Quebec panel recommends allowing terminally ill to end their lives with help of Doctor
7:38 pm - 01/15/2013
A Quebec expert panel studying the legal aspects of medically assisted end-of-life procedures is recommending the province change the law to allow doctors to help some people who wish to end their lives.
The report says choosing end of life should be more clearly defined in the law as part of palliative care.
Quebec's so-called Dying with Dignity task force recommended allowing people with terminal illness to seek the help of a doctor to end their own lives, something prohibited under the federal Criminal Code.
The report stems from findings by a committee that looked at questions regarding assisted suicide and end-of-life procedures.
The committee's landmark Quebec report in 2012 [article about that here] recommended that doctors be allowed to help terminally ill patients die, in exceptional circumstances, if that is their wish.
The report was released in the Quebec legislature, after two years of work from the Dying With Dignity Committee, a multi-partisan group of nine MNAs.
Source
They mentioned on the Radio-Canada newscast that the public response is generally positive.
The report says choosing end of life should be more clearly defined in the law as part of palliative care.
Quebec's so-called Dying with Dignity task force recommended allowing people with terminal illness to seek the help of a doctor to end their own lives, something prohibited under the federal Criminal Code.
The report stems from findings by a committee that looked at questions regarding assisted suicide and end-of-life procedures.
The committee's landmark Quebec report in 2012 [article about that here] recommended that doctors be allowed to help terminally ill patients die, in exceptional circumstances, if that is their wish.
The report was released in the Quebec legislature, after two years of work from the Dying With Dignity Committee, a multi-partisan group of nine MNAs.
Source
They mentioned on the Radio-Canada newscast that the public response is generally positive.
A++ support etc etc.
and it really is. we loved her enough to let her die as comfortably as possible, why not give us the opportunity to make these decisions for ourselves/with our families.
Also... I wonder how many people with terminal illness commit suicide prematurely every day, just to do it whilst they can, when in actual fact those people could have had extra time with their families had they not had to worry about their suffering being drawn out for that privilege...
The church can huff and puff all they like, no one is paying attention to them. The only obstacle in our way to legalizing euthanasia is that it's not entirely ours to legalize. The provincial government is all for it - the committee was multi-partisan - but the federal government, which is conservative, might throw a wrench in the process.
I don't understand the argument against it. The decision is not made quickly or easily. It can have the same safeguards against manipulation and abuse as other laws designed to protect the elderly and disabled. Where it exists, people don't go racing to their doctor to die. It's just a little help near the end if existence gets too miserable.
I seem to remember some research too finding that places with doctor-assisted suicide tend to do better with palliative care, perhaps to try to keep patients from suffering enough to use the law or because doctors had less fear of being prosecuted for providing adequate pain management even if it might shorten life.
I don't think leaving a little early spares the family much emotional pain. I guess they see you suffer less but no one can know how it would have gone. IDK, I guess the argument suggests many dying people have reason to commit suicide now and yet not many do it.
I took a class 20+ years ago in which we learned than doctors in the US are stingy with morphine (and other opiates) because of fear of addiction. Which is madness. Brompton's(sp?) cocktail was a work-around in England, as I recall but resisted in the US at the time. But when another relative died a couple years ago, they gave her a LOT of some opioid (she abused Vicodin so she needed more than most people could handle). So maybe this has improved but my point is that, yes, I have heard that about doctors' ability to treat the dying.
/ramble
I support the idea, but I have grave concerns, especially in a country with as many race, class, and ableism issues as the U.S.
Oregon's law is the one I have the most familiarity with and IMHO my home state does it right. IANAL, but as far as I recall some of the provisions are that the person must request it themselves on two occasions with a certain time span in between and with at least one entirely neutral witness present, and multiple physicians must agree the person has less than 6 months to live AND has the mental capacity to make such decisions.
Last week a set of twins was granted permission for euthanasia, the reason...
Both were born deaf, which never caused a problem in their life, only in the past few years they started going blind as well, and apparently they didn't want to keep living when their only form of communication with one another was gone. Which admittedly, is sad and such, but I just find that what they need isn't to be allowed to end their life, but therapy and training to speak to one another in some other way. I mean seriously, I get that they're close, I get that they feel the need to speak to one another. But there's other deaf mute people in the world who still find ways to communicate....
I just didn't find that this situation matched my idea of undeniable mental and/or physical suffering. Both were only 45, which to me is not too old to learn another way of communication.
Well, good for you, but it's not about you or your ideas of unbearable suffering, is it? It's about them and their lives.
Furthermore, they did actually several complicating issues. They were never taught sign language so they created their own twin language. Their parents never separated them for school or whatnot, so because of the communication barrier they probably didn't develop meaningful relationships with anyone else. They lived together and did everything together. Losing their sight would cut them off from each other, the only real interaction they had left. I can't say what I'd do in a situation like that, but I can't fault them for their choice either. Who are you to say what they need? Who are any of us?
Also, the process took two years, during which time I'm sure there was extensive psychological testing and evaluation.
Making sure people have access to alternative means of communication is one thing. Deciding that you know their situation and are able to decide what to do about it better than they can is quite another.
And frankly, what you're saying reeks of the privilege of never having had something happen to your body that stole something you loved away from you. I have, and your assertions that these two brothers could just find another way to communicate are so overly fucking simplistic, I don't even know where to begin.
And as other commenters have said in reply, I'm pretty sure that two years of being vetted has ensured that this isn't some kind of whim on their part.
*pardon my rage right now but a friend of mine killed himself over the weekend and this just. fucking hell, the way our society views suicide is so damaging...
Their more recent one on unofficia; forms of assisted suicide in the US the suicide plan is also worth watching.
...because pro-lifers seem to think that all you need to have life is a pulse. hence why they want to save all those unwanted foetuses, but many won't adopt or foster any. the argument I usually see tossed around is that "life is a gift from God", which was pretty much the reason suicide used to be illegal.
All of those are valid fears and definitely something to look into, but I feel like countries like the Netherlands should have shown these effects if it was going to happen just by legalizing it.