Canadian Euthanasia laws may be extended to minors and mentally ill

25Avalon

Leavingnormal I’m afraid that’s not quite true. The legislation was amended so persons don’t have to be at the end of their life, and as of 17th March 2023 people with mental illnesses will be eligible for Medically Assisted Dying. This is not a scare story but what is actually going to happen. It smacks of eugenics.

eligible not forced

“Somewhere awful is already here”.

Thank you for this *Leavingnormal”.

I'm in favour of voluntary euthanasia. Some pain cannot be managed. Of course some religions are against it but they should be allowed to control the rest of us.

I’m so sorry Lathyrus that your mother had to endure this.

I don’t believe for a second you needed to be braver.

I think society needs to be braver.

Sometimes it’s not that the palliative care needed to be better. I’ve read that palliative care does not mean a pain fee end of life for everyone. No one should be made to end their life in intolerable prolonged pain. And no loving family member should have to endure their loved ones suffering.

I'm concerned about control of peoples rights to do what's best for them too Grantanow

Somewhere between allowing - proscribing in fact, because of the Law - terminally ill people to suffer agonising death, and 'encouraging' mentally and physically disabled people towards euthanisa, there must be a middle-ground. And I suspect most on GN do not want either of these scenarios.

Back in the late 40s I know that our family doctor "assisted" my desperately ill grandmother who was pleading with everyone to "take me out of the road", to die. He simply gave her massive doses of whatever the opiate was that was used in those days to try to control the pain, and told the family that it would probably end her life sooner rather than later. Which it did, and they were grateful.

My only fear is not having the discussion - we need to have it - my fear is that in an economic climate that the world is suffering at the moment - who is going to make the decisions and just as importantly, on what basis. I don't personally believe the 'slippery slope' is a fallacy - laws are 'updated' and extended, and I don't believe a law on euthanasia would be static.

Let me put it this way... I'd have more faith, generally, in a bunch of grans on GN making the decisions than I would in a government - any government in any country - that is fixated on the small-state ideology, who want to cut state-spending and privatise the services that many, many people rely on. I believe there is such a thing as a compassionate Conservative, but the way we are heading is very much to the right of compassionate Conservatism and under that political environment, I would be very very afraid.

Not all people with a terminal illness want to die.

I nursed my maternal Grandma who was riddled with cancer she clung on to her life with all her might, I was with her when she died in her sleep.

I moved my Mum into our home when she became too ill to remain in her own home. She lived every second as well as she could and tried so hard to live long enough to see her 4th GGC born. Unfortunately she needed more care than myself and the careers could give her in her last days and she moved into a hospice.

She was so determined to see her next GGC right up till the last 24 hours, unfortunately she didn’t get her wish.

My Father also died in a hospice, he knew he didn’t have long and his death was peaceful surrounded by his children and one of his grandchildren.

I worry that folks who are terminal would be gently pushed or encourage to end their days earlier.

As for parents having to make a decision regarding severely disabled children whether that be mentally or physically I just cannot begin to understand how they could start that thought process.

GrannyGravy13

Not all people with a terminal illness want to die.

I nursed my maternal Grandma who was riddled with cancer she clung on to her life with all her might, I was with her when she died in her sleep.

I moved my Mum into our home when she became too ill to remain in her own home. She lived every second as well as she could and tried so hard to live long enough to see her 4th GGC born. Unfortunately she needed more care than myself and the careers could give her in her last days and she moved into a hospice.

She was so determined to see her next GGC right up till the last 24 hours, unfortunately she didn’t get her wish.

My Father also died in a hospice, he knew he didn’t have long and his death was peaceful surrounded by his children and one of his grandchildren.

I worry that folks who are terminal would be gently pushed or encourage to end their days earlier.

As for parents having to make a decision regarding severely disabled children whether that be mentally or physically I just cannot begin to understand how they could start that thought process.

I understand and sympathise with everything you've said GG13. And your fears are my fears also.

But is it morally right to insist that another person - because of their own opinion on the matter - decides that others must suffer a painful death when that individual has decided they've had enough?

I've never witnessed a painful death (I was only allowed to see my grandmother briefly) but I have experienced excruciating pain for a brief period of time after a long and complex surgery which left me screaming and writhing in pain until a doctor could be found to agree to a strong opiate being administered. It was the most awful experience and I haven't managed to get over it. It fills me with dread that I might have to suffer such overpowering pain again at the end of my life. I certainly wouldn't want to condemn anyone else to suffer like that.

That's why I think we have to have the debate. But I do worry about who would make the decisions. Most of all, I worry that a 'nod' to euthanasia would be taken constitutionally by a powerful entity that had vested interests in reducing the economic burden of an ageing population and of those who are disabled, either mentally or physically.

If the pandemic proved anything - it certainly indicated that there was a distinct lack of care shown to the elderly by government. And I definitely wouldn't want individuals like Kwarteng or Truss being anywhere near the initial decision-making process. But that's just a personal POV.

The important thing GrannyGravy is that all f your relatives had a choice about how they spent their last days.

The way the law stands at the moment, those who want to live as long as possible can have that but those who want to die must go on living because other people say they must.

A law that permitted people to choose their time and manner of death would give everyone a choice.

To insist that people must go on living when they want to die, just because somebody says they must, is every bit as terrifying as your fear that people would

Would be pushed to die.

Lathyrus

I really, really object to the point of fury to an article that uses dismissive phrases like “*trot out heart-rending cases”.

Wherever the author of the article is coming from it is not from a point of view if compassion and caring for people.

Watching my mother die for weeks in screaming agony, a nightmare nobody could alleviate or get away from, sitting beside her and hearing her plead “Can’t you help me to go” and having to say no, because of the law.
Living with the emotional agony that in the end she died alone in a hospital bed with nobody who loved her with her.

If a euthanasia law had been in place her death could have been so very different. Her case was terminal. What could be the justification for keeping anyone alive in those circumstances?

But there we are, just trotting out that experience.

I am with you all the way here Lathyrus. And I am so sorry you also had to experience this.

Are you a member of Dying with Dignity?

But this thread is about mental illness and minors, which is totally different. For me, it depends on the minor and if he or she can show full understanding of the issues, and are able to express their wishes clearly. There is no reason why an older teenager should not be allowed to express what they want and get full support.

For mental health- it is more complex. And again, just depends. If someone has suffered severe mental illness for many many years, and no help or treatment can help- and the only alternative is attempt after attempt at bodged suicide- then I am not sure. But perhaps with a proper report to that effect from at least 2 senior psychiatrists. Not sure...

I am 100% in favour of assisted dying in other cases like terminal cancer or debilitating neuro-disease, etc. Or even for someone who is over 90 and who feel they do not want to continue to live with multiple illnesses and disabilities, and very dependent on care and having to live in an institution and lost all dignity and independence.

GG13 ''I worry that folks who are terminal would be gently pushed or encourage to end their days earlier.''

which is why proper safeguards have to be put in place, to ensure that no cohersion is present, with 2 interviews, with the person on their own, at the tie of choice and again on the day.

However, it has been proven, that when people know that the choice will be theirs if they just cannot bear to continue, cannot bear any more pain or loss of dignity- they more often than not. contiunue to live much longer- safe and relieved with the knowledge the choice is theirs.

No, I’m not sure in the case of mental health either because, in many cases of mental health, wanting to die can be a temporary state, even when someone has attempted suicide.

But where the it is not a case of if someone should die but of when, that person is going to die in the near future and a choice of how. - in agony or peacefully- then I don’t think there would be many people who would actually stand in front of someone and say,

“I’ve decided that you must go on and on in screaming unbearable agony for as long as your body can take it. And those who love you endure watching you be tortured and know there is nothing they can do to prevent it.”

And yet that is what’s the opponents of assisted dying are saying. What is happening to people now and will go on happening until the law is changed.

In the case of minors, if my child was in agony with no prospect of relief, I hope I would have the courage to end that for them whether the law allowed it or not. And yet if I had other children to care for, how could I?

I posted this not to debate over whether the terminal ill and elderly should have the right to die if they so choose, but because I was perturbed that this should be extended to the mentally ill and minors as young as 12 who would NOT require parental consent. As one Canadian mental health consultant said he was concerned that rather than adopt this option more should be done to help patients.

So you did. And then, I’m afraid, I got overcome by the article posted by blossoming wihich was a very emotive piece written from a one sided viewpoint on euthanasia.

I apologise Avalon because your original pist was worthy of a different debate. Could you repost and get this one deleted or perhaps it’s not too late to get it back on track😳

pist = post

Sorry.

25Avalon

I posted this not to debate over whether the terminal ill and elderly should have the right to die if they so choose, but because I was perturbed that this should be extended to the mentally ill and minors as young as 12 who would NOT require parental consent. As one Canadian mental health consultant said he was concerned that rather than adopt this option more should be done to help patients.

I apologise for my part in going 'off topic' by commenting on another's post.

It perhaps was inevitable, given the subject, that this would happen, but even so, it obviously wasn't the issue you wanted to raise.

I agree with your concern. At such a young tender age I'm not sure a child would really have the mental capacity for such a devastating decision, yet children of that age and even younger) do take their own lives. But in Canada as in the UK it seems that there is such a lack of mental health resources for young people. I don't think this is the way to deal with the problem. It almost feels like a case of just giving up on them.

I saw what happened with my mother as she slid down the slope of Alzheimers over nine years. I have sworn that I do not want that to happen to me should I start heading that way. I'd rather somebody put a pillow over my face when that started to happen to me. I don't want do-gooders telling me that all life, however futile and without hope, is precious. I want to be able to say in advance, stop it when it gets to such-and-such a point; slip me a Brompton and let me go in piece with some dignity left.

Caleo I'm sorry but 'severely subnormal' is outdated and unpleasant terminology. Learning or intellectual disability is the preferred term now.
People with this type of disability are often unable to give informed consent, it really is a slippery slope isn't it.

BlueBelle is termination of a Down Syndrome pregnancy mandatory in Iceland then, scary stuff indeed.

sodapop

Caleo I'm sorry but 'severely subnormal' is outdated and unpleasant terminology. Learning or intellectual disability is the preferred term now.
People with this type of disability are often unable to give informed consent, it really is a slippery slope isn't it.

BlueBelle is termination of a Down Syndrome pregnancy mandatory in Iceland then, scary stuff indeed.

...is termination of a Down Syndrome pregnancy mandatory in Iceland then, scary stuff indeed.

NO, it isn't mandatory.

All women are offered screening for chromosomal disorders - but they have the right to either have the screening or refuse it. Around 15-20% of women refuse the screening.

And, further:

For many years the Icelandic government has been working on transposing into Icelandic law provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. In signing the Declaration in 2007, Icelanders obliged themselves to work towards implementing it and it was ratified in Iceland in 2017. Since 2012, this work has followed a specific strategy and action plan for the disabled adopted by the Icelandic parliament Althingi, based on the UN Declaration. The current strategy and action plan in this field covers the period 2017-2021, and was drafted in close consultation with organisations for the disabled. The objectives of the programme state, for instance: "It is a core principle of Icelandic society to respect people with disabilities as part of human diversity. The full human rights of disabled persons will be strengthened, protected and ensured on equal terms with others, and conditions created enabling the disabled to live an independent life on their own premises."

www.government.is/diplomatic-missions/embassy-article/2018/03/26/Facts-about-Downs-syndrome-and-pre-natal-screening-in-Iceland/

Leavingnormal

I’m not sure this is not a rather one sided article. Assisted suicide has often been used as a political tool to install fear and sway minds. Canadian parliament may well be discussing things like a parents access to euthanasia for a severely disabled child but it would not be discussing it ‘calmly’ as the newspaper writes. (When have parliamentary discussions about anything ever been discussed calmly - unless it’s in the vein of wage rises for politicians?)

This is a political tool to stir up dissent in society that’s increasingly divided, something newspapers, alongside politicians, also do regularly. It’s a long long arc from assisted suicide to euthanising people who may be seen as a drain on society.

Postulating that an 18 year old depressed person will be able to access assisted dying because some teens are talking about it on social media is not a balanced assessment of the subject.

I’ve read articles like this before. They are designed to alarm the reader and cause a reactionary response.

Inevitably, there will be a line like this in the article:

“ While our sympathies will be with those at the end of their lives suffering from great pain” which is a big f you to those people. Empty words.

“the Canadian experience should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks euthanasia will be confined to those cases divided”

All I can tell is that legislated assisted dying in Canada is ONLY for those at the end of their lives suffering from great pain

I’m sure if we examined the text of this telegraph article further, we could see how it’s been designed to stir up emotional responses, that they’ve set up a series of ‘what ifs’ and then come to some frightening conclusion when there is no real basis for the conclusion they have come to..

I agree. its scaremongering. A POV put by one member of a committee is not law.

Wyllow3 it will be law come next March that the mentally ill will be able to have assisted dying. This is not scaremongering but what is going to happen. There is also talk of children as young as 12 being able to choose for themselves without parental consent. That is what is concerning.

LadyHonoriaDedlock

I saw what happened with my mother as she slid down the slope of Alzheimers over nine years. I have sworn that I do not want that to happen to me should I start heading that way. I'd rather somebody put a pillow over my face when that started to happen to me. I don't want do-gooders telling me that all life, however futile and without hope, is precious. I want to be able to say in advance, stop it when it gets to such-and-such a point; slip me a Brompton and let me go in piece with some dignity left.

Alzheimers and dementia are hugely difficult to deal with in this context. Even in countries where it is totally legal to ask for assistance to die- you have to demonstrate, without any shadow of doubt, that you are compos mentis when applying, and on the day.

Anyone with dementia or Alzheimers therefore has to decide to end it all at the early stages, as too late can come very soon.

There is a debate desperately needs to be had, and legislation made.

Listing examples that could be problematic areas are valid, in order to discuss, scaremongering is not.

By using examples many of us would be horrified at, like the OP, its making it harder to have discussions,

and holding back examples like Lathyrus's mum and my Quaker Friend with MND which are clear cut "yes, allowed" , to have that help.