on how much they're burdening the taxpayer, and doctors should not just be suggesting it in passing as if they were recommending a perscription.
 
While I've been lucky enough not to watch a loved one slowly perish I recall my mum relaying to me how she watched Grandad swell with fluid and turn yellow as the pancreatic cancer had spread to his liver and that was how he spent his final hours.

I wouldn't call not wanting to suffer from multiple organ failure as cancer eats through you "hedonism".

That said yeah, Canada is exercising some eugenicist horror and choosing to die should not just be a decision based on how much they're burdening the taxpayer, and doctors should not just be suggesting it in passing as if they were recommending a perscription.
If you want to kill yourself, do it on your own. Getting a doctor's help is just a way to pretend it's not suicide.
 
Family will always always make the claims the person didn't know what they wanted because humans are selfish creatures when it comes to personal relationships. Same place as people who demand grandma who wants to pass peacefully will be resuscitated multiple times because her family doesn't want to say goodbye or keep brain dead bodies on life support. I saw a similar story not long ago where a woman did it because she was terminally ill with something that would advance but was still 'relatively healthy' her siblings went to the news because she chose not to tell them. She chose not to tell them because she did not want to be talked out of it or argued with.

How is it we make the decision to end the suffering of beloved pets when they're too sick and it's considered the right/humane thing to do but when it comes to people who can actually consent and want their suffering undone, it's framed as some terrible thing?

His family isn't him and they have no way of knowing how he genuinely felt or how much he was truly suffering.
Yeah but later in the article we hear from a sick guy, not his family, and that guy says the hospital tried to use his costs to pressure him into euthanasia when he never suggested it himself. How is it "assisted suicide" when the hospital encourages you to do it?
 
Canada has to do something. Everyone works 40+ hours a week so there's no one at home to take care of the elderly or disabled. Long term care is privatized and dismal. I would personally rather be dead than put in a seniors home, it's just a warehouse for the dying.

They don't want to improve or nationalize elderly care, and there are going to be WAY TOO MANY boomers rotting away in LTC very soon. Society doesn't want to admit people need care in old age, and with everyone working until they're 65+ you have to offload the olds somewhere.
 
I would personally rather be dead than put in a seniors home, it's just a warehouse for the dying.
Don't worry, you might not even make it to the seniors home. First you'll spend 2-6 months in a hospital bed waiting for enough people to die so that a spot opens up for you. Will you survive to see the seniors home? Who knows, you might get some horrible infection in the hospital first that does you in first and even if you don't, the nurses will drug to up to keep you quiet.
 
Yeah but later in the article we hear from a sick guy, not his family, and that guy says the hospital tried to use his costs to pressure him into euthanasia when he never suggested it himself. How is it "assisted suicide" when the hospital encourages you to do it?
Hell, his examples aren't even assisted suicide. They're pulling life support... stopping care and allowing someone to die. Not euthanasia.
 
If that’s the case, then every Christian that’s ever killed anyone in war or self-defense (you know, those cases in which it’s supposedly morally justified) is apparently burning in hell now despite the assurances to the contrary I’ve heard over the years from assorted pastors.
Nigga look up St Augustine's just war theory and St Thomas Aquinas' commentary on how self-defense is a not only morally valid in your own self interest but necessary in cases where someone is going to kill your family/neighbors. That's such a dumb comment, you made me reply. It's not wven remotely comparable to euthanasia, which is killing people that are helpless.
 
Assuming you are an atheist then just pretend I gestured vaguely at canada. It can’t be done the way you think it can because the incentive is to kill more people. So you get to the point where you are executing mentally ill people for ridiculous reasons. Its only gonna accelerate from there.

For Christians its prohibited by God as all people have an inherent value due to being an imagebearer of God. We don’t have authority to take it away as creations. When you allow the removal of that value, even for an ostensibly narrow “”””””good””””” purpose, a line is crossed. You usurp God and make the State god. Its happened many times in history. Have you noticed how atheist states always go straight to mass murder genocide at a blink? Because the state is god and assigns value in partial ways. God doesn’t change.
Regardless of my own faith i'm advocating giving people a choice not imposing my beliefs on others, in many cases of terminal illness the persons suffering is only extended by medical intervention and withdrawing treatment is no more interfering with gods will than seeking it in the first place.
 
Regardless of my own faith i'm advocating giving people a choice not imposing my beliefs on others, in many cases of terminal illness the persons suffering is only extended by medical intervention and withdrawing treatment is no more interfering with gods will than seeking it in the first place.
When i use the law to stop you from raping people I am imposing my beliefs. All laws are moral impositions. The only question is whose morals. They can always refuse treatment but this murder is satanic.
 
Back
Top Bottom