Not a comment on the parent post's situation, but MAID in Canada isn't quite turning out how it was promised. A recent report making a splash in certain circles pointed out that ~200 people in Ontario in 2023 got assisted suicide either the same day or the day after they filed their paperwork. The most notable case was a woman who, after submitting her paperwork, changed her mind and wanted hospice instead. However, she was denied hospice care and subsequently was put down.
Bit by bit, Canada risks defaulting to suicide over expensive care. That's not what people voted for when it was first proposed.
That sounds like murder to me. I couldn't believe that and thought you must have been misrepresenting the facts. Nope, your summary is correct; the full case is there, in black and white, on page 22 of the Ontario Solicitor General's report, as you linked; and amazingly it was reviewed by a committee that didn't seem to find much wrong with it. That is very deeply disturbing. I have quoted the case overview below:
>CASE 4B
Case Overview
Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following
coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative
sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She
required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to
physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She
was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care
support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services).
Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the
same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a
MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD
assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values
and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and
palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.
The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local
hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was
assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued
palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative
care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her
request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care
application was offered.
On the same day, Mrs. B’s spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service
requesting an urgent assessment. A different MAiD assessor from the previous day
completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The
former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns
regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more
comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life
goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout).
The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following
day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to
their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. An
additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete
a virtual assessment. Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The
provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.
The problem isn't that the urgent request went through, it's that she requested hospice or palliative care and was denied. And, let's be honest, POA should not be sufficient to euthanize a person who is awake, aware, and revoked consent.
"Do no harm" has been replaced with "put them down if it's cheaper and we can get away with it"
That's a separate problem from the parent post, and the point of my post was that her husband requested the decision on the assisted death, not the government.
Thats how I read it as well. The deeper issue is that he shouldn’t even be able to contact them when they deemed her lucid enough to not be eligible just a day earlier, especially when they were keen enough to notice he was burned out.
Separately, why do these services have to move so quickly? It seems like it’s either glacially slow in other countries where people pass before even finishing the paperwork, or insanely fast like in this case. There really should be a balance.
Since we're talking about Canada, ostensibly the government, as the provider of healthcare, wants it to be inexpensive enough that the citizens have a first-world level of care... as opposed to euthanizing sick people because it's easier than providing hospice or expensive treatment.
After all, using the monopoly power of government and taxation is meant to be more efficient and provide more services at lower costs.
A cynical person might presume that MAID is being used as a cost savings measure more than an empathetic alternative for those who do not wish to wait to die of natural causes.
Are the headlines the tip of the iceberg, or the exceptions that gain notoriety? When the government and health care system are so deeply intertwined, who has access to the data but not an incentive to obscure the facts? With any luck, time will tell.
Oh, mostly just the hospitals, the insurers, the medical device manufacturers, the pharmacy benefits managers, the pharmaceutical companies, the group purchasing organizations, and the clearinghouses. Everyone who can take a bigger cut if there’s more money sloshing around the industry.
