LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

Email: "Bill S-2 - The Medical Facilitations Act - Euthanasia in disguise."

Your Email:

Your Name:

Send To Email:

Subject:

Message:
BY LifeSiteNews.com The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario has grave concerns with the wording of Senator Sharon Carstairs Bill S-2, the Medical Decisions Facilitations Act. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario has been formed in order to prepare a well-informed, broadly-based network supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide. One of our goals is to preserve and enforce legal prohibitions and ethical guidelines prohibiting “mercy killing.” President, Barrie deVeber M.D. FRCP(C) is Professor Emeritus in Pediatrics/Oncology at the University of Western Ontario in London and the President of the deVeber Institute in Toronto. He practised at the Children’s Hospital in London, for 33 years treating children with cancer and their families. Vice President, Jean Echlin is a clinical nurse specialist in hospice/palliative care and is a past Executive Director of the Hospice of Windsor. We are concerned that several measures within Bill S-2, the Medical Decisions Facilitations Act, will permit cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide and weaken the current statutes that protect elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) patients. We also question the need for Bill S-2. The stated purpose of the Bill is to legislate a right to refuse treatment or medication, a right which has already been established and is in no need of further clarification. Why define rights that are already clearly established? Section 3 of the Bill will weaken the current protection that exists in law for elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) persons. The Bill states in Section 3, subsection 2 that a request to withhold or withdraw treatment can be made in writing, or by words or signs, if a valid written directive does not exist. This request can be communicated by any witness who is not a health care provider. This section provides little to no protection for vulnerable people who are seen as having a poor “quality of life” and is open to abuse in cases where someone is more interested in their possible inheritance than the best interests of the person. The Bill also states in section 3, subsection (3) when no valid instructions have been given by an incompetent patient that a request to withhold or withdraw treatment would be made by: “(a) a proxy appointed under the laws of a province to make health care decisions on the person’s behalf, (b) if no proxy has been appointed, by a legal representative having the authority to make health care decisions on behalf of the person, or (c) if there is no proxy and no legal representative, by the spouse, companion or relative who is most intimately associated with the person.” Since a spouse, companion or relative who is most intimately associated with the person is more likely to know the intentions or understand the values of the person, we think that this statute would lead to decisions being made that do not reflect the values or fulfill the intentions of the person. Therefore, we believe that the order of priority for who will make life-sustaining medical decisions for incompetent patients be reversed to represent the supremacy of the family. Section 3, subsection (3) represents an example of the state interest having priority over the interest of the family and diminishing the value and respect due to the family in society and is potentially dangerous for elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) persons. Section 4 of the Bill would result in the intentional starvation and dehydration of elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) patients who are not terminal. This section of the Bill establishes that artificial nutrition and hydration (assisted feeding), would be defined as life-sustaining medical treatment rather than normal medical care. Assisted feeding should not be defined as medical treatment because it gives the option of withholding food and fluids from patients who have a chronic disease but are not terminal or those who are persistently living against the wishes of others. We recognize the fact that when one enters the dying phase that they have a lesser need and desire for nutrition and hydration and at the final stage of life they may have no need or desire for food or fluids. But we are also aware that cases of intentional starvation and dehydration have occurred and would more likely occur (without prosecution) if S-2 becomes law. When it becomes an acceptable practice to dehydrate and starve people to death, even if they are terminal, then it will be argued that it is more humane to kill them with a needle. Section 5 of the Bill may cause some health care providers not to provide necessary ordinary and routine medical treatments for elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) patients. This section of the Bill may establish that not providing medical treatment is an acceptable way to end the lives of vulnerable patients who are not terminal. For instance, it would allow parents of a Down’s Syndrome baby to deny life saving procedures that would be considered routine for normal babies. In effect it would foster discrimination against disabled and vulnerable persons. Disabled people are already being denied medical treatment based on other people’s perceptions of quality of life. This bill would certainly exacerbate their problem. We believe that there is no need for Bill S-2 and we question what the real agenda is for Senator Sharon Carstairs. Common Law has already established that Canadians have the right to refuse or cease medical treatment that will prolong their life. There is no confusion about the right to refuse treatment and it is not necessary to define this right in legislation. Based on the Bill we must conclude that S-2 is a first bill and others will follow that will continue to weaken the protections that exist in the law for elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) persons. We believe that the best interest of the incompetent patient who does not have a valid advanced directive for medical decisions is more likely to be safeguarded by a spouse, companion or relative who is most intimately associated with the person rather than a proxy who is appointed by the provincial government. A proxy that is appointed by the government should be the last option for establishing the course of action with regards to life- sustaining medical treatment. This type of government intrusion is inappropriate and potentially dangerous for the elderly, disabled or incompetent (vulnerable) persons who are often regarded as too expensive to care for. The only part of the Bill that we see as useful is the part of Section 6 of the Bill which mandates: governments and professional organizations to promotion and encourage public education and professional training regarding pain management and hospice/palliative care. Given this, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario concludes that Bill S-2 should be rejected since there is no necessity for the Bill and it is dangerous for the elderly, the disabled, and the incompetent (vulnerable) because it allows of cases euthanasia and assisted suicide to be practised and will lead to active euthanasia with or without request. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario - 247 Grey Street London, Ontario N6B 1G4 Tel: 519-439-3348 or 1-877-439-3348; Fax: 519-439-7053; E-Mail: aschaden@rcec.london.on.ca http://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/bill-s-2-the-medical-facilitations-act-euthanasia-in-disguise/

Please enter the word you see in the image below: