As promised, we will finally discuss a few of the cases surrounding the refusal of medical treatment on religious grounds....let us tie up a few loose ends surrounding our previous blog on related legislation first.
As the legislation (Health Care Consent Act) outlines, consent is a necessary pre-requisite to all medical interventions. If medical treatment is done without consent, it can amount to legal repercussions. Since no treatment can be done without consent, it follows that a competent adult (and in some cases child) is entitled to refuse medical treatment. The Act also states that legal penalties can apply even where the treatment will improve the patient’s medical condition and even where the patient would have died without the treatment. So regardless of the outcome, consent must be given before medical intervention is given. There are actual cases of this happening and whether or not it is right from a moral standpoint, it is from a legal standpoint. What a great thank you for a doctor doing his/her job. You potentially save a life, pat yourself on your back, and the patient turns around and slaps a lawsuit on you for not gaining their consent to save them. I don’t know about any of you, but I would be rather perturbed if I was the doctor and it might even hinder some of my work in the near future.
Alright...here are a few of the cases regarding Jehovah’s witnesses refusing blood transfusions due to their religious beliefs:
(1996, 2004)- British Columbia
A 35 year old woman by the name of Daphine Hobbs died of blood loss in a B.C. hospital after receiving a hysterectomy. Before the procedure, she signed a waiver (giving consent) stating that she did not want to receive a blood transfusion at any time during the procedure. The document also released the hospital from ‘any wrongdoing’ in case of her death. What makes this case interesting is that her family attempted to sue the hospital for compensation in 2004 stating ‘negligence’. The suit was rejected by the B.C. Supreme Court due to the fact that Mrs. Hobbs signed the waiver knowing the risks that were involved in her decision.
(2007)- England and UK
Emma Gough, 22, died of blood loss after giving birth to twins in the UK. She stated that she had to refuse the blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs. A month later, Rachel Underhill, 32, refused a blood transfusion during an emergency Caesarean section in England. Luckily Rachel Underhill survived the procedure and said that she received “a chill down her spine” when she heard about a Mrs. Gough dying a month earlier from a similar situation. Mrs. Underhill is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness and feels that something needs to be changed regarding patients’ wishes. She states that transfusions should not carry “fear of censure or legal action”.
Let us know how you feel about these cases. How would you feel if you were one of the patients? Family members? A doctor? More cases to come in our next entry.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Bill C - 407: A Critique - Euthanasia in the Law
Bill C - 407: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=C-407&parl=38&ses=1&language=E
Despite my support for euthanasia as a general concept, I believe that had I been an MP in parliament the day the Bill C - 407 was voted on, I probably would not have supported its passage. It was after all, just an amendment, a rather small document utterly unable to address or even cope with the storming controversy surrounding this issue. This post is designed to address some of Bill C - 407's short falls, as well as some of the legal complications inherent in the situation.
The first and perhaps most controversial aspect of this bill was that it gave an individual the right to request euthanasia even if they had refused appropriate medical treatments. This was an outrage for many interest groups that oppose euthanasia, and on a very personal level I find this to be somewhat objectionable as well. I believe that euthanasia should only be considered in the more hopeless of circumstances, in which there is enduring pain and suffering without the possibility of relief. However, as mentioned in a previous post, we cannot force someone to receive medical treatment under Canadian law, so a provision in a euthanasia bill that prohibits someone from being euthanized because they have not tried all available medical options would likely be struck down as unlawful.
This represents an intrinsic conundrum for the legal system and its ability to deal with euthanasia in a way that reflects the attitudes of the citizens of Canada. Many individuals would not support someone euthanizing themselves if they had not tried all available curative options. This remains an issue that must be dealt with if we are to put a new policy into place that is supportive of assisted suicide.
Another major flaw inherent in Bill C- 407 is the vagueness of much of its wording. For instance, the bill uses the word "lucid" to identify a person who is able to consent to death. However, the bill does not outline any procedures or steps one can take to ascertain how "lucid" a person is. Should one just use their own judgement? Should the patient be referred to a psychiatrist to determine how "lucid" they are? Or should the simple fact that they can form a coherent sentence be used to infer that they are in a "lucid" frame of mind?
Aside from this the bill also ignores the issue surrounding the appropriateness of the word "lucid" as a proper criteria for consenting to euthanasia. For example, is a chronically depressed individual in the right frame of mind to make a decision regarding assisted suicide? My answer would be that it invariably depends on the situation. I am sure we could all imagine a situation in which we would believe that a depressed individual should not be making such a decision. However, under Bill C-407 they would be given that right and there would be very little that anyone could do about it. This example highlights the fact that other psychological variables may be at play in the decision making process and that we may want to examine these before we agree that a person is "lucid" and capable of making a fully informed decision.
This point can also be highlighted when we consider age as a variable in the decision making process. For instance, in the Netherlands they allows euthanasia for individuals as young as 12 to be euthanized (although Bill C-407 restricted this to 18). Do individuals this young really have a good conception of what being euthanized will mean? Do they have the cognitive capacity to make this decision? This is yet another issue that was left unaddressed by Bill C - 407 and will have to be addressed in order to ensure that we have adequate restrictions on the usage of euthanasia as a "medical treatment".
The last point I'd like to make is that the role of the medical practitioner in Bill C - 407 was also rather vague. Under the bill anyone could technically euthanize someone else as long as they were a medical practitioner or under the "supervision" of a medical practitioner. The law does not clearly address what is entailed in this supervision and I believe that it should. I believe that if we are not specific in setting up a law like this, misuses or abuses could potentially occur and that we need to show due diligence in anticipating these.
These are just a few of the more poignant issues I had with the bill. There is one more that I was unsure about so I thought I would leave it as a question for readers:
Many opponents of this bill said that if it were enacted, someone who decided they wanted to be euthanized could do so in less than 2 weeks (the bill required a minimum of 10 days between requests to be euthanized). Do you think this is right? Is this enough time to make a decision about whether you would like to continue living?
Friday, November 7, 2008
History of Euthanasia in Canada
1972
- Canadian Parliament abolishes suicide and attempted suicide as crimes under the criminal code.
1980
- First pro-euthanasia group (Dying With Dignity) is founded in Canada.
1983
- Law Reform Commission of Canada release Report on Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment & recommend decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Also recommends for Criminal Code to be changed so physicians are not required to administer treatment against patient’s wishes or when treatment is useless and against patient’s best interest.
- Under Dr. Nachum Gal’s orders (pediatrician at Alberta Hospital), a nurse removes severely brain-damaged infant from life-support and injects it with lethal dose of morphine. Dr. Gal flees to Israel and is unable to be extradited to face murder charges. Nurse in question is receives a 1 year suspension.
1984
- Canadian Nursing Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Hospital Association, Canadian Bar Association, Catholic Health Association of Canada & Law Reform Commission issue joint statement establishing procedure for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.
1987
- Law Reform Commission releases proposed changes to Criminal Code & recommend that mercy killing get treated as 2nd-degree rather than 1st-degree murder (premeditated). At this 2nd-degree murder carries no fixed or minimum jail term.
- Malette v. Shulman - the right of a Jehovah's Witness to refuse life-saving blood transfusion is upheld by Ontario Court of Appeals. It’s noted that it is the duty health care professionals respect such a refusal or refusal made in advance directive.
1990
- Dr. Perry (an MLA) admits he may have hastened his dying father’s death by injecting him with morphine shots. He receives no punishment as B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons states he did nothing illegal since providing palliative care and treatment that may coincidentally hasten death is an acceptable practice.
- Vancouver psychologist David Lewis, admits to assisting in suicides of 8 AIDS patients.
Before legal action is taken, Lewis, also an AIDS patient dies in an assisted prescription drug overdose.
1991
- B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons issues statement against euthanasia after reviewing deaths of two terminal patients under Dr. Peter Graff. Coroner ruled deaths resulted from morphine overdoses and College of Physicians & Surgeons ruled Dr. Graff's treatment was unacceptable. However, criminal charges were not filed.
- Right to Die Society (pro-euthanasia) is formed in Victoria, BC.
- Bill C-203 (act to decriminalize euthanasia & physician assisted suicide of the terminally ill) is introduced. In response, pro-life organization Compassionate Heath Networkis form and the bill gets defeated.
- More euthanasia legislation proposed, Bill C-261, "An Act to legalize the administration of euthanasia under certain conditions to persons who request it and who are suffering from an irremediable condition and respecting the withholding and cessation of treatment and to amend the Criminal Code". Bill C-261 is also defeated in the House of Commons.
- B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care & Costs recommends Criminal Code changes so it recognizes an adults right to refuse treatment & cases where patient is not competent an appointed proxy should have right to make decisions. Also called for decriminalization of physician assisted suicide as long as patient was terminal. Recommendations were never followed.
1992
- Nancy B., an incurable patient requests to have her respirator turned off and Quebec Superior Court rules that "letting nature take its course" is not a criminal offence.
- Canadian Medical Association releases Policy Summary on Advance Directives for Resuscitation and other Life-Saving/Sustaining Measures. Argues physicians must assist patients in such situations but should honor patient's advanced directives.
- Corporation Professionelle des Médecins du Québec (CPMQ) reprimands physician who lethally injected a 38-year-old AIDS patient after receiving consent from patient/patient's family. Physician receives 3 months probation.
- Scott Mataya, a Toronto nurse, is charged with 1st-degree murder after removing s terminally ill patient's ventilator at their request. When patient began to convulse, Mataya injects lethal dose of potassium chloride. Mataya pled guilty to lesser charge of administering noxious substance & gets maximum sentence of 3 years probation & forced to surrender his nursing license.
- Bill C-385, an Act to legalize assisted suicide is read in the House of Commons. Bill is never debated is dropped when an election is called.
1993
- British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General issues guidelines for Crown in charging those involved in cases of active euthanasia & assisted suicide.
- In a vote of 5-to-4 the Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Sue Rodriguez's appeal where she challenged the Criminal Code's criminalization of assisted suicide under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- MP Ian Waddell recommends euthanasia legislation which would ensure those assisting the terminally ill (who wish to die) commit suicide are not subject to criminal liability. It is voted down 140 to 25.
- Canadian Medical Association releases Canadian Physicians and Euthanasia, a report intended to educate physicians so they develop their own opinion on the topic.
- Vancouver columnist Lyn Cockburn and two senior editors found in contempt of court when refusing identify their source for a 1991 article describing the assisted suicide of a woman with AIDS.
- Sub-Committee on Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General recommends that Minister of Justice reviews legal & philosophical issues surrounding assisted suicide.
1994
- Another proposed euthanasia bill, C-215 was read and defeated in the House of Commons
- Canadian Medical Association votes against euthanasia.
- Robert Latimer (Saskatchewan) receives life imprisonment without parole for at least ten years when charged with 2nd-degree murder of his daughter Tracy. Latimer argues he was ending her suffering (she was severely physically & developmentally disabled as result of cerebral palsy) when he put her in the back of his truck and allowed her to die of carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Cheryl Myers & Michael Power (Nova Scotia) are charged with 2nd-degree murder after they suffocate Myers' terminally ill father. They plead guilty to manslaughter and are sentenced to 3 years probation, and 150 hours of community service.
- Justice Minister Allan Rock publicly states that issues involving cessation of treatment and assisted suicide should be considered by Parliament.
- Prime Minister Chrétien states MPs will have a free vote whether to legalize doctor-assisted suicide.
- A Special Senate Committee is established to examine & report on the legal, social, & ethical issues relating to euthanasia & assisted suicide.
1995
- Alzheimer's suffering Cecil Bush expresses his wish to die and his wife Jean obliges. Despite pleading guilty to manslaughter, she receives a non-custodial sentence, from a judge who felt she had suffered enough.
- Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide issued Of Life and Death report where they conclude involuntary euthanasia should continue to be treated as murder. The majority also opposes voluntary & non-voluntary euthanasia and recommends they remain criminal offences. It is also recommended that Parliament create a separate offense of "compassionate homicide" which would not carry a mandatory life sentence.
1997
- 3 years into his life sentence, Robert Latimer is ordered a new trial by Supreme Court of Canada. He is again convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to two years less a day, notwithstanding that the minimum sentence under the Criminal Code is life in prison with no possibility of parole for ten years.
1998
- Dr. Nancy Morrison removes a terminally ill patient from life support and is charged with the first-degree murder. Nova Scotia judge finds there is insufficient evidence to convict Dr. Morrison and refuses to hear the case.
- Dr. Douglas Kinsella & Marja Verhoef of University of Calgary publish results of 1995 survey of Canadian physicians. Over 57% of the 1,885 physicians who responded said they would not assist a suicide even if it were legalized.
2005
- Bill C-407, is proposed to House of Commons & is designed to amend the Criminal Code and decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
- Group of 61 physicians & 39 lawyer petition against the legalization of physician assisted suicide claiming “we do not want to become the executioners of our patients. The statement was issued prior to the 2nd reading of Bill C-407, which gets voted down.
- Canadian Parliament abolishes suicide and attempted suicide as crimes under the criminal code.
1980
- First pro-euthanasia group (Dying With Dignity) is founded in Canada.
1983
- Law Reform Commission of Canada release Report on Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment & recommend decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Also recommends for Criminal Code to be changed so physicians are not required to administer treatment against patient’s wishes or when treatment is useless and against patient’s best interest.
- Under Dr. Nachum Gal’s orders (pediatrician at Alberta Hospital), a nurse removes severely brain-damaged infant from life-support and injects it with lethal dose of morphine. Dr. Gal flees to Israel and is unable to be extradited to face murder charges. Nurse in question is receives a 1 year suspension.
1984
- Canadian Nursing Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Hospital Association, Canadian Bar Association, Catholic Health Association of Canada & Law Reform Commission issue joint statement establishing procedure for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.
1987
- Law Reform Commission releases proposed changes to Criminal Code & recommend that mercy killing get treated as 2nd-degree rather than 1st-degree murder (premeditated). At this 2nd-degree murder carries no fixed or minimum jail term.
- Malette v. Shulman - the right of a Jehovah's Witness to refuse life-saving blood transfusion is upheld by Ontario Court of Appeals. It’s noted that it is the duty health care professionals respect such a refusal or refusal made in advance directive.
1990
- Dr. Perry (an MLA) admits he may have hastened his dying father’s death by injecting him with morphine shots. He receives no punishment as B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons states he did nothing illegal since providing palliative care and treatment that may coincidentally hasten death is an acceptable practice.
- Vancouver psychologist David Lewis, admits to assisting in suicides of 8 AIDS patients.
Before legal action is taken, Lewis, also an AIDS patient dies in an assisted prescription drug overdose.
1991
- B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons issues statement against euthanasia after reviewing deaths of two terminal patients under Dr. Peter Graff. Coroner ruled deaths resulted from morphine overdoses and College of Physicians & Surgeons ruled Dr. Graff's treatment was unacceptable. However, criminal charges were not filed.
- Right to Die Society (pro-euthanasia) is formed in Victoria, BC.
- Bill C-203 (act to decriminalize euthanasia & physician assisted suicide of the terminally ill) is introduced. In response, pro-life organization Compassionate Heath Networkis form and the bill gets defeated.
- More euthanasia legislation proposed, Bill C-261, "An Act to legalize the administration of euthanasia under certain conditions to persons who request it and who are suffering from an irremediable condition and respecting the withholding and cessation of treatment and to amend the Criminal Code". Bill C-261 is also defeated in the House of Commons.
- B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care & Costs recommends Criminal Code changes so it recognizes an adults right to refuse treatment & cases where patient is not competent an appointed proxy should have right to make decisions. Also called for decriminalization of physician assisted suicide as long as patient was terminal. Recommendations were never followed.
1992
- Nancy B., an incurable patient requests to have her respirator turned off and Quebec Superior Court rules that "letting nature take its course" is not a criminal offence.
- Canadian Medical Association releases Policy Summary on Advance Directives for Resuscitation and other Life-Saving/Sustaining Measures. Argues physicians must assist patients in such situations but should honor patient's advanced directives.
- Corporation Professionelle des Médecins du Québec (CPMQ) reprimands physician who lethally injected a 38-year-old AIDS patient after receiving consent from patient/patient's family. Physician receives 3 months probation.
- Scott Mataya, a Toronto nurse, is charged with 1st-degree murder after removing s terminally ill patient's ventilator at their request. When patient began to convulse, Mataya injects lethal dose of potassium chloride. Mataya pled guilty to lesser charge of administering noxious substance & gets maximum sentence of 3 years probation & forced to surrender his nursing license.
- Bill C-385, an Act to legalize assisted suicide is read in the House of Commons. Bill is never debated is dropped when an election is called.
1993
- British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General issues guidelines for Crown in charging those involved in cases of active euthanasia & assisted suicide.
- In a vote of 5-to-4 the Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Sue Rodriguez's appeal where she challenged the Criminal Code's criminalization of assisted suicide under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- MP Ian Waddell recommends euthanasia legislation which would ensure those assisting the terminally ill (who wish to die) commit suicide are not subject to criminal liability. It is voted down 140 to 25.
- Canadian Medical Association releases Canadian Physicians and Euthanasia, a report intended to educate physicians so they develop their own opinion on the topic.
- Vancouver columnist Lyn Cockburn and two senior editors found in contempt of court when refusing identify their source for a 1991 article describing the assisted suicide of a woman with AIDS.
- Sub-Committee on Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General recommends that Minister of Justice reviews legal & philosophical issues surrounding assisted suicide.
1994
- Another proposed euthanasia bill, C-215 was read and defeated in the House of Commons
- Canadian Medical Association votes against euthanasia.
- Robert Latimer (Saskatchewan) receives life imprisonment without parole for at least ten years when charged with 2nd-degree murder of his daughter Tracy. Latimer argues he was ending her suffering (she was severely physically & developmentally disabled as result of cerebral palsy) when he put her in the back of his truck and allowed her to die of carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Cheryl Myers & Michael Power (Nova Scotia) are charged with 2nd-degree murder after they suffocate Myers' terminally ill father. They plead guilty to manslaughter and are sentenced to 3 years probation, and 150 hours of community service.
- Justice Minister Allan Rock publicly states that issues involving cessation of treatment and assisted suicide should be considered by Parliament.
- Prime Minister Chrétien states MPs will have a free vote whether to legalize doctor-assisted suicide.
- A Special Senate Committee is established to examine & report on the legal, social, & ethical issues relating to euthanasia & assisted suicide.
1995
- Alzheimer's suffering Cecil Bush expresses his wish to die and his wife Jean obliges. Despite pleading guilty to manslaughter, she receives a non-custodial sentence, from a judge who felt she had suffered enough.
- Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide issued Of Life and Death report where they conclude involuntary euthanasia should continue to be treated as murder. The majority also opposes voluntary & non-voluntary euthanasia and recommends they remain criminal offences. It is also recommended that Parliament create a separate offense of "compassionate homicide" which would not carry a mandatory life sentence.
1997
- 3 years into his life sentence, Robert Latimer is ordered a new trial by Supreme Court of Canada. He is again convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to two years less a day, notwithstanding that the minimum sentence under the Criminal Code is life in prison with no possibility of parole for ten years.
1998
- Dr. Nancy Morrison removes a terminally ill patient from life support and is charged with the first-degree murder. Nova Scotia judge finds there is insufficient evidence to convict Dr. Morrison and refuses to hear the case.
- Dr. Douglas Kinsella & Marja Verhoef of University of Calgary publish results of 1995 survey of Canadian physicians. Over 57% of the 1,885 physicians who responded said they would not assist a suicide even if it were legalized.
2005
- Bill C-407, is proposed to House of Commons & is designed to amend the Criminal Code and decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
- Group of 61 physicians & 39 lawyer petition against the legalization of physician assisted suicide claiming “we do not want to become the executioners of our patients. The statement was issued prior to the 2nd reading of Bill C-407, which gets voted down.
Religion & Euthanasia - Religions That Apply
As we were about to comment on a few of the cases regarding patients refusing medical treatment on religious grounds it just dawned on us...we haven’t actually talked about what specific religions actually pertain to this topic. There are way too many religions to know exactly how many carry stipulations regarding medical procedures and frankly...we don’t have the time to research all of them, so we will only touch on a few. There is a lot of variation in terms of what religions deem to be acceptable medical intervention and there is also a lot of variation in terms of the consequences that will apply afterwards. Some religions outright ban certain medical procedures and expulsion from the religious group can happen if a follower decides to ‘go against their religion’. Other religions do not take such an extreme approach and although they may discourage a certain medical procedure, they leave it up to the individual to decide.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination, are known for more than just their door-to-door preaching tactics. They are also known for their refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds and there have been many documented cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses doing so. They believe that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions and this belief is based upon how they interpret certain passages from the bible. The specific passage that Jehovah’s Witnesses belief tells them to ‘abstain from blood’ is Acts 15: 28, 29. In the passage it states:
28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not feel that the threat of death is enough to abandon their beliefs and they take blood transfusions very seriously. In fact, in 1961, accepting a blood transfusion became grounds for expulsion from the religion.
Two other religions that apply to this topic, although they do not have as strong beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses, are Christian Science and Roman Catholics. Christian Science (and NO it’s not Scientology) has a very spiritual base and the religion was established in the 19th century by Mary Baker Eddy. The religion does not have any specific rules against any particular medical procedures and the use of medicine is not forbidden. However, they choose to rely on prayer and the work of God to heal them. Roman Catholics do not feel obligated to use extraordinary means to prolong life and have actually taken extra steps to distinguish the refusal of extensive medical procedures from euthanasia. In 1980, the ‘Declaration on Euthanasia’ was issued on behalf of Pope John Paul II and to avoid a huge history lesson...the document basically states that the refusal of medical treatment does not constitute euthanasia.
If others reading this blog know of any other religions that have similar beliefs regarding medical procedures, please feel free to comment. Specific cases of people refusing medical procedures on religious grounds are coming in the future from this section of the blog...we promise :)
-All info. regarding the various religions was taken from each religion's respective website
Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination, are known for more than just their door-to-door preaching tactics. They are also known for their refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds and there have been many documented cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses doing so. They believe that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions and this belief is based upon how they interpret certain passages from the bible. The specific passage that Jehovah’s Witnesses belief tells them to ‘abstain from blood’ is Acts 15: 28, 29. In the passage it states:
28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not feel that the threat of death is enough to abandon their beliefs and they take blood transfusions very seriously. In fact, in 1961, accepting a blood transfusion became grounds for expulsion from the religion.
Two other religions that apply to this topic, although they do not have as strong beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses, are Christian Science and Roman Catholics. Christian Science (and NO it’s not Scientology) has a very spiritual base and the religion was established in the 19th century by Mary Baker Eddy. The religion does not have any specific rules against any particular medical procedures and the use of medicine is not forbidden. However, they choose to rely on prayer and the work of God to heal them. Roman Catholics do not feel obligated to use extraordinary means to prolong life and have actually taken extra steps to distinguish the refusal of extensive medical procedures from euthanasia. In 1980, the ‘Declaration on Euthanasia’ was issued on behalf of Pope John Paul II and to avoid a huge history lesson...the document basically states that the refusal of medical treatment does not constitute euthanasia.
If others reading this blog know of any other religions that have similar beliefs regarding medical procedures, please feel free to comment. Specific cases of people refusing medical procedures on religious grounds are coming in the future from this section of the blog...we promise :)
-All info. regarding the various religions was taken from each religion's respective website
How does this affect you?
At this point I would like to turn your attention back to some of the legal issues. I won’t discuss any of the laws, but I would like to discuss the steps towards change that came because of a woman named Sue Rodriguez. Rodriguez was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease in 1991. In 1992, she courageously brought her story with a video statement played to members of Parliament, and asked lawmakers to change the law banning assisted suicide. Rodriguez presented a bold statement; "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said. (According to CBC News)
It’s interesting because what she captured in those words was a concern that everyone who has ever been in a similar situation has felt. It is also a concern that those who have not had a similar experience would not relate to, which poses a problem.
The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle stimulated the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.
Her story left the public questioning the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Although the law didn’t pass, her story was one of many resistors who took their lives into their own hands. “Who owns your body?” Who gets to make those choices? Medical Schools are placing more and more emphasis and bringing up the issue of euthanasia to prospective candidates, to be sure that they will not go against their oath and against the law. However, as we have seen from the previous blog of PhD student’s study of euthanasia in Canada, many doctors still chose to let their patients have control over their bodies and respect their values and wishes.
Both Canada and the United States have always banned assisted suicide, charging people who help others kill themselves with murder, manslaughter and other offences. One famous doctor on this issue would be Dr. Kevorkian. He was a retired Michigan pathologist, loudly advocated a person's right to die and invented an instrument - called the "suicide machine" - that lets patients inject themselves intravenously with a lethal injection of potassium chloride. (CBC News)
Police charged him in the deaths of a number of people, but juries repeatedly let him off until 1999, when he was jailed on a conviction of second-degree murder after helping a terminally ill patient to die. In 2007, Kevorkian was released from jail in and said he had no regrets for conducting the assisted suicide.
Oregon is the only state with a law that specifically allows physician-assisted suicide, enacted in 1997. I wonder what people are waiting for.
Going back to Rodriguez’s statement, ‘who owns my life?’ makes you think. Who does own us? Why is society making those decisions that dictate our life? Does Canada not pride itself on its inclusion of all individuals? Doesn’t Canada celebrate diversity? Then why does Canada enforce everyone to die under regulated circumstances? Why can we live by our own choices, but need to die on someone else’s terms?
We would love to hear your thoughts on all this
It’s interesting because what she captured in those words was a concern that everyone who has ever been in a similar situation has felt. It is also a concern that those who have not had a similar experience would not relate to, which poses a problem.
The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle stimulated the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.
Her story left the public questioning the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Although the law didn’t pass, her story was one of many resistors who took their lives into their own hands. “Who owns your body?” Who gets to make those choices? Medical Schools are placing more and more emphasis and bringing up the issue of euthanasia to prospective candidates, to be sure that they will not go against their oath and against the law. However, as we have seen from the previous blog of PhD student’s study of euthanasia in Canada, many doctors still chose to let their patients have control over their bodies and respect their values and wishes.
Both Canada and the United States have always banned assisted suicide, charging people who help others kill themselves with murder, manslaughter and other offences. One famous doctor on this issue would be Dr. Kevorkian. He was a retired Michigan pathologist, loudly advocated a person's right to die and invented an instrument - called the "suicide machine" - that lets patients inject themselves intravenously with a lethal injection of potassium chloride. (CBC News)
Police charged him in the deaths of a number of people, but juries repeatedly let him off until 1999, when he was jailed on a conviction of second-degree murder after helping a terminally ill patient to die. In 2007, Kevorkian was released from jail in and said he had no regrets for conducting the assisted suicide.
Oregon is the only state with a law that specifically allows physician-assisted suicide, enacted in 1997. I wonder what people are waiting for.
Going back to Rodriguez’s statement, ‘who owns my life?’ makes you think. Who does own us? Why is society making those decisions that dictate our life? Does Canada not pride itself on its inclusion of all individuals? Doesn’t Canada celebrate diversity? Then why does Canada enforce everyone to die under regulated circumstances? Why can we live by our own choices, but need to die on someone else’s terms?
We would love to hear your thoughts on all this
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Bill C-407 - Euthanasia in the Law
As mentioned in a previous post, the 'slippery slope' argument remains a compelling piece of anti-euthanasia rhetoric (If you can't tell by now, this author is pro-euthanasia). However, in many countries, it appears that they have over come their own logical fallacies and aversions regarding the discussion of death related issues.
The Netherlands for instance became the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002 and have since then enacted strict legal requirements surrounding it. I think it suffieces to say that their society has not fallen apart, there has been no mass killings of unwanted persons, and there appears to be no indication of one in the future.
Even if there was an inclination in the populace to use euthanasia as a scapegoat in this manner, the strict legal standards surrounding its usage in the Netherlands would likely prevent it. A brief summary of these standards is provided here:
The basics requirements to perform euthanasia on someone are as follows:
The patient must have already been in the doctor's care for a period of time.
The patient's suffering is unbearable, and she or he has no hope of recovery.
The patient makes a deliberate and voluntary request that she or he has discussed thoroughly with the doctor.
The doctor consults a colleague who agrees that these criteria have been met .
This general model provided the basis for a similar Belgian law regarding euthanasia and it has been argued by many that it could serve a similar purpose in Canada. This author was going to explore the possibilities of applying this basic framework to the Canadian system, however, after some extensive research, it was found that a bill on euthanasia has already been authored and presented in Parliment. Although the bill died after extensive debate (its death was largely accredited to the vagueness of its wording), it still may be used as a useful model for the Canadian system and provides a plausible reference point for current policy.
If the reader would like to read this bill they can go to the following website:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=C-407&parl=38&ses=1&language=E
The Netherlands for instance became the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002 and have since then enacted strict legal requirements surrounding it. I think it suffieces to say that their society has not fallen apart, there has been no mass killings of unwanted persons, and there appears to be no indication of one in the future.
Even if there was an inclination in the populace to use euthanasia as a scapegoat in this manner, the strict legal standards surrounding its usage in the Netherlands would likely prevent it. A brief summary of these standards is provided here:
The basics requirements to perform euthanasia on someone are as follows:
The patient must have already been in the doctor's care for a period of time.
The patient's suffering is unbearable, and she or he has no hope of recovery.
The patient makes a deliberate and voluntary request that she or he has discussed thoroughly with the doctor.
The doctor consults a colleague who agrees that these criteria have been met .
This general model provided the basis for a similar Belgian law regarding euthanasia and it has been argued by many that it could serve a similar purpose in Canada. This author was going to explore the possibilities of applying this basic framework to the Canadian system, however, after some extensive research, it was found that a bill on euthanasia has already been authored and presented in Parliment. Although the bill died after extensive debate (its death was largely accredited to the vagueness of its wording), it still may be used as a useful model for the Canadian system and provides a plausible reference point for current policy.
If the reader would like to read this bill they can go to the following website:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=bill&doc=C-407&parl=38&ses=1&language=E
This particular piece of legislation was designed to amend section 241 and 14 of the Canadian Criminal Code (Read "An Introduction - Euthanasia in the Law" for details on these sections). This particular amendment is extremely similar to the law currently enforced in the Netherlands on most respects. However, there are two significant areas in which the proposed amendment differed. They are: 1) the Netherlands allowed minors (12 and up) to request euthanasia while the Canadian amendment required that the individual be an adult and 2) it appears that the Netherlands required the supervising medical professional to have been acquainted with the case for a period of time, while no such stipulation existed in Bill C-407.
Several other significant aspects of Bill C-407 will be dissected in future posts (in addition to the two issues raised above). The purpose of this entry was merely to introduce the reader to one of the proposed alternative policies that has already been presented in Canada. However, I would like to leave the reader with a thought regarding the significance of the introduction of such a bill in Canadian parliament.
I believe that the introduction of this bill and others like it in the western world represents a fundamental shift in the attitudes of civilians towards euthanasia. We are beginning to re-examine the fit between our medically advanced culture, one that can keep people "alive" beyond the possibility of 'life', and the archaic laws that we put into place generations ago. This transformation is obviously going to be a painful one, fraught with casualty, however, it is beyond necessary. This bill represents the beginnings of a greater sensitivity on the part of the law towards the needs of individual Canadian citizens when it comes to how they define living and the life worth living. Although it was not passed, we can all bet that this issue has not been put to rest by any measure, and that some new alternate form of this bill will soon make an appearance in parliament.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Religion & Euthanasia - Legislation
To build on the previous blog regarding Religion & Euthanasia, we would like to talk about the legislation related to it. We would also like to take the opportunity to discuss a few of the important cases related to the refusal of medical procedures on religious grounds. Although the focus of our blog is related to Canadian legislation, a few cases from other countries will be discussed simply to give the topic some context.
The right to refuse medical procedures on religious grounds would not exist in Canada if there was no legislation behind it. The ‘Health Care Consent Act’ was enacted in 1996 and it is the piece of legislation that upholds the rights of a patient to choose the type of medical treatment they receive. The purposes of this Act are:
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;
(d) to promote communication and understanding between health practitioners and their patients or clients;
(e) to ensure a significant role for supportive family members when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision about a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service; and
(f) to permit intervention by the Public Guardian and Trustee only as a last resort in decisions on behalf of incapable persons concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services.
A few of the cases regarding the refusal of medical treatment on religious grounds and a brief history of the topic will be discussed in the future...
The right to refuse medical procedures on religious grounds would not exist in Canada if there was no legislation behind it. The ‘Health Care Consent Act’ was enacted in 1996 and it is the piece of legislation that upholds the rights of a patient to choose the type of medical treatment they receive. The purposes of this Act are:
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;
(d) to promote communication and understanding between health practitioners and their patients or clients;
(e) to ensure a significant role for supportive family members when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision about a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service; and
(f) to permit intervention by the Public Guardian and Trustee only as a last resort in decisions on behalf of incapable persons concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services.
A few of the cases regarding the refusal of medical treatment on religious grounds and a brief history of the topic will be discussed in the future...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
