Senate votes to substantially alter assisted dying bill
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Senate further amends Bill C-14 on Thursday
After deleting one of the key clauses of the Liberals' physician-assisted dying bill on Wednesday (removing the requirement that someone's death must be "reasonably foreseeable" to seek that assistance), the Senate voted on a number of additional substantial amendments to Bill C-14 today.
Requiring a judge's approval if death not "reasonably foreseeable" (defeated)
The Hon. Senator Claude Carignan, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Senate, moved an amendment to Bill C-14 that would have required, in the case of a person who is not near the end of life (as per the change made by the Senate yesterday), that a person seek the authorization of a superior court judge before seeking assistance in dying.
A judge would be required to ensure that a person seeking assistance in dying who is not near the end of life would have to meet a number of requirements to be granted an authorization, including demonstrating that they had received the independent advice of at least two medical professionals, in addition to be assessed by a psychiatrist. However, when the amendment was put to a vote, it was defeated in the Senate by a fairly close vote of 32 to 37.
Requiring a palliative care consultation prior to request (carried)
The Hon. Senator Nicole Eaton, a Conservative senator, moved an amendment that would require that anyone who requests medical assistance in dying must, beforehand, complete a consultation with a palliative care professional to be advised of possible treatments, technologies, or supports for their condition. That amendment to the bill was approved by the Senate by a vote of 38 to 29.
Re-adding "end of life" requirement (defeated)
Senator the Hon. George Baker, P.C., a Liberal senator, moved an amendment would have re-added the requirement that someone must be near the end of life to request medical assistance in dying; the amendment also would have required that an irremediable condition must be, in particular, a terminal disease or illness. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 17 to 47.
Approach to medical professionals refusing to provide assistance (defeated)
While Bill C-14 already provides that no person can be compelled to provide medical assistance to die, the Hon. Senator Don Plett, a Conservative senator, proposed an amendment to the bill that would have allowed medical professionals to refuse even to provide referrals to other professionals; when that amendment was put to a vote, the Senate rejected the amendment by 27 to 46.
More to come tomorrow, for a special Friday sitting of the Senate!
After deleting one of the key clauses of the Liberals' physician-assisted dying bill on Wednesday (removing the requirement that someone's death must be "reasonably foreseeable" to seek that assistance), the Senate voted on a number of additional substantial amendments to Bill C-14 today.
Requiring a judge's approval if death not "reasonably foreseeable" (defeated)
The Hon. Senator Claude Carignan, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Senate, moved an amendment to Bill C-14 that would have required, in the case of a person who is not near the end of life (as per the change made by the Senate yesterday), that a person seek the authorization of a superior court judge before seeking assistance in dying.
A judge would be required to ensure that a person seeking assistance in dying who is not near the end of life would have to meet a number of requirements to be granted an authorization, including demonstrating that they had received the independent advice of at least two medical professionals, in addition to be assessed by a psychiatrist. However, when the amendment was put to a vote, it was defeated in the Senate by a fairly close vote of 32 to 37.
Requiring a palliative care consultation prior to request (carried)
The Hon. Senator Nicole Eaton, a Conservative senator, moved an amendment that would require that anyone who requests medical assistance in dying must, beforehand, complete a consultation with a palliative care professional to be advised of possible treatments, technologies, or supports for their condition. That amendment to the bill was approved by the Senate by a vote of 38 to 29.
Re-adding "end of life" requirement (defeated)
Senator the Hon. George Baker, P.C., a Liberal senator, moved an amendment would have re-added the requirement that someone must be near the end of life to request medical assistance in dying; the amendment also would have required that an irremediable condition must be, in particular, a terminal disease or illness. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 17 to 47.
Approach to medical professionals refusing to provide assistance (defeated)
While Bill C-14 already provides that no person can be compelled to provide medical assistance to die, the Hon. Senator Don Plett, a Conservative senator, proposed an amendment to the bill that would have allowed medical professionals to refuse even to provide referrals to other professionals; when that amendment was put to a vote, the Senate rejected the amendment by 27 to 46.
More to come tomorrow, for a special Friday sitting of the Senate!
Ummmmm....you may not have heard but some Libs don't like it either and vow to fight the changes even though.....
It would have meant that non-terminally ill patients seeking the service would have to first go to two doctors along with an independent psychiatrist to confirm they have the ability to provide informed consent and informed about palliative care options, and also seek judicial approval.
Liberal Senator Serge Joyal, who had sponsored the changes widening eligibility, said Carignan’s amendment would have be a complement to his, and won his support.
“I have always stated that if we are recognizing that some vulnerable people might have access to [medical assistance in dying] in particular circumstances, then we have to be mindful that there will be safeguards the vulnerable would be protected.”
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/09/philpott-balks-at-senates-c-14-changes/
The question is, under what circumstances? Bill C-14 limits access to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia to people suffering from terminal conditions, regardless of how much suffering they are going through, or how long that suffering will last.
Unlike the prime minister and his cabinet, the senators can understand the plain words of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter decision. They understand the rule of law. They realize that Charter protections aren't something the government can withdraw or rescind to suit political expedience. They know it's not their job to look the other way and pass unconstitutional bills.
And so the Senate is doing its job. Our senators are amending the flawed legislation to bring it into accordance with the law of the land. Justice minister Jody doesn't much like that. She thinks her bill appropriately compromises the Charter protections of the terminally ill. She thinks that Charter rights are something for the government to manipulate, to "balance" as it deems politically expedient.
The Senate has already passed one amendment to the bill. More are in the works. It's probably best to review them at the end when we can see what the law should look like. For now, however, they seem to be doing precisely what Canada's senators are supposed to be doing.
The Liberal bill is not 100-per-cent Charter-proof: On the campaign trail, Trudeau cast himself as a champion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
HÉBERT: 5 unexpected developments in Bill C-14 debate | The Chronicle Herald
This is an inherent flaw with leftists. For example, they will say crapp like "the average canadian should not be allowed to vote" without fully considering what they are saying.
Except no one's ever said that and you just made something up about a fictional group of people that you will ruminate over, endlessly, in your own head.
Now
That being said
The Liberals pushing back is certainly disappointing and now we will be getting into this game of negotiation between the two levels of government.
One would hope that there is some compromise down the middle, but all they really need to do is remove the 'reasonably foreseeable death' clause and replace that with the condition of 'grievous and irremediable'.
That would keep the legislation reasonably constitutionally compliant and still strike the right balance publicly.
I remember that we usually aren't. But, despite saying that the court ruling on assisted dying was judicial activism, I still think it's a good idea. I'm not necessarily against the idea. The supreme court could have used a little judicial activism when it came to the bestiality ruling.
Strong majority of Canadians want assisted suicide bill to allow for ‘advance consent’
“Advanced directives” or “advance consent” became a particularly controversial aspect of the assisted-death debate after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last year the laws against the practice were unconstitutional. Such directives would allow someone with dementia or another degenerative diagnosis — while still in full capacity of his or her cognitive faculties — to sign a document requesting assisted death at a set point down the line. That could be defined in the order by a point in their illness or another predetermined metric.
A Forum Research survey (link is external) of 2,271 Canadians on June 7 defined advance consent as “when someone leaves explicit legal instructions for their assisted death in the event they become incompetent and can’t make their wishes known themselves.”
It then asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of allowing assisted death for those who have signed advance consent, but may not be able to communicate their wishes?”
A full 74 per cent agreed, even slightly more than the 72 per cent who said they support assisted death.
“We have known for years Canadians favour assisted dying. It is clear from these findings that they don’t want to deny this right to those who can’t, in the end, speak for themselves” said Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff.
It seems the prime minister and justice minister Jody are not only on the wrong side of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Senate of Canada and the terminally ill they're also on the wrong side of mainstream public opinion. I guess that leaves them onside with only themselves and the cranks. Strange bedfellows.........
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...icide-bill-to-allow-for-advanced-consent-poll
“Advanced directives” or “advance consent” became a particularly controversial aspect of the assisted-death debate after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last year the laws against the practice were unconstitutional. Such directives would allow someone with dementia or another degenerative diagnosis — while still in full capacity of his or her cognitive faculties — to sign a document requesting assisted death at a set point down the line. That could be defined in the order by a point in their illness or another predetermined metric.
A Forum Research survey (link is external) of 2,271 Canadians on June 7 defined advance consent as “when someone leaves explicit legal instructions for their assisted death in the event they become incompetent and can’t make their wishes known themselves.”
It then asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of allowing assisted death for those who have signed advance consent, but may not be able to communicate their wishes?”
A full 74 per cent agreed, even slightly more than the 72 per cent who said they support assisted death.
“We have known for years Canadians favour assisted dying. It is clear from these findings that they don’t want to deny this right to those who can’t, in the end, speak for themselves” said Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff.
It seems the prime minister and justice minister Jody are not only on the wrong side of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Senate of Canada and the terminally ill they're also on the wrong side of mainstream public opinion. I guess that leaves them onside with only themselves and the cranks. Strange bedfellows.........
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...icide-bill-to-allow-for-advanced-consent-poll
Utter stupidity. Everyone has inevitable death. But Liberal policies make me feel good.
I recall visiting someone in a hospital when I was around 18. The other person in the room had MS and was in bad shape. I had no knowledge of MS at the time. He could not move or talk. But his brain was fully functional as far as being cognizant of his situation and what anyone was saying. He just watched us. I will never forget he had a penetrating look in his eyes but I don't know if it was because he knew he was going to die or maybe he was asking for help or to be put out of his misery. MS is one horrendous disease......
MS sufferer wants to schedule her own death
Canada's assisted dying bill allows for people to access help if they are "suffering intolerably" and their death is "reasonably foreseeable."
But Cheri Roberts wants it to go further.
Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) 10 years ago, Roberts, 35, wants to schedule her death for 10 years from now, when she figures the disease will have advanced far enough to remove quality of life.
"I don't have a lot of family support. As well, my options in regards to pain treatment are going to be fewer because of past issues,"
"They're saying I have about 10 years more of good [health]. They always aim high so my view is at five years I'll check myself and if I'm still good, I'll give myself a year, up to the maximum of 10 years because I just can't see my body lasting past that."
Roberts began taking opioids when first diagnosed to help manage the pain, but she became addicted and said those are no longer an option for her.
She also worries about becoming a burden, both on the medical system and her 15-year-old daughter.
"I look at like, OK, I'll hit this point and then that will be my end. And to me, that's the better option than looking at having my daughter take of me or going into a home and hoping somebody is going to come see me once every couple of weeks," she said.
"That's just not a life for me. I would rather enjoy what I can and be happy and then when it comes, it comes."
That's a sentiment MS Society of Calgary director Darrel Gregory said he's heard before, but isn't always true.
"People will benefit from having an honest, sincere, difficult conversation with their family members," he said.
"People often feel they are a burden in these situations. And I think that's a perception that doesn't always bear out and it involves having difficult conversations with their support network because I think they'll find there is support in the community through the MS Society or through their family members."
The decision is ultimately a personal one, said Gregory.
"MS is a really complex and complicated disease and people who have progressive forms of the disease, it can be extremely painful and difficult," he said.
"We respect the autonomy of each individual to make that choice. It's not our place to say what is right for each individual, we just want to ensure people have made the effort to reach out for help."
Roberts admitted finances were a partial factor in her thought process.
"For people like me, if you have health issues there's not many options unless you have lots of money," she said.
"If I had lots of money and could pay for all these medical treatments and alternative therapies and do all this extra little stuff from myself, my MS might be a little bit different. But I don't have that option. I'm a single woman on AISH and this looks like a good option.
My other option is to go in a home."
MS sufferer wants to schedule her own death - Calgary - CBC News
MS sufferer wants to schedule her own death
Canada's assisted dying bill allows for people to access help if they are "suffering intolerably" and their death is "reasonably foreseeable."
But Cheri Roberts wants it to go further.
Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) 10 years ago, Roberts, 35, wants to schedule her death for 10 years from now, when she figures the disease will have advanced far enough to remove quality of life.
"I don't have a lot of family support. As well, my options in regards to pain treatment are going to be fewer because of past issues,"
"They're saying I have about 10 years more of good [health]. They always aim high so my view is at five years I'll check myself and if I'm still good, I'll give myself a year, up to the maximum of 10 years because I just can't see my body lasting past that."
Roberts began taking opioids when first diagnosed to help manage the pain, but she became addicted and said those are no longer an option for her.
She also worries about becoming a burden, both on the medical system and her 15-year-old daughter.
"I look at like, OK, I'll hit this point and then that will be my end. And to me, that's the better option than looking at having my daughter take of me or going into a home and hoping somebody is going to come see me once every couple of weeks," she said.
"That's just not a life for me. I would rather enjoy what I can and be happy and then when it comes, it comes."
That's a sentiment MS Society of Calgary director Darrel Gregory said he's heard before, but isn't always true.
"People will benefit from having an honest, sincere, difficult conversation with their family members," he said.
"People often feel they are a burden in these situations. And I think that's a perception that doesn't always bear out and it involves having difficult conversations with their support network because I think they'll find there is support in the community through the MS Society or through their family members."
The decision is ultimately a personal one, said Gregory.
"MS is a really complex and complicated disease and people who have progressive forms of the disease, it can be extremely painful and difficult," he said.
"We respect the autonomy of each individual to make that choice. It's not our place to say what is right for each individual, we just want to ensure people have made the effort to reach out for help."
Roberts admitted finances were a partial factor in her thought process.
"For people like me, if you have health issues there's not many options unless you have lots of money," she said.
"If I had lots of money and could pay for all these medical treatments and alternative therapies and do all this extra little stuff from myself, my MS might be a little bit different. But I don't have that option. I'm a single woman on AISH and this looks like a good option.
My other option is to go in a home."
MS sufferer wants to schedule her own death - Calgary - CBC News
I dobut that you understand what you just wrote.
A general distrust for regular people makes it easier to support policies that strip away individual rights.
I just mean that 'the average person' may not have enough information to deal with complex situations so I generally trust them less than those that are educated. It's not that I think they are nefarious or anything.
Fu ck you're stupid. The SCC didn't change sweet fu ck all. The damn law specifies penetration. Parliament needs to change the law to broaden the definition. The SCC did their job and caught the mistake.
No worries. But I would still recommend caution. Even an oil field province like Alberta has a working pop with a majority that has some form of post secondary education
. Also. On some grassroots issues,it is worth holding a general belief that the common person knows what is best for their family. Government interference should be kept at a minimum
The thing is, it's not like the 40s or the 60s.
We are living in times when governments are much more trustworthy than they've ever been in the past. To the point that the current landscape makes corporations and private industry look like the bad guy.
In a world where the individual has that much more freedom, it's even more amplified as that individual tends to abuse the freedom they have.
And ultimately, that abuse is what compromises the freedom, not the government.
We are living in times when governments are much more trustworthy than they've ever been in the past. To the point that the current landscape makes corporations and private industry look like the bad guy.
In a world where the individual has that much more freedom, it's even more amplified as that individual tends to abuse the freedom they have.
And ultimately, that abuse is what compromises the freedom, not the government.
I try and blow my second hand smoke right in their faces . The kids love those smoke rings around their heads but the parents abhor it .