Editor:
Currently, before Deltans and indeed all Canadians, is a twin-headed politically-engineered situation that appears to have taken root in most minds across the land.
One, the federal, Liberal-designed Bill C-14 – Medical Assistance in Dying [Maid] -- and two, the so-called public consultation on MAiD via an online questionnaire. Both of these points have a connection to palliative care in general and the Irene Thomas Hospice facility in particular, with the result that the mix appears to have created confusion in several areas and that is of great and immediate concern.
In essence, what Bill C-14 has done is alter a section of the Criminal Code of Canada to permit assisted suicide under certain, defined controls in which medical practitioners are the assistants. This means there no longer is a penalty for ending a person’s life -- “by a noxious thing” -- who has requested same and has signed his or her name to a statement to that effect.
The Liberal federal government, in a hasty decision in response to a decision by the Quebec Superior Court that determined that it is unconstitutional to limit or restrict access to MAiD to “people nearing the end of life” [Quoted from Delta Optimist, at page A7], designated three cabinet ministers to oversee a country-wide questionnaire in which Canadians are asked to respond to a number of queries with respect to MAiD.
The primary flaw with the questionnaire is that there is no control mechanism to ensure that each respondent is restricted to one response. As the questionnaire is designed currently, there is no restriction on how many responses each Canadian can provide: one, 10 or 100. Such a flaw will distort the results – whatever they may be – and makes a mockery of online questionnaires which leaves the door open for the federal Liberals to announce they consulted with Canadians and thus such and such is accepted.
The deck is stacked in a manner analogous to an election in which each voter is permitted to vote for any one candidate more than once, perhaps 10 or 20 times and thus skews the result. Fair, not in the least, but in the eyes of the federal Liberals, the same lack of control is permissible in a cross-Canada online questionnaire. Interestingly, the local MP is a party to this charade.
As for palliative care, the World Health Organization [WHO] in its published list states that, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual.” Following that definition is a list, including point three which states, unequivocally, Palliative care “intends neither to hasten nor postpone death.”
Clearly, MAiD – assisted suicide – in not compatible with palliative care and that is the crux of the matter vis-à-vis proponents of MAiD at the ITH facility and those who support palliative care as defined both in the WHO definition and at 2.1 “to provide compassionate care and support for persons in the last stages of living, so that they may live a fully and comfortably as possible” as stated in the Delta Hospice Society’s constitution and bylaws and which is supported by the current board of the society.
In contrast to those who make a specious claim that the Delta Hospice Society’s board is pushing a “religious” approach the above quotes ought to put that nonsense to rest.
The apparent inability of some citizens to [a] understand legislation as it is written and [b] to accept that there are occasions when their personal opinions do not override that same legislation. Interestingly, at no point in Bill C-14 is there a requirement [order] for any hospice facility in Canada to provide MAiD; thus, the provincial minister of health is sucking wind and blowing it out his posterior and as such, is creating a stink that is offensive and intrusive.
Sorry for the length, but there are times – and this is one of those times – when clarity of the issues comes from explanation and not personal opinions based on bias and misunderstanding.
Bob Orrick
