http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/25/ontario-police-hold-press-conference-about-multi-jurisdictional-death-investigation
WOODSTOCK - A Woodstock woman has been
charged in the deaths of at least eight elderly residents in one of the
biggest multiple death investigations in the region since the Bandido
murders.
Elizabeth Tracey Mae Wettlaufer, 49, a former nurse with both
Caressant Care in Woodstock and Meadow Park in London, was charged on
Oct. 25 with the first-degree murder of eight residents aged 75 to 96
years old, seven who lived at Caressant Care and one at Meadow Park.
Showing posts with label Elder Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elder Abuse. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Assisted Suicide's Dangerous Illusion of Control
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/Johnston+Assisted+suicide+dangerous+illusion+control/7716999/story.html
The daughters are beside themselves. One sat in my office recently, telling me about her father’s trips to the bank that are draining his savings. He gets angry when his daughters challenge him.
The money — thousands of dollars, slowly saved from a meagre pension and needed for his care — seems to be going to a recently acquired girlfriend some years younger than himself. He speaks almost no English. The situation was detected by chance when a daughter gave him a ride to the bank and saw his bank book.
Some time ago, I performed a competency assessment on a socially isolated older person who had been placed in a nursing home. An unrelated neighbour had listed the person’s home for sale and was receiving inquiries before a relative became aware.
On another occasion, an older woman had adequate resources to stay in her attractive home and employ a live-in caregiver. A family member, an heir and beneficiary, arranged to have her met at her door by an ambulance crew with a gurney. She was told that if she did not co-operate, the police would be called. She submitted and was transported to a dingy nursing home that she described as a prison. Her home was sold.
A colleague recalls being on duty in an emergency room several years ago when an older bachelor came in desperately ill and confused, accompanied by his niece and nephew.
“He’s had a good life. He wouldn’t want any treatment,” his only relatives (and presumably heirs) attested. With ordinary care and rehydration, the older man walked out of hospital a week later.
Each of these scenarios is different, and none of them grace a research paper, but all of them are the real face of elder abuse. I could list 10 more from my own experience. Government of Canada policy recognizes the epidemic of elder abuse and the unusual difficulty of detecting it, often because the victim resists the revelation of abuse.
I routinely see people induced to do things and accept arrangements that are contrary to their own interests. People can be surprisingly naive.
High profile assisted suicide cases might at first seem to be about another kind of person, a sophisticated and clear-minded sort, immune to undue influence. I suggest that this presumption is also naive.
We all take our cues from those around us. It only takes a few words to promote suicide. If the law is changed, an obligation to mention the legal fact of assisted suicide will be created. Some patients will experience even the most perfunctory acknowledgment of assisted suicide as an inducement to it.
If state-sanctioned suicide becomes part of the atmosphere in our hospitals, a presumption in that direction will be created. I predict the same erosion of medical diligence that many of us on the front lines have already watched happen when caregivers choose to see a patient as having finished all useful life. How much more will this be the case when the patient’s present fear and loss of hope feed smoothly into an official assisted-suicide regime?
Some people would throw away months or years of life, and some would miss good medical care or medical advances they would have wanted to enjoy.
Consider the case of Jeanette Hall, who wanted to use Oregon’s assisted suicide law and is grateful, 12 years later, that her doctor directed her toward treatment rather than suicide.
By Will Johnston, MD
The daughters are beside themselves. One sat in my office recently, telling me about her father’s trips to the bank that are draining his savings. He gets angry when his daughters challenge him.
The money — thousands of dollars, slowly saved from a meagre pension and needed for his care — seems to be going to a recently acquired girlfriend some years younger than himself. He speaks almost no English. The situation was detected by chance when a daughter gave him a ride to the bank and saw his bank book.
Some time ago, I performed a competency assessment on a socially isolated older person who had been placed in a nursing home. An unrelated neighbour had listed the person’s home for sale and was receiving inquiries before a relative became aware.
On another occasion, an older woman had adequate resources to stay in her attractive home and employ a live-in caregiver. A family member, an heir and beneficiary, arranged to have her met at her door by an ambulance crew with a gurney. She was told that if she did not co-operate, the police would be called. She submitted and was transported to a dingy nursing home that she described as a prison. Her home was sold.
A colleague recalls being on duty in an emergency room several years ago when an older bachelor came in desperately ill and confused, accompanied by his niece and nephew.
“He’s had a good life. He wouldn’t want any treatment,” his only relatives (and presumably heirs) attested. With ordinary care and rehydration, the older man walked out of hospital a week later.
Each of these scenarios is different, and none of them grace a research paper, but all of them are the real face of elder abuse. I could list 10 more from my own experience. Government of Canada policy recognizes the epidemic of elder abuse and the unusual difficulty of detecting it, often because the victim resists the revelation of abuse.
I routinely see people induced to do things and accept arrangements that are contrary to their own interests. People can be surprisingly naive.
High profile assisted suicide cases might at first seem to be about another kind of person, a sophisticated and clear-minded sort, immune to undue influence. I suggest that this presumption is also naive.
We all take our cues from those around us. It only takes a few words to promote suicide. If the law is changed, an obligation to mention the legal fact of assisted suicide will be created. Some patients will experience even the most perfunctory acknowledgment of assisted suicide as an inducement to it.
If state-sanctioned suicide becomes part of the atmosphere in our hospitals, a presumption in that direction will be created. I predict the same erosion of medical diligence that many of us on the front lines have already watched happen when caregivers choose to see a patient as having finished all useful life. How much more will this be the case when the patient’s present fear and loss of hope feed smoothly into an official assisted-suicide regime?
Some people would throw away months or years of life, and some would miss good medical care or medical advances they would have wanted to enjoy.
Consider the case of Jeanette Hall, who wanted to use Oregon’s assisted suicide law and is grateful, 12 years later, that her doctor directed her toward treatment rather than suicide.
One of Dr. Ken Stevens’ Oregonian patients was not so lucky — part way into his cancer treatment, he became despondent and was given suicide pills by another doctor.
I know someone, happy to be alive, who had alarming symptoms and a clear diagnosis of Lou Gehrig’s disease more than a decade ago. The symptoms inexplicably resolved. Huntington’s disease, a factor in a recent high-profile suicide in Toronto, moved closer to a treatment recently in a stem cell experiment.
If a legal assisted suicide offer is always dangling, variations in the competence and diligence of doctors create arbitrary forces that move choice and control to others, not the patient.
When you or your loved one goes to the hospital, you need to be able to trust that an assisted-suicide-minded doctor or nurse will not be steering you or them toward death. People can be offered the illusion of control and autonomy when the choices are really being shaped by others.
When empowered medical personnel — and right-to-die activists — choose their own opinions about your quality of life, and have been given constitutional protection to counsel, facilitate and steer you toward suicide, you and your loved ones will not be safe.
The choices created by legal assisted suicide may end up being someone else’s, not yours. The speculative legal changes being offered are dangerous and irresponsible. Parliament rejected them firmly two years ago. We will all be safer if our courts do the same.
Dr. Will Johnston is chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Johnston+Assisted+suicide+dangerous+illusion+control/7716999/story.html#ixzz2GZkbdvWG
I know someone, happy to be alive, who had alarming symptoms and a clear diagnosis of Lou Gehrig’s disease more than a decade ago. The symptoms inexplicably resolved. Huntington’s disease, a factor in a recent high-profile suicide in Toronto, moved closer to a treatment recently in a stem cell experiment.
If a legal assisted suicide offer is always dangling, variations in the competence and diligence of doctors create arbitrary forces that move choice and control to others, not the patient.
When you or your loved one goes to the hospital, you need to be able to trust that an assisted-suicide-minded doctor or nurse will not be steering you or them toward death. People can be offered the illusion of control and autonomy when the choices are really being shaped by others.
When empowered medical personnel — and right-to-die activists — choose their own opinions about your quality of life, and have been given constitutional protection to counsel, facilitate and steer you toward suicide, you and your loved ones will not be safe.
The choices created by legal assisted suicide may end up being someone else’s, not yours. The speculative legal changes being offered are dangerous and irresponsible. Parliament rejected them firmly two years ago. We will all be safer if our courts do the same.
Dr. Will Johnston is chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Johnston+Assisted+suicide+dangerous+illusion+control/7716999/story.html#ixzz2GZkbdvWG
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Assisted suicide opens the door to grave abuses of elderly
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1287933--assisted-suicide-opens-the-door-to-grave-abuses-of-elderly
Canadians can watch disturbing videos on a government website warning about elder abuse — an elderly man is pushed to move faster, an adult child steals money from a grandmother’s wallet.
However, just as some still turn a blind eye to the fact that elder abuse is happening, proponents of assisted suicide refuse to connect the dots between legalized assisted suicide and the potential for serious abuse.
However, just as some still turn a blind eye to the fact that elder abuse is happening, proponents of assisted suicide refuse to connect the dots between legalized assisted suicide and the potential for serious abuse.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Oregon & Washington: Users of Assisted Suicide are Seniors with Money
By Margaret Dore, Esq.
Updated August 14, 2012
Originally published on
Mass Against Assisted Suicide
Updated August 14, 2012
Originally published on
Mass Against Assisted Suicide
This week, a New York Times article expressed "surprise" regarding the users of assisted suicide: "They are overwhelmingly white, well educated and financially comfortable."[1] They are also age 65 and older.[2] In other words, users are older people with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately at risk of financial abuse.[3]
The Oregon and Washington assisted suicide acts, and the similar Massachusetts proposal, do not protect users from this abuse. Indeed, the terms of these acts encourage financial abuse. These acts allow heirs and other persons who will benefit from an elder's death to actively participate in the lethal dose request.[4] There is also no oversight when the lethal dose is administered, not even a witness is required.[5] This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the person's death, to administer the lethal dose to that person without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?
Under the Washington act and the Massachusetts' proposal, the death certificate is required to reflect a natural death.[6] In Oregon, a natural death is listed by custom.[7] A concerned nephew, learning that his aunt has suddenly died and that she had a new will favoring a ne'er do will son, will thereby be mislead as to what actually happened.
This does not mean that all deaths under the Oregon and Washington acts are abusive or without consent. What it means is that these laws, and the similar Massachusetts proposal, invite abuse and have a distinct lack of transparency. In Oregon, not even law enforcement is allowed to access state-collected information about these deaths.[8] Even if the person struggled, who would know?
In the New York Times article, a description of the patient's wife indicates her discomfort with her husband's decision: "[S]he does not want the pills in the house, and he agrees. 'It just feels so negative," she said."[9]
For more information about specific problems with the Massachusetts' proposal, click here and here. For a "fact check" on the proposal, click here.
* * *
[1] Katie Hafner, "In Ill Doctor, a Surprise Reflection of Who Picks Assisted Suicide," New York Times, August 11, 2012.
[2] See e.g., the most current official report from Oregon, "Oregon Death with Dignity Act--2011" ("Of the 71 DWDA deaths during 2011, most (69.0%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 70 years"), available athttp://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14.pdf
[3] The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse, "Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders," June 2011 (a follow up to MetLife's 2009 "Broken Trust: Elders, Family, and Finances"), available athttp://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf.
[4] See Memo to Joint Judiciary Committee (regarding Bill H.3884, now ballot measure No. 2), Section III.A.2. ("Someone else is allowed to speak for the patient") and and Section II.C. ("One of the [two] witnesses [on the lethal dose request form] is allowed to be an heir who will benefit financially from the patient's death"), available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/memo-to-joint-judiciary-committee.html
[5] See above memo at Section III.A.1("No witnesses at the death"). See also entire proposed Massachusetts Act at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf
[6] See proposed Massachusetts Act at Section 4 (2) ("The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death"). Washington's act, RCW 70.245.040(2) has this same language.
[7] See e.g., Charles Bentz, "Oregon Doctor's Letter to Massachusetts Medical Society," posted November 28, 2011 ("His death certificate listed the cause of death as melanoma. The public record is not accurate. My depressed patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague."), available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2011/11/oregon-doctors-letter-to-massachusetts.html#more
[8] See E-mail from Alicia A. Parker, Mortality Research Analyst, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, January 4, 2012 ("We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but
have not provided identfying information of any type"), available at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/alicia-a-parker.pdf
[9] Katie Hafer, above at note 1.
Friday, June 29, 2012
"Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them"
Editor, the Times:
I see that this greatly affects the way the parent feels as they grow older. They feel as if the family wants them to die so they can have their money. Some express the pain that they feel when they see loved ones discussing their money as if they have already passed away.
If assisted suicide was legal, some older people would feel the need to say yes - to die - because they are given the message that they are a burden to their family. Some of these older people can be easily convinced and put their trust fully in their caregivers and families.
If assisted suicide were legal, then some would really not make the decision, but let someone else make the decision for them. How is this right?
Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them.
Changing the law to allow assisted suicide would violate their right to be protected in this way.
Arlena Vane Aldergrove
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Outrage Over the Carter Case
Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government. "
* * *Dear Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay MP,
* * *Dear Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay MP,
I am angry and upset about Justice Lynn Smith's decision in the Carter case, giving Gloria Taylor the "right" to assisted suicide/euthanasia.
This erroneous and presumptuous decision by Justice Smith is a guarantee of elder abuse unto death. We already have a problem with elder abuse in Canada. I witnessed this firsthand with my mother, when, after a mild stroke, the relative holding power of attorney decided my mother would have no treatment. I sat by my mother's bedside in a Nova Scotia nursing home, unable to do anything except hold her hand while she suffered for six days, before finally succumbing to dehydration and starvation. If Justice Smith's decision is allowed to stand, there will be no need for inconvenienced or greedy relatives to wait for even this questionable medical procedure of withholding treatment.
It appears that Justice Smith holds herself above the Government of Canada. She has given our elected representatives, such as yourself, a year to comply with her decision to allow people to "help" kill other Canadians. This is the right to commit homicide. The Federal Government of Canada decided many years ago that Canada would not kill convicted murderers, even if they want to die, but now Justice Smith had deemed that we can kill other people who allegedly ask to be killed.
MP Findlay, the "right" to kill someone is not a decision for a Provincial Court Justice to make. If Justice Smith's decision is upheld, Canada will be a place of supreme irony. We will have the distinction of protecting the lives of convicted murders, while allowing our vulnerable elders and others to be subject to human error or deliberate murder. We will also be, I believe, unique as a nation: Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government.
I look forward to your response on this matter.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B. Ed.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Margaret Dore vs. Wanda Morris Debate Part 1
To see Part 2 go here
CFI Okanagan Presentation
Should assisted suicide be legal in Canada?
Wanda Morris, Executive Director of Dying With Dignity vs.
Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia with a focus on the US and Canada. She is also a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Her practice has included appeals, elder law, probate and guardianships. She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and has been licensed to practice since 1986. For more information, see www.choiceillusion.org and www.margaretdore.org
Wanda Morris is the Executive Director of Dying with Dignity Canada, a charitable organization established in 1982 to educate the public about end of life options and the importance of advance care planning; to provide information and resources to the public and lawmakers about the choice in dying movement and the reasons why appropriately regulated medically assisted dying should be legalized in Canada; and to provide support for individuals at the end of their lives, including support at the bedside for those who wish to determine the nature and timing of their dying.
Wanda has been actively involved in the 2011 "right to die" Charter challenge brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and has been involved with the "right to die" movement for many years.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
"No bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts"
Published in the National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/todays-letters-e-cigarettes-will-still-prove-deadly-to-smokers/
Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.
Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the United States. The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.
One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide — most people know that it could tip the scales if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.
Another factor is that the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only assistant. However, the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.
And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that safeguards can ensure that the process is voluntary. But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in ones home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.
All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our 50 states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.
Diane Coleman, president/CEO Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.
Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.
Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the United States. The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.
One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide — most people know that it could tip the scales if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.
Another factor is that the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only assistant. However, the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.
And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that safeguards can ensure that the process is voluntary. But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in ones home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.
All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our 50 states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.
Diane Coleman, president/CEO Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.
Monday, January 2, 2012
"If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim"
The Danger of Euthanasia
By Alex Schadenberg, Ottawa Citizen January 2, 2012
Re: Time to rethink euthanasia, Dec. 29.Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing.
In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.
In Oregon, where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murdersuicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows the national pattern.
Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife: "The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself."
If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.
Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.
[For more indepth information, see Dominique Bourget, MD, Pierre Gagne, MD, Laurie Whitehouse, PhD, "Domestic Homicide and Homicide-Suicide: The Older Offender," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, September 2010 (Canadian study); Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009; and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent” ]
Alex Schadenberg, London
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Sunday, December 11, 2011
"It was only money and not her life."
Dear Editor:
I was disturbed by Mark Hume's article, "A B.C. family's secret: How they helped their parents die," which treats as a given that a father and mother, who died via secret assisted suicides, wanted to die. We don't know that. What we do know is that the adult children left behind, who state that they fear prosecution, have presented a somewhat loving account of the story. I say somewhat loving because they admittedly allowed their mother to die alone, upstairs, while they gathered together in the kitchen below.
In my life, I have not experienced children who "helped their parents to die." I have, however, had contact with women abused by their spouses, who outright deny that the abuse occurs. The victim protects the perpetrator. I have an older friend who wired $5000 to a stranger who had phoned impersonating her grandson. Yes, she acted voluntarily to send the money, but she had been manipulated to do so. When she later realized what had happened, she was so embarrassed, it took her three weeks to tell me. The money was long gone. But it was only money and not her life.
The Government of Canada website describes elder abuse as a widespread and hidden problem. The abuse is often perpetrated by family members such as the adult children described in Humes' article. We can't stop the abuse now. Relaxing our laws on assisted suicide will only increase it. I can only hope that our country does not take this course.
[Editor, this is a link to the Government of Canada website: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&cid=154#e You may also be interested in this study describing the high prevalence of elder abuse in the United States: http://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/broken-trust-elder-abuse.html#findings ]
Annette Turgeon
[Editor, this is a link to the Government of Canada website: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&cid=154#e You may also be interested in this study describing the high prevalence of elder abuse in the United States: http://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/broken-trust-elder-abuse.html#findings ]
Annette Turgeon
Labels:
Annette Turgeon,
Assisted Suicide,
Elder Abuse
Thursday, December 8, 2011
"The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice . . . is a society gone mad"
Dear Editor,
Mark Hume's article cheering on the anonymous family "forced" to kill their parents is a not-so-subtle endorsement of the current challenge to our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The article is titled "A.B.C.'s family's secret: how they helped their parents die." My question is, what were the family's other "secrets"? How much did they inherit, who got the house, or were the killings done as payback for long past wrongs? Elder abuse is a terrible problem in this country and the scenario I describe is not uncommon.
Hume's article also ignores that older people are already being killed in our health care facilities via dehydration, starvation, and/or morphine overdose. For one instance, see this article in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Alleged deprivation of senior probed: Denied food, water in hospital." ( http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/alleged-deprivation-of-senior-probed-132297303.html ) My own mother had a similar experience in an extended care facility in Nova Scotia. A mild stroke led to her forced starvation and dehydration. It didn't matter that she was conscious and trying to speak, or that she had indicated she wanted water.
As evidenced by the overreaching doctors described in the above article and my mother's experience, some doctors cannot be trusted with the power they already have. Legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them even more power to effect patient death. The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice and autonomy is a society gone mad.
To read my mother's story, please click here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html
Thank you,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B.Ed
[Ms Kelly is responding to this story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/end-of-life/shareTweet/article2262311/]
Mark Hume's article cheering on the anonymous family "forced" to kill their parents is a not-so-subtle endorsement of the current challenge to our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The article is titled "A.B.C.'s family's secret: how they helped their parents die." My question is, what were the family's other "secrets"? How much did they inherit, who got the house, or were the killings done as payback for long past wrongs? Elder abuse is a terrible problem in this country and the scenario I describe is not uncommon.
Hume's article also ignores that older people are already being killed in our health care facilities via dehydration, starvation, and/or morphine overdose. For one instance, see this article in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Alleged deprivation of senior probed: Denied food, water in hospital." ( http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/alleged-deprivation-of-senior-probed-132297303.html ) My own mother had a similar experience in an extended care facility in Nova Scotia. A mild stroke led to her forced starvation and dehydration. It didn't matter that she was conscious and trying to speak, or that she had indicated she wanted water.
As evidenced by the overreaching doctors described in the above article and my mother's experience, some doctors cannot be trusted with the power they already have. Legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them even more power to effect patient death. The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice and autonomy is a society gone mad.
To read my mother's story, please click here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html
Thank you,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B.Ed
[Ms Kelly is responding to this story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/end-of-life/shareTweet/article2262311/]
Labels:
Assisted Suicide,
dehydration,
Elder Abuse,
Euthanasia,
Kate Kelly,
starvation
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Carter Case and Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and a Threat to Individual Rights
For shorter print versions of this article, click here and here.
For talking points, click here.
Will Johnston, MD
For talking points, click here.
Will Johnston, MD
Margaret Dore, JD
Alex Schadenberg
November 1, 2011
Alex Schadenberg
November 1, 2011
"Those who believe that legal
assisted suicide . . . will assure their
autonomy and choice are naive."
autonomy and choice are naive."
William Reichel, MD
Montreal Gazette,
May 30, 2010[1]
A. Introduction
Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada brings a constitutional challenge to Canada's laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2] Carter also seeks to legalize these practices as a medical treatment.[3] Last year, a bill in Parliament seeking a similar result was overwhelmingly defeated.[4]
This article's focus is physician-assisted suicide.
Legalizing this practice would be a recipe for elder abuse. Legalization would also empower the Canadian health care system to the detriment of individual patient rights. There would be other problems.
B. Parliament Rejected Assisted Suicide
On April 21, 2010, Parliament defeated Bill C-384, which would have legalized physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[5] The vote was 228 to 59.[6]C. The Carter Case
A. Introduction
Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada brings a constitutional challenge to Canada's laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2] Carter also seeks to legalize these practices as a medical treatment.[3] Last year, a bill in Parliament seeking a similar result was overwhelmingly defeated.[4]
This article's focus is physician-assisted suicide.
Legalizing this practice would be a recipe for elder abuse. Legalization would also empower the Canadian health care system to the detriment of individual patient rights. There would be other problems.
B. Parliament Rejected Assisted Suicide
On April 21, 2010, Parliament defeated Bill C-384, which would have legalized physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[5] The vote was 228 to 59.[6]C. The Carter Case
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"How exactly are we going to detect the victimization when we can’t do it now?"
Dear Editor:
Patrick Stewart concedes that legalizing assisted suicide would be a problem if “you can bump off your old granny.” [“Spare the dying . . .,” Oct. 15]. This is a major reason why assisted suicide must not be legalized in Canada. As a Vancouver family doctor I see elder abuse in my practice, often perpetrated by family members and caregivers. A desire for money or an inheritance is typical. To make it worse, the victims protect the perpetrators. In one case, an older woman knew that her son was robbing her blind and lied to protect him. Why? Family loyalty, shame, and fear that confronting the abuser will cost love and care.
Patrick Stewart concedes that legalizing assisted suicide would be a problem if “you can bump off your old granny.” [“Spare the dying . . .,” Oct. 15]. This is a major reason why assisted suicide must not be legalized in Canada. As a Vancouver family doctor I see elder abuse in my practice, often perpetrated by family members and caregivers. A desire for money or an inheritance is typical. To make it worse, the victims protect the perpetrators. In one case, an older woman knew that her son was robbing her blind and lied to protect him. Why? Family loyalty, shame, and fear that confronting the abuser will cost love and care.
The result: elder abuse is often a hidden and unreported situation. Indeed, a 2008 government poll found that “96% of Canadians think most of the abuse experienced by adults is hidden or goes undetected.” [1]
Under current law, abusers take their victims to the bank and to the lawyer for a new will. With legal assisted suicide, the next stop would be the doctor’s office for a lethal prescription. How exactly are we going to detect the victimization when we can’t do it now?
Will Johnston MD
Chair
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC
[1] For the poll source, scroll down at this link: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&cid=154#f
Labels:
Elder Abuse,
Will Johnston
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)