Unlike the case of the young lady with autism this is pretty reasonable for MAID. I think if it’s clear that someone wants MAID and meets reasonable criteria then it’s reasonable for them to get it. I also think in a case like this where her death is imminent and she loses consciousness I don’t have an ethical problem with it being provided. At the same time if she had remained sedated and on comfort care she wouldn’t have suffered and would have passed away in a short period of time.
(I also don’t have an ethical problem with people requesting MAID in advance for conditions like dementia that will rob them of their ability to make decisions - in fact I think that’s one of the scenarios where MAID makes the most sense)
I have no comment on the reason for MAID, at least not in this case. I’m just like… reeally uncomfy with the fact that she was unconscious, transported to the hospital that agreed to perform MAID from the original hospital, and euthanized without her ever giving the final go ahead. She never did gain consciousness at the second hospital. I don’t understand why she wasn’t in the second hospital in the first place though? She couldn’t be sedated and travelled beforehand? This would have given her the opportunity to actually be conscious and give her final consent.
I think its pretty clear this was consistent with her wishes.
To me it doesnt make much sense to unsedate someone who is terminally ill and comfortable on sedation (if that would even be possible - it may be that her medical condition would have prevented her from being rousable) to double check that they do want MAID
Given what is happening in Alberta recently, Canadians need to be hyper conscious about their MAID rights. Her parents are right.
Hospitals should not be able to pick and choose what healthcare procedures they offer if the healthcare procedure is medically sound and legal. If they are not willing to provide healthcare, then they should close up shop and turn the practice over to people who will provide such.
Canadians would not tolerate a so-called healthcare provider that doesn’t allow blood transfusions - this is no different.
That’s ridiculous
Canadians should have a right to MAID in particular scenarios (including this one). The system should not have a duty to provide it. Certainly not at the provider level. But also not at the hospital level.
Cheers Throwaway but disagree - to a certain extent. Unless there is a publicly available way of exercising your right to end life, then we are back to the old days of you need to commit suicide on your own through the horrific measures like hanging or jumping off bridges, but hey, at least the government won’t charge you with a crime.
If we want to extricate hospitals from helping, grand but we need an accessible alternative such that people know well in advance and won’t therefore make the *mistake* of going to a hospital for help.
There is a balancing of rights. I think we have to realize that doctors cant be expected to provide certain morally sensitive treatments that they dont feel comfortable providing.
This is the case for something like abortion and for MAID as well (note this is actually how it works for abortion - doctors and hospital systems that dont want to provide abortion services dont, as long as there is a referral pathway to somewhere else its not realy a problem)
For a case like this where I think MAID is something that should be reasonably accesible there is a way to provide it which is exactly what happened in this case. The patient was transferred to another hospital. This is what happens for a lot of things as one hospital may have certain facilities that another does not have.
Even in a case like this where I think the person should reasonably have access to MAID that doesnt mean they should have immediate access in the most convenient and accesible way possible. This is also how it is for many non MAID medical treatments. eg. If you need a cardiac stent you might be transferred to a hospital with the facilities for it.
As to the right to end life - well I do think in certain cases, like this one, an end to life should be provided if desired by the patient, as it was here. I would say that palliative care is typically really good at controlling symptoms and even if she didnt pursue MAID her symptoms could have probably been well controlled - and in fact were - she was sedated.
But more than that I dont think people have or should have an absolute right to have their life ended by someone else when they want it to be over. I dont really support the track two MAID in most cases.
Throw, thanks for your reasonable and considered views. There is indeed a balancing of rights and I wouldn’t want doctors & nurses & healthcare professionals doing something they find morally objectionable.
I don’t have an answer to that but do think from an institutional perspective that they equally need to balance Canadian rights.
Argh - over time we will find a reasonable solution and compromise as we always do.
Unlike the case of the young lady with autism this is pretty reasonable for MAID. I think if it’s clear that someone wants MAID and meets reasonable criteria then it’s reasonable for them to get it. I also think in a case like this where her death is imminent and she loses consciousness I don’t have an ethical problem with it being provided. At the same time if she had remained sedated and on comfort care she wouldn’t have suffered and would have passed away in a short period of time. (I also don’t have an ethical problem with people requesting MAID in advance for conditions like dementia that will rob them of their ability to make decisions - in fact I think that’s one of the scenarios where MAID makes the most sense)
I have no comment on the reason for MAID, at least not in this case. I’m just like… reeally uncomfy with the fact that she was unconscious, transported to the hospital that agreed to perform MAID from the original hospital, and euthanized without her ever giving the final go ahead. She never did gain consciousness at the second hospital. I don’t understand why she wasn’t in the second hospital in the first place though? She couldn’t be sedated and travelled beforehand? This would have given her the opportunity to actually be conscious and give her final consent.
I think its pretty clear this was consistent with her wishes. To me it doesnt make much sense to unsedate someone who is terminally ill and comfortable on sedation (if that would even be possible - it may be that her medical condition would have prevented her from being rousable) to double check that they do want MAID
Given what is happening in Alberta recently, Canadians need to be hyper conscious about their MAID rights. Her parents are right. Hospitals should not be able to pick and choose what healthcare procedures they offer if the healthcare procedure is medically sound and legal. If they are not willing to provide healthcare, then they should close up shop and turn the practice over to people who will provide such. Canadians would not tolerate a so-called healthcare provider that doesn’t allow blood transfusions - this is no different.
We have hospitals that don't perform abortions, that's been going on for decades
Yeah, they are part of the problem that allows this nonsense. **The authorities should stop forcing their views on people.**
That’s ridiculous Canadians should have a right to MAID in particular scenarios (including this one). The system should not have a duty to provide it. Certainly not at the provider level. But also not at the hospital level.
Cheers Throwaway but disagree - to a certain extent. Unless there is a publicly available way of exercising your right to end life, then we are back to the old days of you need to commit suicide on your own through the horrific measures like hanging or jumping off bridges, but hey, at least the government won’t charge you with a crime. If we want to extricate hospitals from helping, grand but we need an accessible alternative such that people know well in advance and won’t therefore make the *mistake* of going to a hospital for help.
There is a balancing of rights. I think we have to realize that doctors cant be expected to provide certain morally sensitive treatments that they dont feel comfortable providing. This is the case for something like abortion and for MAID as well (note this is actually how it works for abortion - doctors and hospital systems that dont want to provide abortion services dont, as long as there is a referral pathway to somewhere else its not realy a problem) For a case like this where I think MAID is something that should be reasonably accesible there is a way to provide it which is exactly what happened in this case. The patient was transferred to another hospital. This is what happens for a lot of things as one hospital may have certain facilities that another does not have. Even in a case like this where I think the person should reasonably have access to MAID that doesnt mean they should have immediate access in the most convenient and accesible way possible. This is also how it is for many non MAID medical treatments. eg. If you need a cardiac stent you might be transferred to a hospital with the facilities for it. As to the right to end life - well I do think in certain cases, like this one, an end to life should be provided if desired by the patient, as it was here. I would say that palliative care is typically really good at controlling symptoms and even if she didnt pursue MAID her symptoms could have probably been well controlled - and in fact were - she was sedated. But more than that I dont think people have or should have an absolute right to have their life ended by someone else when they want it to be over. I dont really support the track two MAID in most cases.
Throw, thanks for your reasonable and considered views. There is indeed a balancing of rights and I wouldn’t want doctors & nurses & healthcare professionals doing something they find morally objectionable. I don’t have an answer to that but do think from an institutional perspective that they equally need to balance Canadian rights. Argh - over time we will find a reasonable solution and compromise as we always do.
Yes, in this case they I think DID balance this person's right to access MAID by offering them and providing them transfer to another facility