Female doctor comforting an elderly female patient
Over the past few days, organizations representing Canadians with disabilities have spoken out against the country’s ultra-liberal assisted dying laws, recognizing them as an existential threat to the people they represent. I’m here.
Canada’s Medical Assistance in Death (MAID) Act, enacted in 2016, came under global media scrutiny last year following several high-profile incidents.
Opponents continue to routinely express their disgust and displeasure with doctors, not only for terminally ill patients, but also for those with chronic illnesses who have the potential to enjoy a more fulfilling life for years to come. Patients are too casually given options for euthanasia alongside other medical interventions. good support.
Last month, liberal governments opposed plans to immediately expand medically-assisted death preparations to individuals with a range of mental health conditions, but this would be a mere hiatus before appropriate protocols are finalized. It is widely accepted that nothing more than is deployed.
On January 5, an open letter jointly written by several disability groups opposing MAiD in Canada was sent to key stakeholders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister of Justice David Lametti, and opposition leader Pierre Polivre. I was.
The letter was clear in its opening statement:
“We, the undersigned disability and human rights groups, are concerned about the legalization of lethal medical assistance for mental illness (MAiD) and the already legal practice of euthanizing non-terminally disabled people. I am writing to express my objection.”
Perversion of accessibility
The debate over euthanasia is quite unlike any other debate over accessibility – despite the profound moral complexities that perpetually intertwine with it.
In most discussions of disability rights, access to goods, services and civic participation is universally touted as positive.
There is no such thing as “too accessible” in these contexts. Even in situations where accessibility is inadequate, the majority of people admit it is a noble aspiration, too often compromised by financial resources and competing priorities.
In Assisted Death, both fierce opponents and advocates project themselves as self-proclaimed champions of the disabled community.
Proponents claim that by stripping centuries of outdated and irrelevant religious precepts and promoting self-determination, it protects the seriously ill from excruciating pain and suffering.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the careless proliferation and excessive liberalization of medical assistance in dying is an easy way to devalue the diverse but meaningful life experience of disabled people and to abdicate their responsibility to the most vulnerable citizens. to the state.
Across this is decades of debate, but the evolution from the medical model of disability to the social model is still incomplete.
The former explains that the disorder is a problem that concentrates purely on defects in the physiology of the person affected.
If these cannot be adequately addressed therapeutically, it may be reasonable to consider alternative medical measures to end the pain and suffering.
The social model, on the other hand, is much more multi-layered and nuanced, viewing the negative experiences of many disabled people as products of a completely voluntary social structure in addition to physical disability.
After all, poor access to public transport and employment, discriminatory public attitudes and media projections, and lack of welfare benefits make many disabled people self-sufficient, even those living in wealthy countries. Being forced to live with is not an inevitable consequence of either disease. Or sick.
These are positive choices, usually made by people without disabilities at all levels of society, to act in a certain way towards people with disabilities, or simply look the other way and consider them at all. do not do.
As a result, a recent letter written by the Canadian Disability Rights Organization states:
“We know, like you, that existing laws are not working and are not working, and that people with disabilities are dying from MAiD because of their living conditions and oppression. ”
He later said, “As a country, we cannot provide state death assistance to people who are not terminally ill without guaranteeing everyone the legal right to a decent life. Current MAiD law is , strips away constitutional protections for Canadians.The very existence of the current law threatens the lives of people with disabilities and their families.”
run out of options
Dr. Stefanie Green is a physician who has helped over 300 patients die. This is Death Assistance: The story of a doctor empowering a terminally ill patientShe also heads the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP).
Dr. Green, in a recent interview new atlantis “We can’t access MAID because we can’t get housing in this country. That’s clickbait. These stories are completely unreported.”
But the author Alexander Raikin new atlantis The article also cites a cache of validated CAMAP training materials, providing specific guidance on how to weigh and assess patient-reported poverty and economic deprivation.
There are still more questions than completely satisfying answers in 2023, especially about Canada’s unique pedal-to-death method.
Despite being still illegal in most parts of the world, many Western societies at least believe that sensibly controlled and highly controlled medically assisted death is certainly legal in fair-minded egalitarian societies. I admit that it is nothing out of the ordinary.
But it is certainly reasonable to suggest that laissez-faire abuse, backed by political ideology and a lack of adequate safeguards, is a far worse outcome than an outright ban.
A timely reminder to disability rights activists that their professed mission to help people with disabilities live dignified lives as members of society did not peak in the 1990s.
As societies evolve and modernize, new threats emerge and the dangers of remaining silent can become more of a matter of life and death than ever before.
