Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Article: Quebec committee opposes euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
The response titled: Québec's Commission on MAiD misses the mark on mental disorders was published by Policy Options on March 2. Downie and Gupta argue that the Québec Commission on MAiD are not following the same play book as the rest of Canada by rejecting euthanasia for mental illness alone. Downie and Gupta state:
Unfortunately, this recommendation is out of step with the evolving thinking on this issue found in jurisprudence, federal legislation and the recommendations of Quebec’s regulatory authorities and professional associations. It is also based on misleading statements and logical inconsistencies.Downie and Gupta explain that Canadian court decisions have not excluded euthanasia for mental illness alone and the federal government approved euthanasia for mental illness alone when it passed Bill C-7 last year.
What is more interesting about the article is how their arguements supporting euthanasia for mental illness alone provide a strong argument as to why euthanasia should never be legalized. Downie and Gupta state:
If people with mental disorders can access MAiD, the commission worries whether suicidality can be distinguished from a request for MAiD in such cases. However, this, too, is not exclusive to people whose mental disorders are their sole underlying condition. People with certain types of cancer (including lung and pancreatic cancer) are at higher risk of committing suicide than the general population in the first six to 12 months following diagnosis. Yet, this group’s increased risk of suicidality does not lead to exclusion. Instead, the request is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality of the individual’s circumstances.Therefore, people with certain types of cancer (including lung and pancreatic cancer) are more likely to seek an assisted death in the first 6 to 12 months following a diagnosis. By legalizing euthanasia these people are more likely to seek death by euthanasia. If euthanasia is not legal these people are more likely to accept effective treatment and more likely to survive their cancer diagnosis.
For instance, a study by Dr Sara Moore, a University of Ottawa medical oncologist examined 45 euthanasia (MAiD) deaths of people with lung cancer living in the Ottawa region. She concluded that people with lung cancer who died by euthanasia were less likely to consult with a radiation or medical oncologist, many did not seek a confirmation of their condition and they were less likely to undergo effective treatments.
Euthanasia is never an answer to a human difficulties. We need a society that cares not kills its citizens.
- Canadian Psychiatric Association's dangerous position on euthanasia (Link).
- The complexity of assessing mental health and capacity (Link).
- As difficult as it is sometimes, there is always hope. Euthanasia for mental illness is abandonment (Link).
- Canada's parliament passed Bill C-7 permitting euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
"For instance, a study by Dr Sara Moore, a University of Ottawa medical oncologist examined 45 euthanasia (MAiD) deaths of people with lung cancer living in the Ottawa region. She concluded that people with lung cancer who died by euthanasia were less likely to consult with a radiation or medical oncologist, many did not seek a confirmation of their condition and they were less likely to undergo effective treatments."
ReplyDeleteActually this study shows that the majority of people diagnosed with terminal illness who requested and recieved MAID actually DID confirm their diagnosis with other oncologists. As well as try other treatments beforehand. The percentage was actually a little bit over 80%, and anyone can click on that link and read the paper themselves. Do you even read the papers that you cite?
Sorry, Doug your wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe study found that some of the 45 who died by euthanasia did not have their prognosis confirmed and those who died by euthanasia were less likely to accept treatment than those who decided not to die by euthanasia.
I didn't base my comments on the newsppaer articles but rather the data from the study itself and my comments are correct.
Don't correct me if you don't know what your talking about.
You didn't even bother reading what I originally wrote about the data from the study.
Here's a link to the original article: https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/iaslc/94429
DeleteI quote: "In a Canadian study of 45 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who used medical assistance in dying (also known as physician-assisted suicide), about 20% did not have a radiation oncologist involved when making the decision and 22% did not have a consultation with a medical oncologist, said Sara Moore, MD, of Ottawa Hospital Research Institute of the University of Ottawa."
The great majority of that 45 DID consult with an oncologist prior to their MAID request. Only about 20% didn't. Some didn't consult with an oncologist sure, but the great majority (about 80% did). I never said that all of these 45 patients consulted with a specialist in my prior comment, only that the great majority did.
All of this is irrelevant however. Even if this percentage was as low as 4% you'd still run an article about that calling for MAID to be banned. Just like how you think that because the vast majority of MAID requests in Ontario were administered by healthcare workers instead of the patient consuming the drugs themselves, it would somehow imply that these people were all strapped down to a gurney and killed non-voluntarily like an execution by lethal injection in the US. Even if all of those deaths were self-administered you'd still be complaining
Nobody said anything about non-voluntary euthanasia Doug. I know you like to accuse people who oppose killing of many inaccuracies when my article was completely accurate. Here is what I wrote:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Susman, Moore's research found that 20% of those who died by euthanasia did not consult a radiation oncologist and 22% did not consult a medical oncologist. Susman further reports:
"Biomarker-driven targeted therapy and immunotherapy offer effective and tolerable new treatments, but a subset of patients undergo medical assistance in dying without accessing -- or, in some cases, without being assessed for -- these treatment options," Moore continued. "Most patients were assessed by an oncology specialist, though less than half received systemic therapy."
"Given the growing number of efficacious and well-tolerated treatment options in lung cancer, consultation with an oncologist may be reasonable to consider for all patients with lung cancer who request medical assistance in dying," she said.
Further to that 13 of the 45 lung cancer patients who died by euthanasia did not have a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis.
I didn't say that they weren't less likely to pursue treatment options only that the great majority did in fact consult with cancer specialists. And in near-certain likelihood those consultations with oncologists would've involved discussions of cancer treatments like chemo, biomarker therapy, and such with the likelihood of success of for such treatments and how much additional months it would buy for them. Thus concluding that these treatments wouldn't suffice thus opting for PAS instead. Otherwise what would the consultations between the patient and oncologists consist of? "Hello I think I may have cancer" "Yes you do" "Oh, ok thank you" "No problem, bye"
DeleteMy point is that you cannot deny the fact that the great majority consulted with cancer specialists and made a considered and reasoned choice. But that doesn't matter, because like I said even if this percentage was as low as 5% or a law was passed tomorrow that required mandatory assessment for chemo, biomarker and what else for terminal cancer requests for MAID you'd still be complaining and agitating for a ban.
Furthermore an issue with your blog is that in many entries you do not give full context and neglect to mention important details which would give your readers a different opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor example take the case of the Nova Scotia Christian woman who tried to gaslight her mentally competent husband with end-stage COPD that requested MAID and prevent him from accessing. The husband went through a mental assessment. You posted about it on your blog here and represented her: https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2020/09/nova-scotia-case-continues-katherine-is.html
And what was not mentioned on your blog was the """"doctor"""" Katherine consulted was unlicensed, had zero qualifications, and was the son of a church friend. It was clearly religiously motivated under the Christian belief that suffering that is a blessing from God and she had zero grounds to try and block it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-medical-assistance-in-dying-bridgewater-couple-court-1.5700203
Your blog routinely leaves out important details and context that would paint a very different picture.