Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received a call from a Canadian woman who was upset that her husband of 48 years had been approved for MAiD (euthanasia), even though he was not seriously ill or dying. Her husband has a chronic condition (COPD) and a few other health concerns that are not uncommon for an older man, but he is not seriously ill or dying. She is also concerned that her husband claims to have other health issues but in fact there is no proof that he has these conditions.
Her husband was first rejected for MAiD in April, but recently he was approved for MAiD on a first assessment, he was rejected for MAiD on a second assessment and then approved for MAiD on a third assessment. Doctor shopping is common. The law requires two approvals.
When speaking to her she told me that her husband was scheduled to die by lethal injection (MAiD). She spoke to the woman, who was arranging her husbands death and she stated that her husband did not legally qualify for MAiD and that she would take legal action against those who cause her husband's death. Her statement led to a decision to re-assess her husband for MAiD.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition got involved.
The court rejected the injunction application making it possible that this man could die by (MAiD) euthanasia in a few days.
Hugh Scher filed for an appeal of the decision on and a hearing seeking leave for appeal was heard on August 26.
On August 26, the judge set the next trial date for the injunction for September 24.
This is a precedent setting case.
No one has tried to get an injunction challenging a MAiD assessment. Canada's law provided no mechanism for challenging errors in assessments or MAiD approvals.
The request for an injunction was based on a recent assessment by a local physician, an affidavit from another physician who had known her husband for many years, and her affidavit. These affidavit's agree that her husband was not seriously ill and that he has "delusional" beliefs that he has medical conditions, that he in fact does not have.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.
EPC agreed to pay for the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.
Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:
- Paypal (Link),
- Call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 to donate by credit card,
- Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.
Thank you for considering EPC in this precedent setting case.
More information about the case:
- Nova Scotia woman will return to court on September 24 (Link).
- Nova Scotia woman returns to court to prevent husband's wrongful euthanasia death (Link).
- Woman goes to court to prevent husband's euthanasia death (Link).
- Woman seeks to prevent her husband's euthanasia death (Link).
13 comments:
The husband must be competent.
Can you please tell me in which Province or Territory this case is taking place in?
Thank, you!
I will soon be writing more about the case. I am trying to honour the wishes of the wife because she has put her marriage of 48 years on the line.
Would you be able to share the legal arguments that you are using, or are these confidential?
I believe that if you are arguing that the man in question does not qualify for euthanasia based on the law as it currently stands, not only are you missing the target, you're opening up the possibility that the judge would expand yet again the eligibility criteria for euthanasia in Canada.
Unless the approach one must use in court is somehow different, I believe that the only argument that is ethically justifiable, is that it's wrong to take an innocent human life. I am, however, certainly aware of how the courts in Canada have reacted to such an argument in the recent past.
It is not her right. She doesn't own him. Leave the poor man alone. Look what she's putting him through. So cruel, not compassionate at all.
This is repulsive. If the man wants to die, it is his choice, and it should be honoured. His selfish wife, and your meddling organization are just making him suffer more.
I never publish Anonymous comments but this comment needed a response.
The law was never mean't to be a suicide law that enabled doctors or nurse practitioners to lethally inject anyone who wants to die.
There was always a sense that this law is limited to people who have a specific medical condition, etc.
In this case, his wife and several assessments are stating that he doesn't qualify, that he is not dying and in fact that he has delusional ideas about his state of health.
Should we lethally inject everyone who is not dying and delusional?
The man is lethaly I'll and is suffering. He has been seen to be in mental capacity to decide. His wife's information is from a friend, while his is from professional physicians.
Move to NORTH KOREA! THERE THEY WILL KILL YOU WITH NO MERCY!
Repulsive is how you dont even give your name!!!! YOU CLEARLY DONT KNOW ABOUT ILLNESS!!! NOR ABOUT SUFFERING!!!! IF YOUR HUSBAND OR SON WAS IN THIS POSITION IM SURE 100% YOU WOULDNT KILL HIM YOURSELF!!!
She has every right - he is her husband and the two become one after marriage. He needs help not death. Euthanasia is murder by doctor and very repulsive. A human life is at stake. Humans are made in the image of God and are not animals to be put down. Our society used to value the individual and tried to help depressed and delusional people.
Is she still living with him now?
If he is not physically ill, then what grounds are they approving the suicide/euthanasia? Psychological?
If it is psychological, then can she get legal guardianship over him (but it's probably 'depression').
Question is, if this is stopped, will he try to kill himself some other way?
I don't understand people like 'Anonymous' and R, who as Shelo said won't give your name, but is careless (meaning without care) about suicide.
This is not a dog we're talking about.
This man is not terminally ill nor does he have a 'lethal' disease, virus or any other medical condition that determines him as dying. It sounds like he needs serious psychological assessing for depression or he may be entering an early phase of dementia which is causing the delusions about his health. But then, this is why he wants to die.
Men have been proven to be more serious about suicide than women, especially in their methods used, eg gun shots, hanging, versus pills.
It doesn't help when the tv has covid 24/7 to create a frenzy in society and lead vulnerable, insecure seniors such as this man, as well as other age groups, into believing they are going to die from this virus.
Look at how this pandemic has people fearing for their lives and many already committing suicide out of that fear. Fear is not a reason to die but according to anonymous people, why not?
If a teenager is found hanging from a rope, would you not immediately try to take them down in case they are alive? If they had overdosed, you'd just watch them convulse and choke to death without helping or calling for help? If you saw a woman going to jump off a bridge, would you just stand there and say it's her right?
No 'Anonymous' and R, it's not only carelessness, it is apathy. As long as you're not involved and it has nothing to do with you, who cares. That way, you don't have to get involved. That's a cop out.
Euthanasing is murder! My mother agreed to have brain surgery to extend her life but before surgery staff at Royal Columbian hospital cut her in the bum and the nurse tried to say she is picking herself. A lot of blood -so much that she ends up needing a blood transfusion. My mother still survived brain surgery. Then she gets starved for over a week.Finnaly gets a tube feed.She was doing wonderful from just nutrition. Then she gets transferred to CHILLIWACK hospital! The hospital I was warned about by the the residents. Sure enough they cut her tube feed and started sneaking lethal injections while I was out of the room killing my defenseless mother and a mentally challenged man 61.Both were not candidates for euthanasia! My mother was never in pain! This is a violation of our Canadian Charter of rights and Beliefs and discrimination against the elderly!
Post a Comment