In Canada, it all started with heartfelt denunciations of poorly palliated deaths as you do here, got expanded by courts which cowered in the face of equality demands by activists, and ended with the aggressive insertion of euthanasia into every corner of the healthcare system in the name of “access“ to what was, by now, a legal right.
An unsettling number of doctors and nurse practitioners emerged who are apparently exhilarated by the provision of death, oddly similar in tone to the trans-surgery enthusiast Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher who you deplored in another of your articles, and become quite evangelical for the procedure.
But eventually, we were reduced to begging for a kill-free nook in the system for patients and medical personnel who wanted nothing to do with the new regime:
And more recently, disabled Canadian veterans calling a helpline to inquire about their benefits, perhaps for money to install a wheelchair ramp or something like that, were helpfully prompted to consider death by doctor. That was not just the action of one rogue government employee, it happened to at least 21 veterans interacting with several different provincial call centres.
People with serious but not end-stage illnesses, who have no reason to make this stuff up, describe gratuitous reminders about their right to medical death offered on first encounters with jaded and overworked nurses and doctors.
There are simply no guidelines, no guard rails, no safety precautions, which can survive our often admirable modern obsession with autonomy and equality. Protocols to ensure “compliance“ become empty rituals. If one doctor says no, eventually another says yes.
Theoretically, you are right, it should not be a zero sum game and alternatives to cheap and easy death could be enhanced, but funding restrictions triumphed in Canada and Palliative care never got the boost that was promised.
What a mess. You don’t have to do this. Competent palliative care, pioneered by your own Dame Cicely Saunders at St. Christopher’s Hospice, holds the clues.
It's a breath of fresh air to read this. In principle, I support it too. Not the version that is going through now without adequate safeguards (one look at Canada's MAID provides all the red flags anyone would ever need to see on how poorly delivered law impacts vulnerable people), but one that recognises that terminally ill people deserve dignity and choice within their final time in life.
My mum passed away 4 years ago from cancer. She also had Parkinson's. We'll never know if it was the immunotherapy that caused her stroke (we suspect it was) but she really gave it everything to live. She wanted to fight the cancer, even when it was stage 4. That's why she had the immunotherapy. But after her stroke everything changed. She was immobile, needed a hoist to get from her bed to the wheelchair and full-time nursing care. My dad and a team of carers looked after her. There were dark times but she kept her humour too. But what she didn't have was choice. Death was coming - we knew that. She knew that. My dad, my brother and I were all with her when the time finally came (and we all spent time together before then too) but that also meant that we had to see her suffer. My mum's story isn't unique. People like my mum deserve choice and dignity in their final stage in life.
I don't support the messy bill that's currently on the table. It needs far better safeguards building in to make sure people with mental health conditions don't get pulled into its scope and that vulnerable people aren't coerced into seeing themselves as a burden on their families when they still have time left where there is still life to live. My mum didn't want to die, she wanted to live. But death was already coming for her and she deserved a say in when it happened.
It's great in theory, James, but I don't trust the devious Kim Leadbeater and I don't trust the NHS to do this competently or compassionately. The example of MAID in Canada is not encouraging.
Canada's "MAID " bill is something we definitely don't wish to follow ,but nevertheless this bill is a slippery slope because human beings are never completely satisfied ,are they ? The abortion bill had strict criteria to start with but now it's a free for all ,even down to self administration of abortion pills without ANY medical oversight . There have even been attempts by some to have the conscience clause removed ,which would result in medical professionals risking their jobs if they refuse to take part in it . So far , that's been unsuccessful ,but for how long ??. Nurses in Canada have (allegedly) lost their jobs for refusing to participate in " Maid "!! Extreme liberalism always wants to widen the paramaters !!
I do believe in "death with dignity" and choice of circumstances for a peaceful death when a suffering death is inevitable, but what holds me back from endorsement is distrust of a medical profession with doctors who commit double mastectomies, castration, while other doctors stand by and watch without stopping it.
Have you investigated the drugs used? They are experimental, and include a sedative, so the person appears peaceful, but may be suffering flash pulmonary oedema? There are stories of different responses to the drugs including vomiting, or a prolonged death process. Hardly suffering-free or dignified, and causing lasting trauma to loved ones.
Prisoners in America, are very aware of problems with capital punishment; recently a man opted to die by firing squad rather than face lethal injection.
Dr Cicely Saunders spoke against the need for euthanasia, and her modern Hospice movement that she founded at St Christophers in Sydenham UK, is proven to work for patients and their families. It would be a disaster if palliative care in was obliterated by "assisted dying."
In Canada, it all started with heartfelt denunciations of poorly palliated deaths as you do here, got expanded by courts which cowered in the face of equality demands by activists, and ended with the aggressive insertion of euthanasia into every corner of the healthcare system in the name of “access“ to what was, by now, a legal right.
An unsettling number of doctors and nurse practitioners emerged who are apparently exhilarated by the provision of death, oddly similar in tone to the trans-surgery enthusiast Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher who you deplored in another of your articles, and become quite evangelical for the procedure.
I and many others had serious reservations:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/will-johnston-the-wrong-decision-on-assisted-suicide
But eventually, we were reduced to begging for a kill-free nook in the system for patients and medical personnel who wanted nothing to do with the new regime:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/will-johnston-beware-of-assisted-suicide-zealots
And more recently, disabled Canadian veterans calling a helpline to inquire about their benefits, perhaps for money to install a wheelchair ramp or something like that, were helpfully prompted to consider death by doctor. That was not just the action of one rogue government employee, it happened to at least 21 veterans interacting with several different provincial call centres.
People with serious but not end-stage illnesses, who have no reason to make this stuff up, describe gratuitous reminders about their right to medical death offered on first encounters with jaded and overworked nurses and doctors.
There are simply no guidelines, no guard rails, no safety precautions, which can survive our often admirable modern obsession with autonomy and equality. Protocols to ensure “compliance“ become empty rituals. If one doctor says no, eventually another says yes.
Theoretically, you are right, it should not be a zero sum game and alternatives to cheap and easy death could be enhanced, but funding restrictions triumphed in Canada and Palliative care never got the boost that was promised.
What a mess. You don’t have to do this. Competent palliative care, pioneered by your own Dame Cicely Saunders at St. Christopher’s Hospice, holds the clues.
It's a breath of fresh air to read this. In principle, I support it too. Not the version that is going through now without adequate safeguards (one look at Canada's MAID provides all the red flags anyone would ever need to see on how poorly delivered law impacts vulnerable people), but one that recognises that terminally ill people deserve dignity and choice within their final time in life.
My mum passed away 4 years ago from cancer. She also had Parkinson's. We'll never know if it was the immunotherapy that caused her stroke (we suspect it was) but she really gave it everything to live. She wanted to fight the cancer, even when it was stage 4. That's why she had the immunotherapy. But after her stroke everything changed. She was immobile, needed a hoist to get from her bed to the wheelchair and full-time nursing care. My dad and a team of carers looked after her. There were dark times but she kept her humour too. But what she didn't have was choice. Death was coming - we knew that. She knew that. My dad, my brother and I were all with her when the time finally came (and we all spent time together before then too) but that also meant that we had to see her suffer. My mum's story isn't unique. People like my mum deserve choice and dignity in their final stage in life.
I don't support the messy bill that's currently on the table. It needs far better safeguards building in to make sure people with mental health conditions don't get pulled into its scope and that vulnerable people aren't coerced into seeing themselves as a burden on their families when they still have time left where there is still life to live. My mum didn't want to die, she wanted to live. But death was already coming for her and she deserved a say in when it happened.
(Edited for typos)
It's great in theory, James, but I don't trust the devious Kim Leadbeater and I don't trust the NHS to do this competently or compassionately. The example of MAID in Canada is not encouraging.
Canada's "MAID " bill is something we definitely don't wish to follow ,but nevertheless this bill is a slippery slope because human beings are never completely satisfied ,are they ? The abortion bill had strict criteria to start with but now it's a free for all ,even down to self administration of abortion pills without ANY medical oversight . There have even been attempts by some to have the conscience clause removed ,which would result in medical professionals risking their jobs if they refuse to take part in it . So far , that's been unsuccessful ,but for how long ??. Nurses in Canada have (allegedly) lost their jobs for refusing to participate in " Maid "!! Extreme liberalism always wants to widen the paramaters !!
I do believe in "death with dignity" and choice of circumstances for a peaceful death when a suffering death is inevitable, but what holds me back from endorsement is distrust of a medical profession with doctors who commit double mastectomies, castration, while other doctors stand by and watch without stopping it.
Have you investigated the drugs used? They are experimental, and include a sedative, so the person appears peaceful, but may be suffering flash pulmonary oedema? There are stories of different responses to the drugs including vomiting, or a prolonged death process. Hardly suffering-free or dignified, and causing lasting trauma to loved ones.
Prisoners in America, are very aware of problems with capital punishment; recently a man opted to die by firing squad rather than face lethal injection.
Dr Cicely Saunders spoke against the need for euthanasia, and her modern Hospice movement that she founded at St Christophers in Sydenham UK, is proven to work for patients and their families. It would be a disaster if palliative care in was obliterated by "assisted dying."