MAID - How many are aware? (to live, title, health care)

[Suesbal]

https://www.theamericanconservative....ent-in-canada/

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Suesbal

https://www.theamericanconservative....ent-in-canada/

The article is BS.

He ALWAYS had control over his application to MAID. In fact he has now withdrawn it.

Also, he would NEVER be accepted or qualify for MAID.

Applying means nothing.

[Zoisite]

Originally Posted by Suesbal

https://www.theamericanconservative....ent-in-canada/

I think The American Conservative must have been having a very slow day and had nothing of pressing importance to publish. So they're posting more nonsense again, resorting to their usual tricks of attempted interference and expressing their disapproval and god given control issues about the affairs of other countries that they don't understand and that happen to be none of the business of the people who publish The American Conservative.

It only leads me to question the credibility, sensibility and intelligence of the publishers and the sort of naive people who believe these kinds of sensationalized nonsense articles.

That article reminds me of somebody on another forum that I sometimes read - a woman in the south very recently posted a similar BS laden conservative religious article about MAID in Canada and some other countries in Europe. She was all up in arms and going on about how she was at her wit's end and how utterly grief-stricken and heart-broken she is over the tragedy that Canada and Sweden and the UK are murdering their own citizens without the consent or the request of their murdered citizens. She was insisting hysterically that America needs to "Do something!!" to interfere and put a stop to the atrocities of compassion happening in other countries and that the recipients of MAID need to suffer to the end because that's god's will. Like she knows what god's will is.

I'm just shaking my head.

.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by Zoisite

I think The American Conservative must have been having a very slow day and had nothing of pressing importance to publish. So they're posting more nonsense again, resorting to their usual tricks of attempted interference and expressing their disapproval and god given control issues about the affairs of other countries that they don't understand and that happen to be none of the business of the people who publish The American Conservative.

It only leads me to question the credibility, sensibility and intelligence of the publishers and the sort of naive people who believe these kinds of sensationalized nonsense articles.

That article reminds me of somebody on another forum that I sometimes read - a woman in the south very recently posted a similar BS laden conservative religious article about MAID in Canada and some other countries in Europe. She was all up in arms and going on about how she was at her wit's end and how utterly grief-stricken and heart-broken she is over the tragedy that Canada and Sweden and the UK are murdering their own citizens without the consent or the request of their murdered citizens. She was insisting hysterically that America needs to "Do something!!" to interfere and put a stop to the atrocities of compassion happening in other countries and that the recipients of MAID need to suffer to the end because that's god's will. Like she knows what god's will is.

I'm just shaking my head.

.

I have seen those conversations on City-Data, too. An awful lot of people seem to know what God's will is for OTHER people.

[netwit]

It's partly true and shows up some of the flaws in the system. Farsoud, for example, was lacking food and shelter. He is not contemplating death, perhaps in part due to money that was fund raised for him. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-new...upport-6114759

There are public links to the others mentioned in the story as well which are not sensationalized.

Then there is this overview: https://reason.com/2022/09/07/some-c...t-die-already/

I'm not in favour of MAiD. I see far more ethical problems with it than solutions. The solution to homelessness should not be death.

[ChevySpoons]

Originally Posted by Zoisite

I think The American Conservative must have been having a very slow day ....

I got about five paragraphs in, which was two paragraphs after I decided that that item, and the stuff that comes out of the back end of a horse, were remarkably similar. I was laughing too hard to continue reading.

Like she knows what god's will is.

I met God's Will on a Hallowe'en night. He was dressed as a bag of leaves.

(Google it, if you don't already know.)

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by netwit

It's partly true and shows up some of the flaws in the system. Farsoud, for example, was lacking food and shelter. He is not contemplating death, perhaps in part due to money that was fund raised for him. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-new...upport-6114759

There are public links to the others mentioned in the story as well which are not sensationalized.

Then there is this overview: https://reason.com/2022/09/07/some-c...t-die-already/

I'm not in favour of MAiD. I see far more ethical problems with it than solutions. The solution to homelessness should not be death.

I'm in the middle with this one. Rep to you though for taking a dissenting view on this vs other posters. You do raise a good argument, in regard to the ethical issues that can and will arise. We can go down a slippery slope with this. For me, when the case is terminal and the person is going to suffer, it seems like a pretty compassionate policy. When you get into cases of those who are mentally ill, disabled etc, you can go down that slope pretty quickly. Either individual's or the system itself could act as enablers for this in cases collectively, we would not be comfortable with as a society. We need to be honest about this and not just assume the system is going to always act as it should.

The case of Mr Farsoud being an example of this. He wanted to use this as a lever due to is living situation and not the pain and condition itself acting as a trigger. That however was temporary. As soon as he found the means to change the situation, this is no longer on the table. How many cases will there be where individuals will trigger this and their life ended, when it was only a temporary situation. We can't just assume the system we have in place will be able to see these cases and prevent it from happening. The more you open it up beyond just a compassionate policy for those who are terminally ill, the more these greyer areas will develop, and the ethical considerations become far less clear. The fact that Farsoud is even being discussed I think brings the ethical issues with these policies to the forefront.

[netwit]

Originally Posted by fusion2

I'm in the middle with this one. Rep to you though for taking a dissenting view on this vs other posters. You do raise a good argument, in regard to the ethical issues that can and will arise. We can go down a slippery slope with this. For me, when the case is terminal and the person is going to suffer, it seems like a pretty compassionate policy. When you get into cases of those who are mentally ill, disabled etc, you can go down that slope pretty quickly. Either individual's or the system itself could act as enablers for this in cases collectively, we would not be comfortable with as a society. We need to be honest about this and not just assume the system is going to always act as it should.

The case of Mr Farsoud being an example of this. He wanted to use this as a lever due to is living situation and not the pain and condition itself acting as a trigger. That however was temporary. As soon as he found the means to change the situation, this is no longer on the table. How many cases will there be where individuals will trigger this and their life ended, when it was only a temporary situation. We can't just assume the system we have in place will be able to see these cases and prevent it from happening. The more you open it up beyond just a compassionate policy for those who are terminally ill, the more these greyer areas will develop, and the ethical considerations become far less clear. The fact that Farsoud is even being discussed I think brings the ethical issues with these policies to the forefront.

I don't feel like looking up the link, but there was another guy mentioned, paralyzed in some way, and there is a recording of a nurse bringing up euthanasia as an option. Also, in some link it was mentioned that in Europe it is not allowed for health care workers to bring up euthanasia but in Canada it is. And the hospital involved in the Canadian man admitted that it was brought up inappropriately to this particular paralyzed man.

I can totally see how someone without an advocate would feel pressured under those circumstances.

As far as pain control is concerned, the last day of his life my husband was in a lot of pain. He was home until then. The hospital asked me whether I wanted them to run a bunch of tests to find out what was wrong, or make him comfortable. I said make him comfortable, even though I knew that would lower his blood pressure further to an inevitable outcome. But he had so many things wrong with him, it made no difference what the cause of his pain was. I don't believe they gave him any more pain relief than what was needed. On admission, it turned out not to be enough and they later increased it.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by netwit

It's partly true and shows up some of the flaws in the system. Farsoud, for example, was lacking food and shelter. He is not contemplating death, perhaps in part due to money that was fund raised for him. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-new...upport-6114759

There are public links to the others mentioned in the story as well which are not sensationalized.

Then there is this overview: https://reason.com/2022/09/07/some-c...t-die-already/

I'm not in favour of MAiD. I see far more ethical problems with it than solutions. The solution to homelessness should not be death.

The main point of the link that was posted is false though. It's titled " The Collapse of Consent", which is just isn't true.

Having known through friends, 2 people who have gone through MAID, I can't see how someone like Farsoud would EVER be granted it. Again applying, does not mean he would have been accepted.

As for stories like that of Roger Foley, absolutely this should be seen as an issue, but again he was of sound enough mind to record, and make his own decision.

One of the requirements for MAID is "Have made a voluntary request for MAID that was not a result of external pressure"

Lessons will be learned as we go along, but I believe there are enough safeguards in place to prevent anyone from receiving MAID who does not want it.

As for Farsound, I suspect it was a cry for help, like some do who threatens suicide. I have my doubts he really thought he'd go through with it...even though I'm sure he would be denied.

MAID has kind of always existed though. I think many have stories of doctors giving a patient a final push to end the suffering of a dying patient.

As for being for or against, I'm all for people having options, but understand your concerns, especially after your recent loss.

[netwit]

[QUOTE][/quote]

Originally Posted by Natnasci

The main point of the link that was posted is false though. It's titled " The Collapse of Consent", which is just isn't true.

Having known through friends, 2 people who have gone through MAID, I can't see how someone like Farsoud would EVER be granted it. Again applying, does not mean he would have been accepted.

As for stories like that of Roger Foley, absolutely this should be seen as an issue, but again he was of sound enough mind to record, and make his own decision.

One of the requirements for MAID is "Have made a voluntary request for MAID that was not a result of external pressure"

Lessons will be learned as we go along, but I believe there are enough safeguards in place to prevent anyone from receiving MAID who does not want it.

As for Farsound, I suspect it was a cry for help, like some do who threatens suicide. I have my doubts he really thought he'd go through with it...even though I'm sure he would be denied.

MAID has kind of always existed though. I think many have stories of doctors giving a patient a final push to end the suffering of a dying patient.

As for being for or against, I'm all for people having options, but understand your concerns, especially after your recent loss.

I also think that in Farsoud's case, it was a dramatized cry for help and I doubt he would have been allowed to be euthanized. I also agree that the title of the article is dramatized but the premise behind the article about consent is still meaningful enough. These are real cases and real people, not something made up out of whole cloth.

Take the mentally ill as an example. As the article states: Consent, especially under the kind of pressure inherent in situations like these, is a weak and malleable thing. And look where we are with that.

Then take the case of the army veteran https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...ling-1.6560136

Then we have health care workers bringing up euthanasia, something that IMO, should never happen.

I agree that there will always be wrinkles to iron out in any law, but in the case of MAiD, those "wrinkles" are a matter of life and death.

My husband was as good as deaf and he often faked understanding what was being said to him. He was also a person of great public bravado, who would talk bigger than he was, and spoke as though death held no fear for him. He would talk himself into a corner and then not find his way out. In private, until the very end, he was deathly (excuse the pun) afraid of death.

What WAS being pushed hard by healthcare workers, for the last 6 years, was DNR - do not resuscitate. At one point he agreed to it, signed the form, only later to tell me about it, and he ended up taking back his consent.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with the DNRs but decisions are made by humans who are tired and who have no skin in the game. My husband would not, in these last six years, in fact wanted to be resuscitated if he had a major stroke or heart attack nor would I ever have allowed them to go on to no good purpose.

The last time when the EMTs pressed for their DNR and asked me why he wouldn't give consent, I told them it was because he trusted me more than them when it came to knowing it was over. One of the homecare palliative nurses asked whether he had a DNR and I said he had had, but he changed his mind as he had not understood what it meant. She sighed and said it was common that they pushed their DNRs without making sure the patient understood what it meant.

I can think of lots of scenarios in which euthanasia would be merciful. I can think of lots of situations in which it would be abused. I do not believe there wouldn't be coercion.

But I have a lot to do these days. There are other points I haven't gotten around to making and probably won't.