Canadian Woman Euthanised “Against Her Will” After Husband was Fed-Up With Caring For Her
An elderly woman was euthanised “against her will” within hours of her husband claiming she changed her mind after insisting she wanted to live. The Mail has the story.
Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying laws allow patients to request a painless death if an assessor agrees their terminal condition meets certain requirements.
Patients often wait weeks, but it can happen the same day the application is lodged if judged to be medically urgent by a MAiD provider.
But a report by the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee raised concerns that safeguards were being eroded that led to questionable deaths.
One case study was that of a woman in her 80s referred to as “Mrs B” who had complications after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
She went into severe decline and opted for palliative care, and was sent home from hospital with palliative support with her husband caring for her.
But as her condition got worse, her elderly husband struggled to care for her even with the help of visits by nurses.
“Mrs B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf,” the report read.
However, she told the assessor she “wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs” and instead wanted inpatient hospice care.
Her husband took her to hospital the next morning where doctors found she was stable but her husband was “experiencing caregiver burnout”.
Mrs B’s palliative care doctor applied for in-patient hospice care due to her husband’s burnout, but it was quickly denied.
Her husband asked for an urgent second MAiD assessment later that day and a different assessor showed up.
This one judged her to be eligible, but the original one, who was contacted as per protocol, objected.
“This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout),” the report explained.
Their request to meet Mrs B the next day was declined by the MAiD provider as “the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision”.
Instead, a third assessor was sent who agreed with the second one, and Mrs B was euthanised that evening.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This story brings to mind something I remember reading about a tribe in Papua New Guinea that bumped off the elderly when they were considered to be an unsustainable burden on the tribe. Apparently a young man would sneak up behind the elderly person round the campfire and finish them off.
I think you could also call that ‘euthanised against their will”
OH, CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!
I want to die under the anesthetic.
Maybe you find a somali-run palliative care centre?
Will the consistently underwhelming Kim Leadbeater and her coven have anything to say about this? Not holding my breath…..
The proposed UK system is more similar to Oregon’s. Drugs would be dispensed to the applicant, who would be responsible for self-administering them. Indeed, anyone ‘assisting’ the applicant puts themselves in jeopardy of a murder charge.
Our proposed system would be suitable for very few. Visit a care-home & ask yourself how many residents would be capable of applying, going through the admin process, collecting a prescription, opening the bottles of pills, following the instructions etc.
Most care-home residents are the subject of power of attorney orders. In such a case they’re outside of the scope of the UK proposals.
Comically, someone like Esther Ranzen may have been able to go through it, 3 years ago, when she allegedly had only 6 months to live, but for most people approaching death, it’s an irrelevance.
It’s a classic ‘thin end of the wedge’ piece of legislation from inherently untrustworthy MPs.
That headline is a quite disgraceful misrepresentation of what the article actually says. The husband was not fed up but overwhekmed and burnt out, according to the professionals.
So that makes killing his wife OK then?
I guess when it’s the other way round the wife will simply say that the husband had been abusive during their relationship and all will be forgiven. In all seriousness though, and I’m not in any way condoning it, but it’s impossible to know what someone is going through to get to that point in their life. It’s clearly wrong but I’m in no position to declare my superior righteousness.
That is a false conclusion.
Did you read the article, RT?
Perhaps, but was it her decision?
The article implies it wasn’t, neither was it his. It sounded like the authorities decided palliative care (the medical recommentation) was not allowed so they quickly dispatched her before anyone had time to argue her case.
Another disgrace far worse than the headline writer’s.
Values. Thriving Democracy. Freedom. When will the Fascists start culling 2 year olds and anyone who is a threat to convenience or a narrative? I imagine that this sad, sick case is the tip of a very large, ugly iceberg.
When will the Fascists start culling 2 year olds and anyone who is a threat to convenience or a narrative? Let me be clear – I find euthanasia disturbing. That said, the underlying assumption that this is dreadful and inhumane is very much based on the assumption that we somehow have an obligation to keep people alive in the greatest comfort possible even when their own bodies are unable to do it themselves. While that is a noble idea, should we really assume we have such an obligation? And is it fair to say that to turn away from such an obligation is barbaric and “fascist”? If the answer to either of those questions is “no”, then the alternative to euthanasia is letting the person die a more natural death that may well entail more suffering and agony than euthanasia. It is of course very easy take the moral high ground and say – no, no, no we should do everything in our power to look after the old and frail, whatever the cost, when the cost is to be born by someone else or “collectively”. I repeat, I find euthanasia disturbing, involuntary euthanasia even more so, but I also… Read more »
Hey, at least she got some medical assistance.
Translation: No, you can’t have in-patient care you grifter.
Translation: Oh you’re in need of care? Have an injection.
This is where the UK’s assisted suicide bill is heading.
Two observations:
1. Urgent case means “do it quick before patient changes her mind”
2. When your assessor says the “wrong” thing, just find another who will say the “right” thing
Psychopathic bureaucrats at work.
There was a case a few years ago in Britain where an elderly mother was persuaded by her adult children to top herself (inheritance money), but she changed her mind at the last minute, desperately wanting to live, and she fought and struggled so much against the doctor trying to stick a needle into her that her children all held her down until he did, and she died. Euthanised against her will.