This sounds awful … Elderly lady euthanised against her will in Canada

Scary.

I told my doctor I was worried about my father as he had pneumonia and heart failure in hospital. He said it's a very distressing condition and what I normally do is lay them down flat and administer morphine.
My father made a full recovery and lived another 7 years. I'm so glad my GP didn't work in that hospital. This was in the mid 1980s. I did wonder how many others he had 'helped' on their way. There has always been abuse of the system imo.

TerriBull I think you have maybe not heard about the trial/review of the "new" drug regime..

​After the lead clinician agreed the child was suffering and euthanasia should be allowed the "Second Opinion" was sought.
The primary (treating) physician consulted an independent expert as they should have done.
This expert then concluded that the legal criteria were not yet met. This was because some unused anti-epileptic drug combinations remained available to try.

​The treating physician accepted this and subsequently administered the recommended anti-epileptic medications.
^According to the medical file, the child suffered severe adverse drug reactions—specifically increased gastrointestinal distress and respiratory suppression—without a reduction in seizure activity and distress.

A "Third Opinion" was sought.

Following the failed drug trial, a second independent specialist (Third opinion) was formally consulted.
This expert reviewed the updated medical record, noted that the proposed alternative treatments had been tried and caused additional suffering, and certified that all reasonable treatment alternatives were exhausted.

Only then was the ending of life allowed.

This sequence is covered fully in the the official case report.

Cossy

Your last paragraph was particularly interesting!
.

As claimed, the circumstances were horribly wrong. But before reaching any conclusion, it's notable that the report appears primarily in a "pro life" publication that opposes euthanasia and abortion. A number of other reports simply quote this or are in publications not noted for accuracy, such as the Mail. The event happened a couple of months ago - there seems to be no reporting of any follow up so far.

Petrina

Rosie51

GrannyGravy13

The one thing that stood out for me in the link provided by cossy was that since 2016 I in every 20 deaths in Canada is through MAiD.

Sorry to those who are pro assisted suicide/euthanasia but this has made me feel even more against this ever being law in England.

I find it hard to understand why more aren't horrified by this statistic. And also by some of the people that are offered MAiD, Christine Gauthier being a prime example. Her life isn't 'unbearable' she just needs more assistance to be able to live it enjoyably.

People are not horrified because there is more than one way to interpret it. For example this could be telling us that 1 in every 20 people in the UK suffer painful and undignified deaths.

The figure is 1 in 20 deaths, that encompasses all deaths, those by accident, illness, natural causes, old age (including peaceful ones in their sleep), sudden deaths from heart attacks etc as well as the assisted suicide that is MAiD. It does not support your example of 1 in every 20 people in the UK suffer painful and undignified deaths.
If the state is involved in facilitating 1 in 20 deaths that is horrifying, or should be. You think people like Christine Gauthier should be offered assisted suicide because they need disabled living adjustments?

Thanks GG13, ten years.

And, counterpoint and others, that is a fair point.

This is disturbing, but will be fully investigated. Those trying to say "hey, look what could go wrong here" are jumping on several bandwagons without knowing the real facts.

Every day here some folk are allowed to die without excessive intervention, perhaps some commenters need to research the DNR protocols which are often in place?

There is a substantial subset of sufferers who desperately wanted a new method of assisted death to be legally in place here, perhaps some of those protesting in this thread should go and discuss the topic to see if their present stance, from several stages removed, would hold up?

Thank you for supplying the background to that particular case Not Spaghetti.

I understand there should be an option for those with debilitating/painful and terminal conditions.

Jumping continents back to Canada what they have there is seriously bothering. Quite aside from whether or not the circumstanes surrounding this elderly woman's untimely death were ethical. Certainly what was suggested to Christine Gauthier and other such cases are more than cause for concern.

It's a highly loaded subject matter and how euthinasia appears to have progressed into state assisted killing in Canada in certain instances appears to be far from ideal.

There has to be a clear choice. Good care or bed it by choice.
How many care homes offer the kind of end of life care any of us out here would want?
Husband had good 24 hr care at home but still wanted to die. Wasn’t tetraplegic so had to wait and wait for death.neither options look good to me.
We need a well thought out option to choose and look at other countries to see how it goes wrong.

Sorry should read end it not bed it!

Should read end it not bed it

Rosie51

Petrina

Rosie51

GrannyGravy13

The one thing that stood out for me in the link provided by cossy was that since 2016 I in every 20 deaths in Canada is through MAiD.

Sorry to those who are pro assisted suicide/euthanasia but this has made me feel even more against this ever being law in England.

I find it hard to understand why more aren't horrified by this statistic. And also by some of the people that are offered MAiD, Christine Gauthier being a prime example. Her life isn't 'unbearable' she just needs more assistance to be able to live it enjoyably.

People are not horrified because there is more than one way to interpret it. For example this could be telling us that 1 in every 20 people in the UK suffer painful and undignified deaths.

The figure is 1 in 20 deaths, that encompasses all deaths, those by accident, illness, natural causes, old age (including peaceful ones in their sleep), sudden deaths from heart attacks etc as well as the assisted suicide that is MAiD. It does not support your example of 1 in every 20 people in the UK suffer painful and undignified deaths.
If the state is involved in facilitating 1 in 20 deaths that is horrifying, or should be. You think people like Christine Gauthier should be offered assisted suicide because they need disabled living adjustments?

Sorry Rosie - just don't understand what you're trying to say. I understand exactly what 1 in 20 deaths means.

But I do resent your last sentence - you know very well that this is not what I'm saying and, frankly, people who are against assisted dying do themselves a disservice by making hyperbolic statements like that. It's less likely, not more likely, that people will be swayed by any reasonable arguments you might put forward if you react that way.

It doesn't sound as if her wishes were carried out at all. The timing is also rather suspicious, (whilst her family were away on holiday). So sad for her, not to have her final wishes carried out. It shouldn't have happened should it? I feel sorry for the victim and her family.

I think more information is needed in order to express an informed opinion in relation to this case.
Personally I do believe in the right to die with dignity, at a time of one’s choosing. Most people will base this on their diagnosis, prognosis, health deterioration and quality of life, which will differ for everyone.
Gold standards of palliative care involving holistic care certainly differ in their availability and provision. Many charities are struggling to keep hospices afloat.
Subsequent government's have claimed they will invest more into palliative care provision, but have failed to do this, relying on charities. So even now many patients are not provided with effective and timely palliative care. Those who believe that accessing palliative care means there is no need for euthanasia provision, fails to understand that everyone’s quality of life and tolerance is as unique as each one of us. For that reason it should be down to us all to determine when and how we die, faced with an intolerable diagnosis.

BlueBelle

It appears she was afraid and crying that she did not want to die
CarrotTop why are you inferring I want to start a riot I simple passed on some news that I think should be talked about Why would you have a problem with that ?

Oh BlueBelle, I apologise if you thought my "riot" comment was aimed at you personally. I absolutely didn't infer from what you said that you meant to make trouble, nor did I mean to imply it in my reply. I don't have a problem with the discussion of any topic at all (and could, in turn, ask why you assumed that I do). It's easy to misinterpret a brief comment online, without being able to see the writer's expression and hear their tone of voice. I have absolutely no reason or desire to insult you - why would I? - but clearly I wasn't vigilant enough in reading back my comment before pressing Post Message. Apologies again.

The old lady was going to die soon for sure - better for her to get it over with quickly. Hopefully she had a nice life, except for the last part.
good grief can you get any hard hearted edd269

That’s ok CarrotTop apology accepted if I interpretated it differently to how you meant it, alls good ….we re ok

I reserve judgment because I don't regard Fox News as reliable.

edd269

Fox News likes to be controversial and sensational - that is the most disgusting part!

The old lady was going to die soon for sure - better for her to get it over with quickly. Hopefully she had a nice life, except for the last part.

The old lady was going to die soon for sure - better for her to get it over with quickly.

Better for her?

The ONLY person who can decide that - is her.

Anyone who believes that another person would be "better off" being euthanised is quite simply projecting their own feelings on that person.

"The old lady was going to die soon for sure"

Your comment implies the 'rationalisation' - she was going to die anyway

... I'm in two minds about euthanasia, but comments like yours make me appreciate the sentiments of those that are opposed to it.

She obviously thought it was a good idea at one point - but I honestly don't want to say much more until the facts are known.

I've just checked when facts will emerge and it's likely 3 to 6 months before anything is known. There are three separate lots of fact finding possible- two in progress.

Until official findings, the details in the public domain remain family allegations.

​Medical practitioners and long-term care facilities are strictly bound by patient privacy laws and active police confidentiality rules, neither The Pearl care facility nor the attending physicians can publicly release their medical records or tell their side of the story. Verified facts will only become available when official reports are published or court documents are unsealed.

I'm against capital punishment, so I can't agree with a forced euthanasia either, if it's truly desired by the person in question and them alone, well that's another matter. If not, then like capital punishment it's murder by the state.

TerriBull

I'm against capital punishment, so I can't agree with a forced euthanasia either, if it's truly desired by the person in question and them alone, well that's another matter. If not, then like capital punishment it's murder by the state.

Well, I'm not even sure that those who are for Capital Punishment would agree with the forced Euthanasia of a vulnerable old lady if, indeed, that turns out to be the case.

However, as butterandjam pointed out upthread after reading the details of what is currently known - it doesn't really quite make sense - it doesn't add up. So along with others, I shall reserve judgment.

It's such a major issue isn't it? Also an emotive one. But even though we don't know precisely what happened, this will not prevent some from speculating, according to their own POV or, in some cases, their agenda.

The most concerning thing about this so far, for me, is the poster upthread who - in essence - said that she was going to die anyway... She didn't couch it in those terms, but might just as well have done because it would be difficult to interpret it in any other way.

I would have thought if there was even a smidgen of doubt in the person being euthanised, they should have stopped immediately and waited for further confirmation with both the lady in question and the family involved
Sounds very loosy goosey to me and dangerous