I'm going to go wayyyyyyyy out on a limb and guess that the majority of the responders on this thread are not familiar with the Carter case and have not heard them speak on the subject..........
Lawyer who won Carter case in High Court says assisted-dying bill guts ruling
Lawyer who won Carter case in High Court says assisted-dying bill guts ruling - Politics - CBC News
A lawyer on behalf of Carter and Taylor argued that they were being discriminated against because their physical disabilities didn't allow them to kill themselves the way able-bodied people could.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-says-yes-to-doctor-assisted-suicide-in-specific-cases-1.2947487
Dr. Hedy Fry Liberal MP
I do not support Bill C-14 in its present state because I do not think that the final version of the bill reflects the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on physician-assisted death (Carter case) nor do I think that it serves the patient's best interests.
I did not come to this decision easily.
I agonized over my decision from the day the legislation was first tabled in the House of Commons. I listened intently to House debates, to committee hearings, and to explanations regarding the acceptance and rejection of final amendments. I consulted with my constituents and medical colleagues.
I believe that this bill was written with sincere intent and consideration, for the best interest of Canadians, by the ministers involved. It was not an easy task given the deeply personal effect it will have on all of our lives, and I applaud their commitment to national strategies for full palliative care.
I looked at this bill through the eyes of a family physician who had practised medicine for over 20 years. Over those years, I walked with my patients through their painful experiences of dying, their tortured fight with chronic irremediable diseases, disabilities, and mental illness.
I learned that each patient's experience was deeply personal and the level of suffering and endurance was unique to that individual.
The eventual decision was driven by religious faith, personal ethics, family relationships, and a sense of dignity in suffering and death.
I do not think the current bill addresses this. I do not think the current bill recognizes the individual desire of a patient to choose whether to live or not in a body that has betrayed them.
The bill also does not give clarity to health-care professionals who struggle, daily, to provide the best possible physical, mental, and spiritual care and to fulfill the best interest of each patient.
The criteria in Bill C-14, requiring that "natural death is reasonably foreseeable” in order to allow medically assisted dying (MAID), is an ambiguous directive to physicians.
Does it mean that only those who are dying can access MAID?
Where does that leave those who endure "grievous and irremediable suffering"? That could escalate but not cause death? This definition was specific in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on Carter. Yet the definition has been limited in the bill to "serious, incurable illness disease and disability."
What does that mean for a patient who does not wish to take a “cure” for personal and other reasons?
I am also concerned that this bill does not allow for acceptance of clear, written, and witnessed "advance directives" of the patient's intent regarding MAID—where the patient is of sound mind but concerned that he or she may not have the mental or physical capacity to do so later in the illness or disability. As a physician, I have seen patients’ specific directives ignored, contravened, and debated by families who, out of love, seek to disregard them. I have seen families torn apart by these debates.
I recognize that the authors of the bill fear that patients may change their minds later and be unable to give voice to that change. But it is possible to have a team of neurologists, geriatricians, or psychiatrists make assessments in such cases. The standing committee recommended a study be done on the issue of "advance directives" within 180 days. I hope this is done in consultation with medical professionals whose expertise will be essential.
I understand and support the principle that those who are mentally incapable of making decisions with regard to life and death should have the protection of the law. This could be accomplished by safeguards in the bill that allow for second opinions and that prohibit coercion.
With the passage of Bill C-14 in the House and its referral to the Senate, I hope that the issues of concern are addressed by amendments there. If so my support of the bill will be assured.
Dr. Hedy Fry: Why I did not vote in favour of Bill C-14 on physician-assisted dying | Georgia Straight Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly
Larry Campbell Senator
The former coroner and mayor of Vancouver says the bill is unconstitutional in its current form because of its definition of "grievous and irremediable illness," and because it does not allow for advance planning in the case of a diagnosis like Alzheimer's that gradually renders a patient not competent in the late stages of the disease.
Campbell said the bill's importance makes it all the more vital to spend time on, or it will eventually end up being struck down by the Supreme Court.
"The idea that we have a gun to our heads and this has to be done in a certain timeframe — I believe the majority of senators reject this," Campbell told Early Edition host Rick Cluff. "I don't think the world will end on June 6 if this bill is not passed."
"It's our responsibility as senators to ensure that the bill is constitutional. That's what our job is."
Campbell's first concern with the bill is that its definition of grievous and irremediable illness does not include neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS. Those patients, he said, are "suffering horribly," but their deaths are not necessarily imminent.
His second concern is that the bill does not allow for advanced planning for legally assisted death in the case of a disease like Alzheimer's. Campbell says he has had his own end-of-life plan in place since his time in the B.C. coroner's office, where the suffering he saw affected him deeply. He wants Canadians in such situations to be able to legally plan for their deaths if — when the time comes — they are no longer able to do so.
Senator Larry Campbell says he will take the time to get assisted dying law right - British Columbia - CBC News
Lawyer who won Carter case in High Court says assisted-dying bill guts ruling
Lawyer who won Carter case in High Court says assisted-dying bill guts ruling - Politics - CBC News
A lawyer on behalf of Carter and Taylor argued that they were being discriminated against because their physical disabilities didn't allow them to kill themselves the way able-bodied people could.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-says-yes-to-doctor-assisted-suicide-in-specific-cases-1.2947487
Dr. Hedy Fry Liberal MP
I do not support Bill C-14 in its present state because I do not think that the final version of the bill reflects the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on physician-assisted death (Carter case) nor do I think that it serves the patient's best interests.
I did not come to this decision easily.
I agonized over my decision from the day the legislation was first tabled in the House of Commons. I listened intently to House debates, to committee hearings, and to explanations regarding the acceptance and rejection of final amendments. I consulted with my constituents and medical colleagues.
I believe that this bill was written with sincere intent and consideration, for the best interest of Canadians, by the ministers involved. It was not an easy task given the deeply personal effect it will have on all of our lives, and I applaud their commitment to national strategies for full palliative care.
I looked at this bill through the eyes of a family physician who had practised medicine for over 20 years. Over those years, I walked with my patients through their painful experiences of dying, their tortured fight with chronic irremediable diseases, disabilities, and mental illness.
I learned that each patient's experience was deeply personal and the level of suffering and endurance was unique to that individual.
The eventual decision was driven by religious faith, personal ethics, family relationships, and a sense of dignity in suffering and death.
I do not think the current bill addresses this. I do not think the current bill recognizes the individual desire of a patient to choose whether to live or not in a body that has betrayed them.
The bill also does not give clarity to health-care professionals who struggle, daily, to provide the best possible physical, mental, and spiritual care and to fulfill the best interest of each patient.
The criteria in Bill C-14, requiring that "natural death is reasonably foreseeable” in order to allow medically assisted dying (MAID), is an ambiguous directive to physicians.
Does it mean that only those who are dying can access MAID?
Where does that leave those who endure "grievous and irremediable suffering"? That could escalate but not cause death? This definition was specific in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on Carter. Yet the definition has been limited in the bill to "serious, incurable illness disease and disability."
What does that mean for a patient who does not wish to take a “cure” for personal and other reasons?
I am also concerned that this bill does not allow for acceptance of clear, written, and witnessed "advance directives" of the patient's intent regarding MAID—where the patient is of sound mind but concerned that he or she may not have the mental or physical capacity to do so later in the illness or disability. As a physician, I have seen patients’ specific directives ignored, contravened, and debated by families who, out of love, seek to disregard them. I have seen families torn apart by these debates.
I recognize that the authors of the bill fear that patients may change their minds later and be unable to give voice to that change. But it is possible to have a team of neurologists, geriatricians, or psychiatrists make assessments in such cases. The standing committee recommended a study be done on the issue of "advance directives" within 180 days. I hope this is done in consultation with medical professionals whose expertise will be essential.
I understand and support the principle that those who are mentally incapable of making decisions with regard to life and death should have the protection of the law. This could be accomplished by safeguards in the bill that allow for second opinions and that prohibit coercion.
With the passage of Bill C-14 in the House and its referral to the Senate, I hope that the issues of concern are addressed by amendments there. If so my support of the bill will be assured.
Dr. Hedy Fry: Why I did not vote in favour of Bill C-14 on physician-assisted dying | Georgia Straight Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly
Larry Campbell Senator
The former coroner and mayor of Vancouver says the bill is unconstitutional in its current form because of its definition of "grievous and irremediable illness," and because it does not allow for advance planning in the case of a diagnosis like Alzheimer's that gradually renders a patient not competent in the late stages of the disease.
Campbell said the bill's importance makes it all the more vital to spend time on, or it will eventually end up being struck down by the Supreme Court.
"The idea that we have a gun to our heads and this has to be done in a certain timeframe — I believe the majority of senators reject this," Campbell told Early Edition host Rick Cluff. "I don't think the world will end on June 6 if this bill is not passed."
"It's our responsibility as senators to ensure that the bill is constitutional. That's what our job is."
Campbell's first concern with the bill is that its definition of grievous and irremediable illness does not include neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS. Those patients, he said, are "suffering horribly," but their deaths are not necessarily imminent.
His second concern is that the bill does not allow for advanced planning for legally assisted death in the case of a disease like Alzheimer's. Campbell says he has had his own end-of-life plan in place since his time in the B.C. coroner's office, where the suffering he saw affected him deeply. He wants Canadians in such situations to be able to legally plan for their deaths if — when the time comes — they are no longer able to do so.
Senator Larry Campbell says he will take the time to get assisted dying law right - British Columbia - CBC News
