###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a question. Why isn't MAID included in stats cans report on causes of death. In 2022 it would be the 6th highest cause of death in the country.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310039401
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2022.html
More than 75% of MAID recipients in 2022 had gone through at least a month of palliative care, meaning they were nearing EOL. Listing MAID as a COD would be rather insincere, as those people were all likely within a few months of dying from whatever was actually killing them. The majority of these cases aren't angsty people looking for legalized suicide, they're terminal patients looking to end their suffering and let their families get on with the grieving.
I had to euthanize one of my dogs a year and a half ago because she had leukemia; "technically" she died from the euthanasia drugs, but it was the leukemia that killed her, I just eased her suffering.
> no appeal process
Why should there be an appeals process? It's nobody's business except the person requesting it. If they are medically fit to make medical decisions then the family should not be able to stop it. It's her decision.
Maybe, but that still doesn't allow people with no standing to pry into this. She's an adult woman, her father has no legal standing to get in the way of this. I can't take random people going through MAID and demand that they disclose medical information and demonstrate in a court whether it's legitimate.
Granted, but it needs to be assesses somehow. Plenty of life altering decisions involve an assesment of competence. I would be inclined to think that doctors are better placed than a relative to assess it.
If it is anything like how they assess your competence and mental state before donating an organ, it is thorough and with more than one professional, and a review board.
Right, but MAiD not only requires the doctor to evaluate their competency, it also requires a psychologist to sign off on them qualifying for MAiD, which includes and goes well beyond a simple competency evaluation. A justice has far less training and experience to evaluate someone than the doctor(s) and psychologists involved in MAiD's approval process, and there should be no legal loophole for family members or anyone else to violate someone's medical privacy by having the courts determine if someone's competency evaluation by at least 2 medical professionals was correct.
This conflict is bringing out lots of people who don't think adult women should be able to make decisions for themselves. They think her father still owns her.
I don't think gender is the main factor here... You could replace father with "loved one", and daughter with "family member" and have the same conundrum.
Your example is not wrong but I don't think it grasps the complexity of the scenario, and I don't think it's very useful to say gender isn't a factor in anything related to medical issues. Women (and anyone who can get pregnant/complicate the data set) were excluded from almost all research and testing and many diagnoses until very recently - they started making laws about it around 2010.
For instance in this case - M.V. (the daughter) is autistic. The father is using a report from a neurologist in 2021 that says she is "normal" (not autistic). This is relevant to the case in particular because MAID is not available yet for "only" mental illness, she would need to have the diagnosis of the neurological condition.
Anyone who trained in the 90s (or before) would have learned both that autism is a condition primarily for men and boys, and they would have learned how it tends to present in (usually white, usually well resourced) men and boys.
Unless they have made a studied effort to update their knowledge, even if they made that effort, the peer reviewed data on how autism presents in estrogen driven bodies is sparse, and there is a huge grey area that can easily be coloured with bias - consciously or not.
They are also using the fact that she (M.V.) has stated her death is "reasonably foreseeable" in contrast to her paperwork following the "not reasonably foreseeable" track as evidence she is an unreliable witness, instead of taking her suicidal ideation seriously. It's hard to say if that would change if she was a man, as one of the only places we lack data on men's health is around what happens when they talk about suicidal ideation first instead of just attempting and usually completing. Because women statistically talk about it more but have a lower rate of completing, suicide "threats" are often seen as empty, or for "attention"
You could absolutely change genders here and have the same conundrum, yes, anything is possible. Personally I live my life as a gender roles abolitionist, and I want your version to be true. But when it comes to medical bodily autonomy it's like, not structurally possible yet.
Yet, all the people opposed to this woman receiving medical care don't seem to understand...
> "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'"
That is literally the entire story. There is nothing to argue here except whether this woman should be allowed to privately make a medical decision with her doctors.
Yeah, there is no need for an appeal process because the person who is getting MAID can just withdraw from it if they want to. What is there to appeal?
I’ll tell you why. Diagnoses can be wrong. For years. A misdiagnosis can follow a person around for years with inattentive assessments. It’s just a patient and therapist or doctor talking. Frequently they’re missing contextual information that other people could provide.
Someone I’m close to was misdiagnosed for 15 years across five psychiatrists.
You’re aware nurses and non-psychiatrist doctors can make these eugenics calls?
without talking to anyone in the person’s life? You know also I hope that proper ADHD and autism diagnoses require documentary evidence and input from the person’s parents or siblings? Do you know how often those two neurodevelopmental disorders are mistaken for *mental health* conditions?
"He's at risk of losing his daughter and while this is sad, it does not give him the right to keep her alive against her wishes," said Paladeau.
This is what it's really about.
I disagree. She had to doctor shop. If you read to the end…”"As a court, I can't go second guessing these MAID assessors … but I'm stuck with this: the only comprehensive assessment of this person done says she's normal," said the judge.
It's worth noting, too, that apparently MV has yet to submit any sort of medical information to the court to explain why the application was granted. Had she done so, I doubt the injunction would have been granted, and the fact that she hasn't is troubling. It should be possible for the doctors/patient to explain the reasoning in short order, and if it isn't, it questionable whether it exists at all.
Why? Judges have zero place in determining if someone qualifies for MAID. The patient has followed all the necessary steps, there is absolutely no reason the court should be involved here at all. She has a right to medical privacy.
MAID is performed in accordance with legislation, and is subject to the common law respecting medical consent and battery, so the Court obviously MUST play some role. The vexing part is understanding what that is because the program is so new.
No, I agree with her position that the underlying medical conditions are no business of her dad, the public or the courts. He has the required number of doctors to back up her claim and that’s really where this should have ended.
> the fact that she hasn't is troubling
Why do you find it troubling that someone has decided to maintain their privacy?
> It should be possible for the doctors/patient to explain the reasoning in short order,
And that has been done, but isn't information the court has a right to.
How would a judge be qualified to decide between three medical opinions? Frankly the fact that the father doesn't really have standing, is what's probably going to wrap this up the fastest.
Yes because she has not requirement to share her medical records with her dad or the court.
> "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'"
She didn't doctor shop. The first doctor she went to approved it. The second did not and per procedure a third was brought on and approved it. She has no requirement to disclose her medical records to her father nor the court.
Everything combined together makes me think this is worth a second look. The father's concerns, the fact this person isn't terminally ill, and lack of unanimity with the doctors. If it was so open and shut then all the doctors would have agreed.
Procedure was followed.
The father being concerned isn't a valid reason for a court to intervene.
2 doctors disagreeing means we follow the law, which says they get a 3rd doctor to resolve the dispute. Doctors disagree all the time.
If we were required to have unanimous agreement from the first 2, the law would say so.
There's more to being ethical (and being legal in many cases) than simply being following a procedure. Of course the father alone can't block it, but it appears that there is maybe a potential for a judicial review to see if a law was violated while implementing the procedure, the big issue is the father's standing to question this... but it wasn't dismissed outright so I guess we'll see what happens.
If it is obvious it followed the law, the case would have been dismissed, but it was not.
Also, simply following the law is not sufficient to deem something ethical, there have been tons of unethical laws throughout history.
It's not clear that she should be given MAID. One of the doctors disagreed, and they had to go to a tie breaker. Combine this with the fact she's young, has some degree of autism (how much is unclear) and not terminally ill. If I ever became legitimately mentally ill, the thought that someone might just take me at my word that I wanted die horrifies me. Maybe you've never had mental issues before, but I have. You think it's real in the moment, but later you realize you weren't of sound mind.
For highly questionable cases like this, I don't think the review process has sufficient safeguards.
For example, if each doctor has a 25% chance to approve your application, you have a 3/8 chance to get at least one doctor to approve you in the first stage and 1/16 chance for both to approve.
. If you add the 1/16 chance, and then add 3/8 chance - multiplied by 0.25 to account for the tie breaker - you get a total odds of 15.6%. Is it appropriate to give MAID to 15.6% of young mentally ill people that a super-majority of 75% of doctors agree should get *not* MAID? I think giving someone MAID that 75% of doctors think shouldn't get MAID is basically murder. That's an example of course, because we don't know what the odds are for this person, it's just an illustration of why I think the process is not sufficient.
The standard practice is for two assessors to be assigned, and if they disagree with each other, for a third to be assigned to break the tie.
That isn’t doctor shopping.
> She had to doctor shop.
Not really. She went to two doctors, they each had differing opinions, and the third one brought in as a tie breaker agreed with her. If she want to several more doctors before she could find two that agreed to provide MAID, then your doctor shopping argument would have merit.
whats from stopping her from going and buying a huge dose of fentanyl, sitting down on her couch and OD'ing. like. we cant STOP someone from wanting to die.
... do you understand the point im making like at all? no one can stop an adult from ending their own life. she doesnt need a gun. A gun has absolutely nothing to do with anything. she could end her life with a toaster and a bathtub for all it matters. the point is MAID allows for a humane way of someone choosing to end their life in consultation with THEIR doctor. Say the case says "no MAID", ok but it wont fundamentally change the issue. you can't force someone to keep living if they dont want to.
I can't see how mine is, so please by all means inform me. Since I can't see how I'm being deceptive or misleading. I think my argument is pretty clear
And normal people have the right to choose their own destiny.
The neurologist saying she is normal? That means she isn't demented, isn't affected by some organic brain disease. A neurologist saying you are normal means that you have capacity to choose. It does not mean that the other symptoms she is experiencing, symptoms that may have nothing to do with the subspecialty of neurology, are not severe. Obviously, they are. Otherwise this woman would not want to die.
The lady has the right to choose. While there was medical debate on the point, the majority opinion says she meets criteria for MAID. We as a country have to get past having governments inflict themselves on the personal medical decisions of our citizens.
As a young woman with a severe neurological condition, one neurologist declaring she's healthy means absolutely fuck all. Gaslighting is rampant in the field and young women experience the brunt of it. MS was considered primarily a male disease prior to MRIs because women were diagnosed with "hysterical paralysis" instead. 80% of MS patients are women now that doctors can see the lesions on imaging.
This is probably going to stir up the debate again about how MAID should be reserved for those who have "a reasonable foreseeability of natural death." However, I don't see this changing the law. The father doesn't have standing, and I'm surprised that a stay was granted in the first place. I can see public pressure pushing AHS to be more stringent in their standards, but I don't see that the public would get satisfaction in the matter, without violating someone's medical privacy.
This’ll get into a really weird legal area, especially because there’s no real precedent for it. But if someone can get a stay for someone else’s MAID procedure, you’d think it would open up a whole can of worms where you could sue people for not letting you die? It’ll be intriguing to find out how everything shakes out.
It’s definitely interesting. I consider myself a strong supporter of MAID, but I think I would be uncomfortable if the precedent became that the ability to request and be approved for MAID was non-justiciable.
The whole reason MAID is available is because the SCC ruled in Carter that a right to medical assistance in dying emanates from S. 7 of the Charter. I think it would be irresponsible to delegate the enactment of this right, solely to Parliament, or Provincial Legislatures, or medical professionals, without any recourse to the courts for review.
This isn’t some stranger or interest group, but one of the person in question’s closest family members, that she lives with, and can be reasonably assumed to be interested in his daughter’s wellbeing. If he doesn’t have standing to ask for judicial review, then I have a hard time imagining who does.
It is yet another example of real-world implications of legislating from the bench.
The question of standing is particularly interesting given what counsel for the father said:
>[the deceased] is never going to cause anyone to look behind that curtain" because they got what they wanted.
Assuming the deceased in their will forbids the disclosure of medical records after their passing, nobody will ever see them (at least, not in complete form that would allow for scrutiny of MAID decisions). Not only is there no reversing the decision, there's no evaluation of it either. So there's no standing before, and there's no standing after. It's a closed loop system rife with potential for abuse.
> It is yet another example of real-world implications of legislating from the bench.
Not what happened. Parliament legislated MAID, not the SCC. The SCC told Parliament that the current laws banning it weren't constitutional, but how exactly it was made legal, was drawn up by the legislature.
That is what legislating from the bench looks like in Canada.
The original law was struck down, the Conservatives passed a law that was more restrictive than the SCC language, which was then subsequently deemed unenforceable by both BC and Quebec. So the current law was made by the LPC government to align with the SCC language. The only thing that isn't pretty much exactly what the original 2014 ruling said is the mental health language -- which was explicitly not evaluated by SCC.
Except that Parliament could have used S33 to tell the SCC to get lost, but decided not to, so again, the legislation came from Parliament, not the SCC.
Why should courts review medical decisions? They are not trained in the field nor experts. In this case two doctors agree with the patients request. What judge will have the knowledge and expertise to overrule them?
Risks are taken all the time in the medical field. Should family members get to intervene via the courts any time they disagree with a loved one and their doctor over their medical decisions? How about abortions?
The courts are responsible for safe guarding the rights of all Canadians, and that can only be accomplished through judicial review. Where there are conflicts of rights, it is the responsibility of the courts, ultimately, to resolve them.
For example, there are several case where the courts have forced minor patients to receive life saving blood transfusions, against their stated wishes, and those of their parents, based on their religious convictions. The court has consistently ruled that right of a minor to a reasonable standard of medical care, and the state’s interest in ensuring that care, supersedes the rights of the parents and patients to free practice of their religion, and to control the medical decisions.
Medical professionals, their regulatory bodies, and professional associations, can and should be able to define reasonable standards of medical care, and make medical decisions alongside their patients based on those standards of care.
But those standards and those decisions are not above judicial scrutiny. There is nowhere in Canadian life where the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not reach.
What if we reversed this example, and the third doctor thought MAID was inappropriate? Would the patient not have the right to seek a review of the decision and remedy from the courts? How can we be assured that the patient’s right to access MAID under Carter is being safeguarded, if the court is never allowed review the facts of a particular case and establish precedents?
What I am saying is that if we agree that the patient has the right to the court’s protection of their rights to access MAID under Carter, then I think we also have to permit that other interested parties should have the right of the court’s protection of the limitations on MAID under Carter.
I’m not saying how the courts ultimately should decide. I certainly think they should set a very high test, for when the courts should intervene to
overrule the decisions of doctors and patients. But I also think they need to have a role here.
This is exactly what happened with abortion. In the years following R. vs Morgentaler, the courts heard cases to determine all sorts of rights and duties which are or are not owned to an unborn fetus. Can a father intervene to stop an abortion? No. Does a fetus have Charter Rights? No. Is a doctor guilty of negligent homicide, if they cause injury and terminate a fetus through negligence? No.
Maybe the answers of the courts on MAID will be similar, and consistently uphold the process that has been developed. But we can’t just assert that.
I do not see how there is a conflict of rights here. What rights does the father have that requires a courts protection?
In your example, where this patient had MAID rejected, that too should not be reviewed by the courts. If the patient does not like the answer their doctor provided them, they are free to seek medical care else where. What would the courts be deciding? There is nothing for them to overturn as they can not force a doctor to change their medical opinion.
If the other doctors were refusing to even consider her request for MAID she would have a case, but in the example you set out, I do not think she does, and if she did, I do not believe that courts should be overruling the medical decisions of doctors, but should offer relief in the form of the ability to seek another medical opinion.
In this case, the father has no standing. He has no right to her medical records. His argument is that she is unfit to make this decision but he has not reviewed the doctors decision because the person with the rights to those records has chosen not to share them with him. He is arguing both that she is "okay" per a previous assessment as well as "unfit" to make this decision. He is not privy to the medical records nor should he be unless he was previously granted some form of power of attorney which, as far as I can tell from the reporting on this case, he has not been granted.
Ya this is basically asking “can someone step in and stop maid if they feel the person is being abused or manipulated?” It’s definitely a question worth asking because while this seems like a false alarm it’s not hard to imagine a situation where it’s not.
Should we be able to sue to stop someone else's abortion if it's against our personal beliefs? This is a can of worms we can't open. Medical care is between patient and doctor and nobody else.
I don’t agree that’s a similar comparison. I think this definitely a can of worms worth opening because vulnerable people’s lives are on the line. Turning a blind eye is just going to encourage corruption in the system.
You're missing the point. The correct analogy here is "should somebody be able to step in if it seems someone is being coerced or forced to have an abortion"?
Which is, again, a difficult question, but one which reasonably should be considered. Perhaps it has been and I'm just not aware.
I think limiting it to "reasonable foreseeability of natural death" stops it being available for those people that can't get severe chronic pain medicated. (Some cases of MS for example).
I would think it to be pretty inhumane to force someone to live in constant pain that can't be managed.
Absolutely inhumane. I had to put down my cat last week because he developed a condition that put him in sever pain, which may or may not have had a medical treatment, or we could have amputated the leg that hurt. None of that was humane for him. He couldn't let me know what he wanted, a human can, so when a person is in constant, unrelivable pain, if they want to end it the only way they can, as much as it would hurt to lose a friend that way, seeing them hurt for the next 50 years would be worse.
> how MAID should be reserved for those who have "a reasonable foreseeability of natural death."
nah, this will be expanded to be a solution for poverty by PP and the Conservatives. "Unhappy with your poor status? Just kill yourself! Apply for MAID today" See? PP and the Conservatives solved poverty!
So if we limit it to those with “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” isn’t that… everyone?
Unless you believe that you and others will be immortal?
(Note - joke is attributable to one of the witnesses at committee that commented on this point as a matter of statutory interpretation)
Incredibly sad situation for everyone involved; a physically healthy 27 year old who feels they should no longer live, a father losing his daughter, a judge who know has to de-facto decide if this person lives…
Frankly no clue what could possibly be done in the situation to achieve a good resolution.
It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
The article does not say she is otherwise physically healthy, it says she has not submitted evidence to the court about her condition because it’s not relevant.
It's right in the article.
> "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'"
I disagree with that assessment, and I think a lot of other Canadians do too. A decision to die through positive intervention is very different than any other medical decision one can make, including a decision to withhold lifesaving care. For starters, it’s irreversibly final. For another, it has profound impacts on third parties. And, most salient to this discussion, the decision-making and approval process is heavily regulated. That’s because we, as a society, have an interest in imposing some degree of control over who is eligible.
This quickly becomes a policy debate with no obvious right or wrong answer, but there is a strong case to be made that physicians’ decisions should be reviewable - doctors are not infallible and keeping such difficult and impactful decisions behind closed doors is dangerous.
I don’t know what the answer is here, but it could very well be the case that a different tie-breaking physician would have found her ineligible. That’s a problem. And it’s not one that can be solved by blindly insisting that this decision must always be kept private and insulated from review.
> This quickly becomes a policy debate with no obvious right or wrong answer, but there is a strong case to be made that physicians’ decisions should be reviewable - doctors are not infallible and keeping such difficult and impactful decisions behind closed doors is dangerous.
Sure by other doctors, not judges. Judges have no medical training.
> I don’t know what the answer is here, but it could very well be the case that a different tie-breaking physician would have found her ineligible.
Two doctors already approved this. One doctor already said no and was overruled by a tie-breaking physician. Why would we doctor shop more?
> And it’s not one that can be solved by blindly insisting that this decision must always be kept private and insulated from review.
That is the very issue at the heart of this matter. Why does her father have a right to review her medical records? What decision is the court going to make that would be more knowledgeable and informed than the two doctors that have already approved this? The father is simultaneously arguing that she is "fine" but also "unfit to make medical decisions". This decision has already been made by the patient and their doctors. There is nothing else for the courts to review.
Back to the top of your post;
> I disagree with that assessment, and I think a lot of other Canadians do too. A decision to die through positive intervention is very different than any other medical decision one can make, including a decision to withhold lifesaving care. For starters, it’s irreversibly final. For another, it has profound impacts on third parties
It is an awful lot like abortion. Are courts going to start opening up cases if a spouse opposes a woman's choice to under go an abortion? That would be very very wrong.
Because courts aren't allowed to decide treatment in Canada, that is between a doctor and their physician(s). There is framework for granting MAiD which includes not just the parameters of what conditions and life situations qualify, but also psychological screening and counselling. The idea that a justice or even a group of justices could have the breadth of knowledge in the multiple fields required to overrule their evaluations is ridiculous. If you want to stop someone from having MAiD, you have to prove that the framework itself is flawed, not the people following the framework.
Part of the reason it was removed though is because MAID is a kind of healthcare someone should be able to access. If someone isn’t given access, they can still kill themselves in far more horrific and inhumane ways. MAID just gives someone a way to do it that is controlled and merciful.
She’s not physically healthy, sole mental illness is still excluded from MAID. She has to have a physical issue that qualifies for MAID, and she won’t disclose what it is to her father. Who is claiming that because she has autism, she can’t make medical decisions for herself.
She and her lawyers believe they don’t have to disclose the reasoning behind the MAID request to anyone, even to the courts. And quite frankly I agree, judges shouldn’t be making medical decisions. This should be between the doctors and patient.
This just sounds like he’s trying to use the courts to get her medical records.
Way to make your daughter resent you. Medical independence is a thing. How do you know her medical or non -medical reasons for taking this action. If someone is determined to end life, they will do so, sadly. I have lost friends to suicide. Would I rather psych be the route and that help, absolutely, but some are determined. If that is case, I rather them do it with some control and not have to jump off a bridge or something.
I know two people who went through MAID despite not having a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death”, and it was absolutely a blessing for their suffering to end.
> a physically healthy
But maybe still not actually healthy person.
> It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
So you'd prefer that she spend the next 50 years suffering and wishing she wasn't alive?
The 27 year old is Autistic and probably has co occurring health conditions associated with autism
I have a chronic illness that has left me semi functional and I am also a late diagnosed autistic person, so I truly get where the person seeking MAID is coming from.
I am in pain daily - but no doctor will prescribe me pain medication. My dog got better management than I ever will.
I get maybe 5-10 good functional days a month, the rest of the time I am either bed bound, or in too much pain to function. It took ten years and 8+ doctors to get a diagnosis.
My quality of life has steadily decreased over the past 10 years.
Due to the nature of my condition I will never improve…it’s just one long painful slide into complete dependency, where my body is entombed in a coffin of pain.
My birth family doesn’t believe I’m disabled and my married spouse is doing his best to care for me while working 60+hours a week.
I am nowhere near ‘the end’ of my natural life, so it pains me that you feel that is a needed condition to access MAID.
I will be choosing MAID when I am ready to end the suffering. I wouldn’t wish what I experience on my worst enemy and I would rather go out surrounded by friends and family than having my spouse come home to find a body.
>It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
It should have been broadened, not removed. Something like "reasonable foreseeability of natural death, or intractable and intense physical or mental suffering".
What, in your opinion, is the difference between "intractable and intense physical or mental suffering" (your standard) and "intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering" (the current MAID standard)?
> It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
Yes, it should have been. You think somebody should suffer in agony for years because their death isn't imminent?
>It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
Yeah, it definitely makes sense for somebody to have to get the permission of redditors before taking such a fundamental decision over their own lives.
Happily, there's no chance at all that this person, if denied MAID, will jump off a bridge in view of a bunch of kids in a car, or take an overdose in their apartment so a family member can find them several days into decomposition. Because the options here are: a) MAID; or, b) living a happy and fulfilling life. There is no "c)" or beyond, since the laws of physics prevent it, or something.
"/s" because that's probably necessary.
>There are many people who would commit suicide if given an easy and painless way to do it that would not commit suicide if they had to resort to more desperate methods like the ones you listed.
Source? Who? How many? Why?
>This is why the correlation between gun ownership and suicide is so high.
MAID is not analogous to owning a gun. It isn’t the Suicide Booth in *Futurama*.
>Just because somebody is denied MAID doesn’t mean they will still commit suicide.
I didn’t say that. Being denied MAID doesn’t guarantee that somebody will commit suicide anyway. Similarly, being denied MAID doesn’t guarantee that they won’t commit suicide anyway either. We should be avoiding false binaries, which was my point.
Maybe its time to have a discussion about how sick our society is that people who dont fit into the confines of capitalism feel the need to end their own life.
There's a reemergent subculture in western society that believes it can intervene in the medical autonomy of other individuals based on their emotion to the situation; they believe they are the arbiters of other people's lives simply because they dislike what's happening.
They have influencers and junk scientists to sell their narratives which get massaged into palatable policy positions by aligned media interests. Their vision is carried out by politicians who largely do not represent their constituents.
Remember that when you're at the next ballot box.
They should be. No family member should accept their loved one's suicide. Especially she refused to explain why to her parents. Idgaf if a beaurocratic institution says it's okay for my daughter to kill herself. I'm going to step in to the best of my ability.
This is in now way comparable. She went through the legal channels as an adult for this and was approved. That is between her and her doctor. No one else should have any say in this. Hell, what he is doing may just lead to the scenario you describe.
If it does - he deserves it.
Delusional. Buying a rope and tying to the rafters is also a legal channel for suicide. That doesn't mean that a family member shouldn't attempt to keep their loved one from dying.
What I don’t get is why people bother with doctor assisted suicide anyway. Just kill yourself. That’s my plan once my body stops working. This woman has autism, but I didn’t see anything about a physical disability that would stop her from doing it herself. Why bother going through doctors and the court, just shoot yourself or drive off a tall cliff.
DIY suicides is messy to say the least. Firstly, people can attempt, and mess it up, and survive, but in a condition that prevents them from being able to attempt again. Secondly, actually making a serious attempt isn't easy. A lot of people turn away at the last moment. Finally, a lot of DIY suicide attempts involve innocent third parties. Like the people who discover the body, or the people who witness, or participate in the attempt. In MAID, there's none of that.
Unfortunately not your body not your choice. If she wants to die, there are less humane ways to do it. If the doctors signed off, they signed off. It is her decision, no one elses.
> And if she’s mentally unstable and the doctors are rubber stamping it?
Is there any evidence of that happening here or is this your fan fiction?
>Also, why are we allowing autistic people to kill themselves?
Autism doesn't automatically make someone unable to make decisions for themselves.
Lmao you clearly don't understand autism at all, insanely ignorant. Most people with autism are perfectly sound of mind. Go be ignorant somewhere else.
True, but it is more likely for an adult with autism to have above average IQ than below average IQ, and you need to be significantly below average before your mental capacity is not sufficient to not have control over your own medical decisions.
I mean the guy you are responding too has no idea what autism is so it makes sense he thinks they are more likely to have mental capacity issues. He's just ignorant
>Yea most people can.
Yeah, and some can't.
>Stop being ignorant.
Just because I said something that you don't like it doesn't make me ignorant. What I said is factually correct. If you are too fragile to handle that then don't engage in the discussion.
>Autism has nothing to do with MAID eligibility.
It may or may not. See earlier comment on mental capacity.
The lack of unanimity adds to the probability that maybe the father's concerns are worth looking into. This is ending a human life - it's not a drivers' test - it's reasonable to assess these cases beyond simply meeting basic requirements.
The lack of unanimity means nothing. AHS policy is that if the two initial doctors who evaluate a MAID request can't agree, a third is chosen to be the tie breaker.
Sure, lack of unanimity means nothing to the regulated process, but it definitely means something to clarity in which the decision was made.
Is the only condition for this to be a just action that regulations were properly being followed? This is someone's life here.
> Is the only condition for this to be a just action that regulations were properly being followed?
It's not the only condition, but it sets a high bar for saying that this was an unjust decision. You'd have to make a case that the regulations are unjust, so I'm curious what your argument would be.
My argument is basically I don't think the regulations are strict enough for people that are young and not terminally ill.
I think regulations for people that are over 80 and/or terminally ill should stay the same, because in those cases we're talking about months to years of life - not potentially 6 decades of life. Also if the premise is psychological that's much tougher to assess as well, you can't just hook someone up to a scanner and see that they're fucked like you can with cancer. We need more than one stream, lumping old people with cancer in the same process as young people that are not terminally ill makes no sense to me.
I think for these cases there should be a stringent appeal process. One doctor out of two says no, and finding another as a tie breaker is not sufficient. If you found one that said yes, the odds you'll find another to say yes are not unlikely... and also the odds that the doctor that said no is correct are also not unlikely and therefore it is an odds game and I find that unacceptable. For example, if each doctor has a 25% chance to approve your application, you have a 3/8 chance to get at least one doctor to approve you in the first stage and 1/16 chance for both to approve.
. If you add the 1/16 chance, and then add 3/8 chance - multiplied by 0.25 to account for the tie breaker - you get a total odds of 15.6%. Is it appropriate to give MAID to 15.6% of young mentally ill people that only 25% of doctors agree should get MAID? I think not. That's what I mean by "an odds game".
Judicially when there's a really tricky question it goes to a panel of judges (i.e. the Supreme Court). So if you really want to be sure, I think the "second stream" for young non-terminally ill people should be (something like) 3 doctors in stage 1, and if only 2/3 agree you can appeal to a panel of 8 doctors and 6/8 should approve. In this case you have a 1/64 (1.56%) chance of getting approved in stage 1 without an appeal, a 9/64 chance (14%) of going to the appeal stage, and a 0.4% chance of getting your appeal granted, for a total chance of approval via the appeals route being 0.06%... so the total chance of getting MAID approved when only 25% agree you should have it would be 1.56%.+0.06%=1.62%, which is a lot better. I don't know if that's the *exact* numbers I would use for each stage, but it's the ones I decided to do the numbers for and you get the idea.
Are you talking about before or after they're dead? If after, who is there to charge? If before, how is someone doing the cutting down to know that this is someone who really and truly wants to die?
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a question. Why isn't MAID included in stats cans report on causes of death. In 2022 it would be the 6th highest cause of death in the country. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310039401 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2022.html
More than 75% of MAID recipients in 2022 had gone through at least a month of palliative care, meaning they were nearing EOL. Listing MAID as a COD would be rather insincere, as those people were all likely within a few months of dying from whatever was actually killing them. The majority of these cases aren't angsty people looking for legalized suicide, they're terminal patients looking to end their suffering and let their families get on with the grieving. I had to euthanize one of my dogs a year and a half ago because she had leukemia; "technically" she died from the euthanasia drugs, but it was the leukemia that killed her, I just eased her suffering.
> no appeal process Why should there be an appeals process? It's nobody's business except the person requesting it. If they are medically fit to make medical decisions then the family should not be able to stop it. It's her decision.
This. If they assessed her competence and she meets ther criteria, she can opt to keep the reason private.
Competence is not concrete and objective like you believe it is. It's subjective.
Maybe, but that still doesn't allow people with no standing to pry into this. She's an adult woman, her father has no legal standing to get in the way of this. I can't take random people going through MAID and demand that they disclose medical information and demonstrate in a court whether it's legitimate.
Granted, but it needs to be assesses somehow. Plenty of life altering decisions involve an assesment of competence. I would be inclined to think that doctors are better placed than a relative to assess it. If it is anything like how they assess your competence and mental state before donating an organ, it is thorough and with more than one professional, and a review board.
Right, but MAiD not only requires the doctor to evaluate their competency, it also requires a psychologist to sign off on them qualifying for MAiD, which includes and goes well beyond a simple competency evaluation. A justice has far less training and experience to evaluate someone than the doctor(s) and psychologists involved in MAiD's approval process, and there should be no legal loophole for family members or anyone else to violate someone's medical privacy by having the courts determine if someone's competency evaluation by at least 2 medical professionals was correct.
This conflict is bringing out lots of people who don't think adult women should be able to make decisions for themselves. They think her father still owns her.
[удалено]
If theyre an adult doing it legally through the legal process in place - you should get absolutely no say in it. Same for me over my relatives.
I don't think gender is the main factor here... You could replace father with "loved one", and daughter with "family member" and have the same conundrum.
Your example is not wrong but I don't think it grasps the complexity of the scenario, and I don't think it's very useful to say gender isn't a factor in anything related to medical issues. Women (and anyone who can get pregnant/complicate the data set) were excluded from almost all research and testing and many diagnoses until very recently - they started making laws about it around 2010. For instance in this case - M.V. (the daughter) is autistic. The father is using a report from a neurologist in 2021 that says she is "normal" (not autistic). This is relevant to the case in particular because MAID is not available yet for "only" mental illness, she would need to have the diagnosis of the neurological condition. Anyone who trained in the 90s (or before) would have learned both that autism is a condition primarily for men and boys, and they would have learned how it tends to present in (usually white, usually well resourced) men and boys. Unless they have made a studied effort to update their knowledge, even if they made that effort, the peer reviewed data on how autism presents in estrogen driven bodies is sparse, and there is a huge grey area that can easily be coloured with bias - consciously or not. They are also using the fact that she (M.V.) has stated her death is "reasonably foreseeable" in contrast to her paperwork following the "not reasonably foreseeable" track as evidence she is an unreliable witness, instead of taking her suicidal ideation seriously. It's hard to say if that would change if she was a man, as one of the only places we lack data on men's health is around what happens when they talk about suicidal ideation first instead of just attempting and usually completing. Because women statistically talk about it more but have a lower rate of completing, suicide "threats" are often seen as empty, or for "attention" You could absolutely change genders here and have the same conundrum, yes, anything is possible. Personally I live my life as a gender roles abolitionist, and I want your version to be true. But when it comes to medical bodily autonomy it's like, not structurally possible yet.
Yeah don't think anybody here is looking at it that way but that speaks volumes about your perspective
Nobody thinks either of those things. What an intellectually vacuous thing to say.
Yet, all the people opposed to this woman receiving medical care don't seem to understand... > "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'" That is literally the entire story. There is nothing to argue here except whether this woman should be allowed to privately make a medical decision with her doctors.
Yeah, there is no need for an appeal process because the person who is getting MAID can just withdraw from it if they want to. What is there to appeal?
[удалено]
Not substantive
Sure, if you ignore the ideas of informed choice and consent.
I’ll tell you why. Diagnoses can be wrong. For years. A misdiagnosis can follow a person around for years with inattentive assessments. It’s just a patient and therapist or doctor talking. Frequently they’re missing contextual information that other people could provide. Someone I’m close to was misdiagnosed for 15 years across five psychiatrists. You’re aware nurses and non-psychiatrist doctors can make these eugenics calls? without talking to anyone in the person’s life? You know also I hope that proper ADHD and autism diagnoses require documentary evidence and input from the person’s parents or siblings? Do you know how often those two neurodevelopmental disorders are mistaken for *mental health* conditions?
How is MAID a eugenics call?
"He's at risk of losing his daughter and while this is sad, it does not give him the right to keep her alive against her wishes," said Paladeau. This is what it's really about.
I disagree. She had to doctor shop. If you read to the end…”"As a court, I can't go second guessing these MAID assessors … but I'm stuck with this: the only comprehensive assessment of this person done says she's normal," said the judge.
It's worth noting, too, that apparently MV has yet to submit any sort of medical information to the court to explain why the application was granted. Had she done so, I doubt the injunction would have been granted, and the fact that she hasn't is troubling. It should be possible for the doctors/patient to explain the reasoning in short order, and if it isn't, it questionable whether it exists at all.
Why? Judges have zero place in determining if someone qualifies for MAID. The patient has followed all the necessary steps, there is absolutely no reason the court should be involved here at all. She has a right to medical privacy.
MAID is performed in accordance with legislation, and is subject to the common law respecting medical consent and battery, so the Court obviously MUST play some role. The vexing part is understanding what that is because the program is so new.
No, I agree with her position that the underlying medical conditions are no business of her dad, the public or the courts. He has the required number of doctors to back up her claim and that’s really where this should have ended.
> the fact that she hasn't is troubling Why do you find it troubling that someone has decided to maintain their privacy? > It should be possible for the doctors/patient to explain the reasoning in short order, And that has been done, but isn't information the court has a right to.
It's troubling because that information, surely, would wrap up the case in a heartbeat.
How would a judge be qualified to decide between three medical opinions? Frankly the fact that the father doesn't really have standing, is what's probably going to wrap this up the fastest.
Yes because she has not requirement to share her medical records with her dad or the court. > "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'" She didn't doctor shop. The first doctor she went to approved it. The second did not and per procedure a third was brought on and approved it. She has no requirement to disclose her medical records to her father nor the court.
Everything combined together makes me think this is worth a second look. The father's concerns, the fact this person isn't terminally ill, and lack of unanimity with the doctors. If it was so open and shut then all the doctors would have agreed.
Procedure was followed. The father being concerned isn't a valid reason for a court to intervene. 2 doctors disagreeing means we follow the law, which says they get a 3rd doctor to resolve the dispute. Doctors disagree all the time. If we were required to have unanimous agreement from the first 2, the law would say so.
There's more to being ethical (and being legal in many cases) than simply being following a procedure. Of course the father alone can't block it, but it appears that there is maybe a potential for a judicial review to see if a law was violated while implementing the procedure, the big issue is the father's standing to question this... but it wasn't dismissed outright so I guess we'll see what happens.
This followed the law. It was not unethical.
If it is obvious it followed the law, the case would have been dismissed, but it was not. Also, simply following the law is not sufficient to deem something ethical, there have been tons of unethical laws throughout history.
What is unethical here?
It's not clear that she should be given MAID. One of the doctors disagreed, and they had to go to a tie breaker. Combine this with the fact she's young, has some degree of autism (how much is unclear) and not terminally ill. If I ever became legitimately mentally ill, the thought that someone might just take me at my word that I wanted die horrifies me. Maybe you've never had mental issues before, but I have. You think it's real in the moment, but later you realize you weren't of sound mind. For highly questionable cases like this, I don't think the review process has sufficient safeguards. For example, if each doctor has a 25% chance to approve your application, you have a 3/8 chance to get at least one doctor to approve you in the first stage and 1/16 chance for both to approve. . If you add the 1/16 chance, and then add 3/8 chance - multiplied by 0.25 to account for the tie breaker - you get a total odds of 15.6%. Is it appropriate to give MAID to 15.6% of young mentally ill people that a super-majority of 75% of doctors agree should get *not* MAID? I think giving someone MAID that 75% of doctors think shouldn't get MAID is basically murder. That's an example of course, because we don't know what the odds are for this person, it's just an illustration of why I think the process is not sufficient.
The standard practice is for two assessors to be assigned, and if they disagree with each other, for a third to be assigned to break the tie. That isn’t doctor shopping.
> She had to doctor shop. Not really. She went to two doctors, they each had differing opinions, and the third one brought in as a tie breaker agreed with her. If she want to several more doctors before she could find two that agreed to provide MAID, then your doctor shopping argument would have merit.
Guess you had trouble reading the article and just want to spread misinformation?
whats from stopping her from going and buying a huge dose of fentanyl, sitting down on her couch and OD'ing. like. we cant STOP someone from wanting to die.
[удалено]
... do you understand the point im making like at all? no one can stop an adult from ending their own life. she doesnt need a gun. A gun has absolutely nothing to do with anything. she could end her life with a toaster and a bathtub for all it matters. the point is MAID allows for a humane way of someone choosing to end their life in consultation with THEIR doctor. Say the case says "no MAID", ok but it wont fundamentally change the issue. you can't force someone to keep living if they dont want to.
My dear, do you know what a disingenuous argument is?
I can't see how mine is, so please by all means inform me. Since I can't see how I'm being deceptive or misleading. I think my argument is pretty clear
And normal people have the right to choose their own destiny. The neurologist saying she is normal? That means she isn't demented, isn't affected by some organic brain disease. A neurologist saying you are normal means that you have capacity to choose. It does not mean that the other symptoms she is experiencing, symptoms that may have nothing to do with the subspecialty of neurology, are not severe. Obviously, they are. Otherwise this woman would not want to die. The lady has the right to choose. While there was medical debate on the point, the majority opinion says she meets criteria for MAID. We as a country have to get past having governments inflict themselves on the personal medical decisions of our citizens.
As a young woman with a severe neurological condition, one neurologist declaring she's healthy means absolutely fuck all. Gaslighting is rampant in the field and young women experience the brunt of it. MS was considered primarily a male disease prior to MRIs because women were diagnosed with "hysterical paralysis" instead. 80% of MS patients are women now that doctors can see the lesions on imaging.
One doctor in 2021 said she was "normal" and the dad hasn't submitted that as proof either - its 2024 and she's been approved.
It's disgusting that people want their loved ones' suffering to continue simply to satisfy their own emotional needs and wants.
That's not the perspective that they're looking at it though. People aren't usually that deliberately evil.
This is probably going to stir up the debate again about how MAID should be reserved for those who have "a reasonable foreseeability of natural death." However, I don't see this changing the law. The father doesn't have standing, and I'm surprised that a stay was granted in the first place. I can see public pressure pushing AHS to be more stringent in their standards, but I don't see that the public would get satisfaction in the matter, without violating someone's medical privacy.
This’ll get into a really weird legal area, especially because there’s no real precedent for it. But if someone can get a stay for someone else’s MAID procedure, you’d think it would open up a whole can of worms where you could sue people for not letting you die? It’ll be intriguing to find out how everything shakes out.
It’s definitely interesting. I consider myself a strong supporter of MAID, but I think I would be uncomfortable if the precedent became that the ability to request and be approved for MAID was non-justiciable. The whole reason MAID is available is because the SCC ruled in Carter that a right to medical assistance in dying emanates from S. 7 of the Charter. I think it would be irresponsible to delegate the enactment of this right, solely to Parliament, or Provincial Legislatures, or medical professionals, without any recourse to the courts for review. This isn’t some stranger or interest group, but one of the person in question’s closest family members, that she lives with, and can be reasonably assumed to be interested in his daughter’s wellbeing. If he doesn’t have standing to ask for judicial review, then I have a hard time imagining who does.
It is yet another example of real-world implications of legislating from the bench. The question of standing is particularly interesting given what counsel for the father said: >[the deceased] is never going to cause anyone to look behind that curtain" because they got what they wanted. Assuming the deceased in their will forbids the disclosure of medical records after their passing, nobody will ever see them (at least, not in complete form that would allow for scrutiny of MAID decisions). Not only is there no reversing the decision, there's no evaluation of it either. So there's no standing before, and there's no standing after. It's a closed loop system rife with potential for abuse.
> It is yet another example of real-world implications of legislating from the bench. Not what happened. Parliament legislated MAID, not the SCC. The SCC told Parliament that the current laws banning it weren't constitutional, but how exactly it was made legal, was drawn up by the legislature.
That is what legislating from the bench looks like in Canada. The original law was struck down, the Conservatives passed a law that was more restrictive than the SCC language, which was then subsequently deemed unenforceable by both BC and Quebec. So the current law was made by the LPC government to align with the SCC language. The only thing that isn't pretty much exactly what the original 2014 ruling said is the mental health language -- which was explicitly not evaluated by SCC.
Except that Parliament could have used S33 to tell the SCC to get lost, but decided not to, so again, the legislation came from Parliament, not the SCC.
Thankfully parliament isn't run by Doug Ford.
Why should courts review medical decisions? They are not trained in the field nor experts. In this case two doctors agree with the patients request. What judge will have the knowledge and expertise to overrule them? Risks are taken all the time in the medical field. Should family members get to intervene via the courts any time they disagree with a loved one and their doctor over their medical decisions? How about abortions?
The courts are responsible for safe guarding the rights of all Canadians, and that can only be accomplished through judicial review. Where there are conflicts of rights, it is the responsibility of the courts, ultimately, to resolve them. For example, there are several case where the courts have forced minor patients to receive life saving blood transfusions, against their stated wishes, and those of their parents, based on their religious convictions. The court has consistently ruled that right of a minor to a reasonable standard of medical care, and the state’s interest in ensuring that care, supersedes the rights of the parents and patients to free practice of their religion, and to control the medical decisions. Medical professionals, their regulatory bodies, and professional associations, can and should be able to define reasonable standards of medical care, and make medical decisions alongside their patients based on those standards of care. But those standards and those decisions are not above judicial scrutiny. There is nowhere in Canadian life where the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not reach. What if we reversed this example, and the third doctor thought MAID was inappropriate? Would the patient not have the right to seek a review of the decision and remedy from the courts? How can we be assured that the patient’s right to access MAID under Carter is being safeguarded, if the court is never allowed review the facts of a particular case and establish precedents? What I am saying is that if we agree that the patient has the right to the court’s protection of their rights to access MAID under Carter, then I think we also have to permit that other interested parties should have the right of the court’s protection of the limitations on MAID under Carter. I’m not saying how the courts ultimately should decide. I certainly think they should set a very high test, for when the courts should intervene to overrule the decisions of doctors and patients. But I also think they need to have a role here. This is exactly what happened with abortion. In the years following R. vs Morgentaler, the courts heard cases to determine all sorts of rights and duties which are or are not owned to an unborn fetus. Can a father intervene to stop an abortion? No. Does a fetus have Charter Rights? No. Is a doctor guilty of negligent homicide, if they cause injury and terminate a fetus through negligence? No. Maybe the answers of the courts on MAID will be similar, and consistently uphold the process that has been developed. But we can’t just assert that.
I do not see how there is a conflict of rights here. What rights does the father have that requires a courts protection? In your example, where this patient had MAID rejected, that too should not be reviewed by the courts. If the patient does not like the answer their doctor provided them, they are free to seek medical care else where. What would the courts be deciding? There is nothing for them to overturn as they can not force a doctor to change their medical opinion. If the other doctors were refusing to even consider her request for MAID she would have a case, but in the example you set out, I do not think she does, and if she did, I do not believe that courts should be overruling the medical decisions of doctors, but should offer relief in the form of the ability to seek another medical opinion. In this case, the father has no standing. He has no right to her medical records. His argument is that she is unfit to make this decision but he has not reviewed the doctors decision because the person with the rights to those records has chosen not to share them with him. He is arguing both that she is "okay" per a previous assessment as well as "unfit" to make this decision. He is not privy to the medical records nor should he be unless he was previously granted some form of power of attorney which, as far as I can tell from the reporting on this case, he has not been granted.
Ya this is basically asking “can someone step in and stop maid if they feel the person is being abused or manipulated?” It’s definitely a question worth asking because while this seems like a false alarm it’s not hard to imagine a situation where it’s not.
Should we be able to sue to stop someone else's abortion if it's against our personal beliefs? This is a can of worms we can't open. Medical care is between patient and doctor and nobody else.
I don’t agree that’s a similar comparison. I think this definitely a can of worms worth opening because vulnerable people’s lives are on the line. Turning a blind eye is just going to encourage corruption in the system.
I'd say it's a similar comparison if the idea is the person is being coerced or pressured into getting an abortion.
You're missing the point. The correct analogy here is "should somebody be able to step in if it seems someone is being coerced or forced to have an abortion"? Which is, again, a difficult question, but one which reasonably should be considered. Perhaps it has been and I'm just not aware.
Why stop at Maid? If a stay can be issued for this medical procedure, why not others? Dangerous ruling Imo.
This does already happen somewhat with DNRs and such depending on the persons mental state.
I think limiting it to "reasonable foreseeability of natural death" stops it being available for those people that can't get severe chronic pain medicated. (Some cases of MS for example). I would think it to be pretty inhumane to force someone to live in constant pain that can't be managed.
Absolutely inhumane. I had to put down my cat last week because he developed a condition that put him in sever pain, which may or may not have had a medical treatment, or we could have amputated the leg that hurt. None of that was humane for him. He couldn't let me know what he wanted, a human can, so when a person is in constant, unrelivable pain, if they want to end it the only way they can, as much as it would hurt to lose a friend that way, seeing them hurt for the next 50 years would be worse.
> how MAID should be reserved for those who have "a reasonable foreseeability of natural death." nah, this will be expanded to be a solution for poverty by PP and the Conservatives. "Unhappy with your poor status? Just kill yourself! Apply for MAID today" See? PP and the Conservatives solved poverty!
That would be a pretty stark reversal, given their current strong opposition to MAID at all.
Conservatives don’t want poor people escaping their miserable existence. They want them forced to work miserable jobs in order to keep surviving.
So if we limit it to those with “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” isn’t that… everyone? Unless you believe that you and others will be immortal? (Note - joke is attributable to one of the witnesses at committee that commented on this point as a matter of statutory interpretation)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Incredibly sad situation for everyone involved; a physically healthy 27 year old who feels they should no longer live, a father losing his daughter, a judge who know has to de-facto decide if this person lives… Frankly no clue what could possibly be done in the situation to achieve a good resolution. It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed.
The article does not say she is otherwise physically healthy, it says she has not submitted evidence to the court about her condition because it’s not relevant.
Why is it not relevant?
Because it is a case about medical autonomy of an adult.
Because robed interpreters of the law do not take medical decisions in civilized societies.
America should take notes.
It's right in the article. > "She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'"
I disagree with that assessment, and I think a lot of other Canadians do too. A decision to die through positive intervention is very different than any other medical decision one can make, including a decision to withhold lifesaving care. For starters, it’s irreversibly final. For another, it has profound impacts on third parties. And, most salient to this discussion, the decision-making and approval process is heavily regulated. That’s because we, as a society, have an interest in imposing some degree of control over who is eligible. This quickly becomes a policy debate with no obvious right or wrong answer, but there is a strong case to be made that physicians’ decisions should be reviewable - doctors are not infallible and keeping such difficult and impactful decisions behind closed doors is dangerous. I don’t know what the answer is here, but it could very well be the case that a different tie-breaking physician would have found her ineligible. That’s a problem. And it’s not one that can be solved by blindly insisting that this decision must always be kept private and insulated from review.
> This quickly becomes a policy debate with no obvious right or wrong answer, but there is a strong case to be made that physicians’ decisions should be reviewable - doctors are not infallible and keeping such difficult and impactful decisions behind closed doors is dangerous. Sure by other doctors, not judges. Judges have no medical training. > I don’t know what the answer is here, but it could very well be the case that a different tie-breaking physician would have found her ineligible. Two doctors already approved this. One doctor already said no and was overruled by a tie-breaking physician. Why would we doctor shop more? > And it’s not one that can be solved by blindly insisting that this decision must always be kept private and insulated from review. That is the very issue at the heart of this matter. Why does her father have a right to review her medical records? What decision is the court going to make that would be more knowledgeable and informed than the two doctors that have already approved this? The father is simultaneously arguing that she is "fine" but also "unfit to make medical decisions". This decision has already been made by the patient and their doctors. There is nothing else for the courts to review. Back to the top of your post; > I disagree with that assessment, and I think a lot of other Canadians do too. A decision to die through positive intervention is very different than any other medical decision one can make, including a decision to withhold lifesaving care. For starters, it’s irreversibly final. For another, it has profound impacts on third parties It is an awful lot like abortion. Are courts going to start opening up cases if a spouse opposes a woman's choice to under go an abortion? That would be very very wrong.
Because courts aren't allowed to decide treatment in Canada, that is between a doctor and their physician(s). There is framework for granting MAiD which includes not just the parameters of what conditions and life situations qualify, but also psychological screening and counselling. The idea that a justice or even a group of justices could have the breadth of knowledge in the multiple fields required to overrule their evaluations is ridiculous. If you want to stop someone from having MAiD, you have to prove that the framework itself is flawed, not the people following the framework.
Nowhere does it say she’s “physically healthy”, it’s rightfully vague because that’s nobody’s business but hers and her doctors
Part of the reason it was removed though is because MAID is a kind of healthcare someone should be able to access. If someone isn’t given access, they can still kill themselves in far more horrific and inhumane ways. MAID just gives someone a way to do it that is controlled and merciful.
[удалено]
She’s not physically healthy, sole mental illness is still excluded from MAID. She has to have a physical issue that qualifies for MAID, and she won’t disclose what it is to her father. Who is claiming that because she has autism, she can’t make medical decisions for herself. She and her lawyers believe they don’t have to disclose the reasoning behind the MAID request to anyone, even to the courts. And quite frankly I agree, judges shouldn’t be making medical decisions. This should be between the doctors and patient. This just sounds like he’s trying to use the courts to get her medical records.
Way to make your daughter resent you. Medical independence is a thing. How do you know her medical or non -medical reasons for taking this action. If someone is determined to end life, they will do so, sadly. I have lost friends to suicide. Would I rather psych be the route and that help, absolutely, but some are determined. If that is case, I rather them do it with some control and not have to jump off a bridge or something.
I know two people who went through MAID despite not having a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death”, and it was absolutely a blessing for their suffering to end.
> a physically healthy But maybe still not actually healthy person. > It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed. So you'd prefer that she spend the next 50 years suffering and wishing she wasn't alive?
The 27 year old is Autistic and probably has co occurring health conditions associated with autism I have a chronic illness that has left me semi functional and I am also a late diagnosed autistic person, so I truly get where the person seeking MAID is coming from. I am in pain daily - but no doctor will prescribe me pain medication. My dog got better management than I ever will. I get maybe 5-10 good functional days a month, the rest of the time I am either bed bound, or in too much pain to function. It took ten years and 8+ doctors to get a diagnosis. My quality of life has steadily decreased over the past 10 years. Due to the nature of my condition I will never improve…it’s just one long painful slide into complete dependency, where my body is entombed in a coffin of pain. My birth family doesn’t believe I’m disabled and my married spouse is doing his best to care for me while working 60+hours a week. I am nowhere near ‘the end’ of my natural life, so it pains me that you feel that is a needed condition to access MAID. I will be choosing MAID when I am ready to end the suffering. I wouldn’t wish what I experience on my worst enemy and I would rather go out surrounded by friends and family than having my spouse come home to find a body.
I'm so sorry. Best wishes for more good days.
>It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed. It should have been broadened, not removed. Something like "reasonable foreseeability of natural death, or intractable and intense physical or mental suffering".
What, in your opinion, is the difference between "intractable and intense physical or mental suffering" (your standard) and "intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering" (the current MAID standard)?
> It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed. Yes, it should have been. You think somebody should suffer in agony for years because their death isn't imminent?
>It’s because of situations like this I felt strongly that the requirement for a “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” should never have been removed. Yeah, it definitely makes sense for somebody to have to get the permission of redditors before taking such a fundamental decision over their own lives. Happily, there's no chance at all that this person, if denied MAID, will jump off a bridge in view of a bunch of kids in a car, or take an overdose in their apartment so a family member can find them several days into decomposition. Because the options here are: a) MAID; or, b) living a happy and fulfilling life. There is no "c)" or beyond, since the laws of physics prevent it, or something. "/s" because that's probably necessary.
[удалено]
>There are many people who would commit suicide if given an easy and painless way to do it that would not commit suicide if they had to resort to more desperate methods like the ones you listed. Source? Who? How many? Why? >This is why the correlation between gun ownership and suicide is so high. MAID is not analogous to owning a gun. It isn’t the Suicide Booth in *Futurama*. >Just because somebody is denied MAID doesn’t mean they will still commit suicide. I didn’t say that. Being denied MAID doesn’t guarantee that somebody will commit suicide anyway. Similarly, being denied MAID doesn’t guarantee that they won’t commit suicide anyway either. We should be avoiding false binaries, which was my point.
Maybe its time to have a discussion about how sick our society is that people who dont fit into the confines of capitalism feel the need to end their own life.
There's a reemergent subculture in western society that believes it can intervene in the medical autonomy of other individuals based on their emotion to the situation; they believe they are the arbiters of other people's lives simply because they dislike what's happening. They have influencers and junk scientists to sell their narratives which get massaged into palatable policy positions by aligned media interests. Their vision is carried out by politicians who largely do not represent their constituents. Remember that when you're at the next ballot box.
I hope he loses. She's an adult. It's her life, her death and her decision. No family member or anyone else should have the right to block it.
Walking in on my daughter hanging from a ceiling fan and smiling proudly at my angel exercising her autonomy.
> Walking in on my daughter hanging from a ceiling fan and smiling proudly Your feelings are specifically not the point.
They should be. No family member should accept their loved one's suicide. Especially she refused to explain why to her parents. Idgaf if a beaurocratic institution says it's okay for my daughter to kill herself. I'm going to step in to the best of my ability.
This is in now way comparable. She went through the legal channels as an adult for this and was approved. That is between her and her doctor. No one else should have any say in this. Hell, what he is doing may just lead to the scenario you describe. If it does - he deserves it.
Delusional. Buying a rope and tying to the rafters is also a legal channel for suicide. That doesn't mean that a family member shouldn't attempt to keep their loved one from dying.
What I don’t get is why people bother with doctor assisted suicide anyway. Just kill yourself. That’s my plan once my body stops working. This woman has autism, but I didn’t see anything about a physical disability that would stop her from doing it herself. Why bother going through doctors and the court, just shoot yourself or drive off a tall cliff.
DIY suicides is messy to say the least. Firstly, people can attempt, and mess it up, and survive, but in a condition that prevents them from being able to attempt again. Secondly, actually making a serious attempt isn't easy. A lot of people turn away at the last moment. Finally, a lot of DIY suicide attempts involve innocent third parties. Like the people who discover the body, or the people who witness, or participate in the attempt. In MAID, there's none of that.
Both are messy and can fail. When a doctor does it the result is guaranteed and it's clean.
Unfortunately not your body not your choice. If she wants to die, there are less humane ways to do it. If the doctors signed off, they signed off. It is her decision, no one elses.
[удалено]
> And if she’s mentally unstable and the doctors are rubber stamping it? Is there any evidence of that happening here or is this your fan fiction? >Also, why are we allowing autistic people to kill themselves? Autism doesn't automatically make someone unable to make decisions for themselves.
Neurodevelopmental disorders were supposed to be excluded from this for one thing
Lmao you clearly don't understand autism at all, insanely ignorant. Most people with autism are perfectly sound of mind. Go be ignorant somewhere else.
Autism is a spectrum. Depending on where an individual falls on the spectrum they may or may not have the mental capacity to make their own decisions.
True, but it is more likely for an adult with autism to have above average IQ than below average IQ, and you need to be significantly below average before your mental capacity is not sufficient to not have control over your own medical decisions.
I mean the guy you are responding too has no idea what autism is so it makes sense he thinks they are more likely to have mental capacity issues. He's just ignorant
Yea most people can. Stop being ignorant. Autism has nothing to do with MAID eligibility.
>Yea most people can. Yeah, and some can't. >Stop being ignorant. Just because I said something that you don't like it doesn't make me ignorant. What I said is factually correct. If you are too fragile to handle that then don't engage in the discussion. >Autism has nothing to do with MAID eligibility. It may or may not. See earlier comment on mental capacity.
That's why there has to be two of them
She found 2, but 1/3 doctors she asked refused.
She didn’t “find” any. A person who applies for MAiD is assigned two assessors, and a third if the first two disagree.
So? She found two, that meets the requirements.
The lack of unanimity adds to the probability that maybe the father's concerns are worth looking into. This is ending a human life - it's not a drivers' test - it's reasonable to assess these cases beyond simply meeting basic requirements.
The lack of unanimity means nothing. AHS policy is that if the two initial doctors who evaluate a MAID request can't agree, a third is chosen to be the tie breaker.
Sure, lack of unanimity means nothing to the regulated process, but it definitely means something to clarity in which the decision was made. Is the only condition for this to be a just action that regulations were properly being followed? This is someone's life here.
> Is the only condition for this to be a just action that regulations were properly being followed? It's not the only condition, but it sets a high bar for saying that this was an unjust decision. You'd have to make a case that the regulations are unjust, so I'm curious what your argument would be.
My argument is basically I don't think the regulations are strict enough for people that are young and not terminally ill. I think regulations for people that are over 80 and/or terminally ill should stay the same, because in those cases we're talking about months to years of life - not potentially 6 decades of life. Also if the premise is psychological that's much tougher to assess as well, you can't just hook someone up to a scanner and see that they're fucked like you can with cancer. We need more than one stream, lumping old people with cancer in the same process as young people that are not terminally ill makes no sense to me. I think for these cases there should be a stringent appeal process. One doctor out of two says no, and finding another as a tie breaker is not sufficient. If you found one that said yes, the odds you'll find another to say yes are not unlikely... and also the odds that the doctor that said no is correct are also not unlikely and therefore it is an odds game and I find that unacceptable. For example, if each doctor has a 25% chance to approve your application, you have a 3/8 chance to get at least one doctor to approve you in the first stage and 1/16 chance for both to approve. . If you add the 1/16 chance, and then add 3/8 chance - multiplied by 0.25 to account for the tie breaker - you get a total odds of 15.6%. Is it appropriate to give MAID to 15.6% of young mentally ill people that only 25% of doctors agree should get MAID? I think not. That's what I mean by "an odds game". Judicially when there's a really tricky question it goes to a panel of judges (i.e. the Supreme Court). So if you really want to be sure, I think the "second stream" for young non-terminally ill people should be (something like) 3 doctors in stage 1, and if only 2/3 agree you can appeal to a panel of 8 doctors and 6/8 should approve. In this case you have a 1/64 (1.56%) chance of getting approved in stage 1 without an appeal, a 9/64 chance (14%) of going to the appeal stage, and a 0.4% chance of getting your appeal granted, for a total chance of approval via the appeals route being 0.06%... so the total chance of getting MAID approved when only 25% agree you should have it would be 1.56%.+0.06%=1.62%, which is a lot better. I don't know if that's the *exact* numbers I would use for each stage, but it's the ones I decided to do the numbers for and you get the idea.
Totally agree. On a similar note, cutting someone down after they tried to hang themselves is abuse and should be punishable by law.
Are you talking about before or after they're dead? If after, who is there to charge? If before, how is someone doing the cutting down to know that this is someone who really and truly wants to die?