Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
An Open Letter from two CPA past Presidents challenges the position of the CPA and the process that was followed to change the position.
The Open Letter from Dr K. Sonu Gaind and Dr Fiona McGregor challenges the process that was followed. The letter states:
The CPA Position Statement was developed by the Professional Standards and Practice (PSP) Committee without the engagement or awareness of membership, without expert external consultation, and without internal consultation of groups like the CPA Research Committee. The Statement offers no evidence-based guidance on issues related to mental illness and makes no reference to any mental health or mental illness literature or evidence. Given the absence of any guidance, standards or mention of what irremediability means in the context of mental illness, the Statement has been criticized for how it could be ambiguously and even dangerously interpreted in the current politicized debate [May 22 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry piece on “What does ‘Irremediability’ in mental illness mean?”].
Dr K. Sonu Gaind
 |
| Dr Fiona McGregor |
The lack of engagement of membership on this significant and complex issue, which has been evolving over at least 4 years and which members have expressed significant desire to have input in, failed to respect the role of members in a member association. The Statement itself is also highly problematic and potentially harmful. While we appreciate the CPA has since indicated it seeks to engage members in developing a discussion paper, this process should have taken place before development and release of the Position Statement. A Statement cannot be informed by a consultation process that occurs after its release.They then outline the negative harmful effects with the current CPA position
..the government review of MAiD policy initially intended for June 2020 will occur soon, and that the extended deadline for complying with the Truchon ruling is July 2020, we are concerned the current CPA Position Statement will be harmful in influencing imminent policy changes in a way that does not reflect CPA membership input or views. Media interpretations of the Statement have already presented the CPA as supporting MAiD for mental illness without any further evidence-based guidance [May 26 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry piece on the “Lack of Scientific Evidence regarding MAiD in psychiatric disorders”]. The last time CPA members were surveyed, in 2016, only approximately 30% supported MAiD for mental illness, and even those expected standards and evidence-based guidelines that the CPA Statement lacks.They urge the CPA board to temporarily withdraw its support for MAiD:
We are asking the CPA to revisit the Statement by temporarily withdrawing it, to allow for a proper engagement process and development of evidence-based recommendations to inform any future Position Statement on MAiD. The CPA has already expressed reluctance to do this, and this process will only occur if CPA members wish it to.Psychiatrists should not be involved with killing their patients. If you consider the nature and condition of many psychiatric patients, killing should be viewed as antithetical to their care.
I am concerned about the good psychiatrists who I have come to know who believe that killing is not a treatment for psychiatric conditions. Where are we going?
More articles on this topic:
- Article: Is euthanasia psychiatric treatment? (Link).
- Article: Why legalizing medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness is misguided (Link).
- Article: Quebec court expands euthanasia by striking the terminal illness requirement. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons is next (Link).
- Article: Psychiatrists must prevent suicide, not provide it (Link).
- Article: Physically healthy depressed man died by euthanasia in BC (Link).
- Article: Dr Mark Komrad: Why psychiatrists should oppose euthanasia (Link).
10 comments:
Alex you are one of those people that want patients to LIVE FOREVER just so you can enjoy their suffering. You are an evil human being. If I could I would punch you in the face. Scum.
That is an insane comment John. I have no interest in people living forever but I oppose killing people.
Furthermore, your obviously a caring person, as you want to punch me in the face.
So much for compassionate.
Wow John, what an insanely hostile reaction. I wouldn't want to be your ailing child, parent or grandparent.
Alex thank you for all you and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition do to keep us current and informed about what the issues regarding life are. I feel you are a shield for those who are suffering or dying or just sick, to give hope and comfort rather that persuasion, coercion or stealth that suits the economic greed of family or government. God bless you and keep up the good fight
Hey, look, a keyboard warrior. Assumption wrong 1: enjoying suffering. People who are euthanasia enthusiasts have opined that people (children in context) should be put to sleep so the parents don't suffer. So pro euts enjoy killing, using your standard. Assumpton wrong 2: evil human being? You feel qualified, do you, John on your judgement on who is evil and who not? Your last sentence betrays your lack of wisdom and humanity. Have a nice day.
Alex, you're the last person I would want to show compassion. You are the enemy of many suffering people and that makes you my enemy. You have zero compassion for the elderly and the sick suffering from terrible chronic diseases. I'm sure you'd never had a chronic or terminal disease. Same as the other people on the comments. We don't enjoy killing you idiot, it's all about having a choice, helping people have a dignified death. And yes Alex is evil in my view. People like him pretend to do good in this world but that mentality is actually making hurting many lives. Your beliefs are BS, outdated, and lack humanity. We don't have to bow down to your beliefs Alex. I am glad bill c7 will pass.
John you have no idea who I am. Your comments are not kind, compassionate or humane. I have never, nor will never advocate for people to suffer. I hope that someday you will experience that compassion and care doesn't require killing.
I have a pretty good idea of who you are. I know your type. Trying to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Listen man, it's NOT your choice to determine somebody else's life, future and what they want to do with their body. This is why you will lose this battle. You can't decide for people. Please get it in your head. So you have the right to live in pain that's your choice. No one is telling you what to do or how to live or die, yet you have this incredible arrogance to tell others how to do it.
Dear John:
You have no idea what you are writing about and you are full of anger. Your original post stated that you wanted to punch me in the face. Talk about compassionate, caring and concerned about inflicted pain.
There is no need to kill people in order to control pain. Once you get that in your head maybe you will become more kind and less angry.
Because you run a blog and a website gives you the right to chose for all of us? I have more idea than you about terminal illnesses. I am angry people like you exist, but I'm glad you have such a small audience. Bill C-7 will pass and you will have accomplished nothing. Your work is mediocre at most. You will lose. Mark my words.
Why are you so angry John. If I am so insignificant, then you would ignore me, but instead you tell me that you want to harm me. Do you have psychological issues?
Anyway, I have a very large audience.
Someday you will remove your blinders and agree that killing is not the way to help people.
Post a Comment