{"id":4744,"date":"2020-02-28T17:44:05","date_gmt":"2020-02-28T17:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/?p=4744"},"modified":"2020-02-28T17:44:05","modified_gmt":"2020-02-28T17:44:05","slug":"webcast-archive-bill-c-7-removes-safeguards-offers-little-in-return","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2020\/02\/webcast-archive-bill-c-7-removes-safeguards-offers-little-in-return\/","title":{"rendered":"Webcast archive: Bill C-7 removes safeguards, offers little in return"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1180\" height=\"664\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/7o_MfquEbJo?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>In this episode of\u00a0<em>Euthanasia &amp; Disability<\/em>, Amy Hasbrouck, Taylor Hyatt and Christian Debray discuss:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The MAiD amendment bill C-7 removes safeguards and offers little in return<\/li>\n<li>Portuguese parliament approves euthanasia and assisted suicide<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Please note that this text is only a script and that our webcast contains additional commentary.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MAID AMENDMENT BILL C-7 REMOVES SAFEGUARDS AND OFFERS LITTLE IN RETURN<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<li>On February 24, the ministers of Justice, Health and Disability Inclusion presented\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.parl.ca\/DocumentViewer\/en\/43-1\/bill\/C-7\/first-reading\">Bill C-7<\/a>\u00a0that would amend the medical assistance in dying (<a href=\"https:\/\/laws-lois.justice.gc.ca\/eng\/AnnualStatutes\/2016_3\/FullText.html\">MAiD<\/a>) law.\u00a0 To comply with the\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/qc\/qccs\/doc\/2019\/2019qccs3792\/2019qccs3792.html?autocompleteStr=Truchon&amp;autocompletePos=17\">Truchon<\/a><\/em>\u00a0decision, the bill removes the requirement that the person\u2019s death has become \u201creasonably foreseeable,\u201d thus expanding eligibility for assisted suicide and euthanasia (AS\/E) far beyond people with a terminal illness.\u00a0 However the bill offers little to protect people whose life choices are limited by discrimination and barriers.<\/li>\n<li>The preamble acknowledges Canada\u2019s obligations under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities \u201cincluding in respect of the right to life.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>The proposed legislation maintains the focus on ending people\u2019s lives rather than improving the quality of their lives. As safeguards, quality-of-life measures act as barriers to the bill\u2019s stated goal of enabling the person to die.\u00a0 Requiring an applicant to have quality of life supports in place as a condition of MAiD eligibility might serve as an incentive to the person to seek out such services, and to governments to provide them. And, of course, improved quality of life might eliminate the need for MAiD altogether.<\/li>\n<li>The good news is that the bill does not expand eligibility to mature minors, and it specifically excludes people whose only medical condition is a \u201cmental illness.\u201d\u00a0 But that exclusion doesn\u2019t provide as much protection as it might appear. The bill doesn\u2019t address:\n<ul>\n<li>people with multiple conditions, including mental illness;<\/li>\n<li>People for whom abuse, barriers and discrimination have caused isolation, stress, and low self-esteem that, though they don\u2019t rise to the level of a mental illness, affect their judgment about wanting to die.<\/li>\n<li>People with related conditions, like autism or brain injuries.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Bill C-7 reduces the number of witness signatures on the application form from two to one, and would allow personal care providers to witness the form. This would make it easier for an abusive caregiver to pressure a person into filling out a MAiD application, then sign off as the only witness to the document.<\/li>\n<li>The new bill creates two separate systems of safeguards, depending on whether or not the person is near the end of life.\u00a0 However it does not clarify when natural death is \u201creasonably foreseeable.\u201c\n<ul>\n<li>For people whose death is \u201creasonably foreseeable\u201d the bill:\n<ul>\n<li>Removes the ten-day waiting period;<\/li>\n<li>Allows for a waiver of the requirement that the person be capable to consent when euthanasia is administered if:\n<ul>\n<li>before losing capacity, they arrange for euthanasia to be provided on \u201ca specified day,\u201d and<\/li>\n<li>the person \u201cdoes not demonstrate, by words, sounds or gestures, refusal &#8230; or resistance to its administration.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>This section is a little confusing and we\u2019re still looking into the precise meaning.<\/li>\n<li>So, while the bill\u2019s authors don\u2019t say it in so many words, this section allows advance requests (or as the bill calls it, \u201cadvance consent\u201d) for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable. And given the broad interpretation of \u201creasonably foreseeable\u201d that has been adopted since 2016, that includes a lot of people.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>For people whose death is\u00a0not reasonably foreseeable\n<ul>\n<li>The time between initial assessment and euthanasia is increased to 90 days; unless the medical practitioner\u00a0 shortens the period if they think the person might lose capacity.<\/li>\n<li>One of the two medical practitioners must \u201chave expertise in the condition that is causing the person\u2019s suffering.\u201d We note that it is the medical practitioner who decides if they have the required expertise. As well, the bill says nothing about people with multiple medical conditions, or about what happens when the cause of the suffering isn\u2019t the condition that puts the person\u2019s life or health at risk.<\/li>\n<li>The bill expands the informed consent section by requiring that the person be informed of mental health and disability supports, in addition to palliative care, and that they be referred for consultations with \u201crelevant professionals.\u201d\u00a0 The medical practitioner must also discuss options to relieve suffering with the person. As we\u2019ve seen, this does not guarantee that the services will be provided or will meet the person\u2019s needs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>In a new section called \u201cadvance consent \u2013 self-administration\u201d the bill would allow a person to be euthanized if they\u2019ve lost the capacity to consent after attempting assisted suicide.<\/li>\n<li>The bill adds a reporting obligation on medical practitioners who do initial assessments before a written request for MAiD is completed.\u00a0 It also obliges pharmacy technicians who dispense MAiD drugs to report these activities. These amendments to the monitoring system don\u2019t do anything to verify that medical practitioners are filing the required reports, or to deal with errors or incomplete information.<\/li>\n<li>Finally, from the \u201cOh, and by the way\u201d department, along with the Bill C-7 announcement, the government mentioned in passing that 13,000 people have been euthanized since 2016, accounting for nearly 2% of deaths in Canada.<\/li>\n<li>Disability rights activists must ask themselves if Bill C-7 creates what the Supreme Court called for in the\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/scc-csc.lexum.com\/scc-csc\/scc-csc\/en\/item\/14637\/index.do\">Carter<\/a><\/em>\u00a0case; &#8220;a carefully-designed system\u201d that \u201cimposes stringent limits\u201d that are \u201cscrupulously monitored and enforced.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>PORTUGUESE PARLIAMENT APPROVES EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<li>On February 20, the parliament of Portugal\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/world\/portugal-lawmakers-vote-allow-euthanasia-terminally-ill-n1139971\">approved five bills allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide<\/a>\u00a0for people with terminal illnesses. Only Portuguese citizens or legal residents would be eligible to end their lives under these statutes.<\/li>\n<li>Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa could still veto the law, but his veto could be overruled by a second Parliamentary vote. The president could also ask the country\u2019s Constitutional Court to review the legislation. It may conflict with Portugal&#8217;s Constitution, which states that human life is \u201csacrosanct.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>If the bills pass, two doctors and a psychiatrist would need to approve the person\u2019s euthanasia request. The application would then be examined by a Verification and Evaluation Committee, which could approve or reject it.\u00a0 The process could also \u201cbe postponed if it is legally challenged, or if the [person] loses consciousness.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Oversight will be provided by the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ehfcn.org\/members\/portugal\/\">General Inspectorate for Health<\/a>, whose mission is \u201cto audit, to inspect, to supervise and to conduct disciplinary actions within the health sector, for ensuring compliance with the law.\u201d Medical practitioners have the right to refuse to participate for \u201cmoral\u201d reasons.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n   ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry-summary\">\n<div class=\"entry-summary\">\nToday, we take a look at new euthanasia bills here in Canada, and in Portugal.\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2020\/02\/webcast-archive-bill-c-7-removes-safeguards-offers-little-in-return\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &ldquo;Webcast archive: Bill C-7 removes safeguards, offers little in return&rdquo;<\/span>&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2020\/02\/webcast-archive-bill-c-7-removes-safeguards-offers-little-in-return\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &ldquo;Webcast archive: Bill C-7 removes safeguards, offers little in return&rdquo;<\/span>&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[92],"tags":[701,604,702,121,700,499,582,118],"class_list":["post-4744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-webcast-archive","tag-bill-c-7","tag-capacity-en","tag-carter-en","tag-euthanasia-disability","tag-portugal","tag-reasonably-foreseeable","tag-truchon-en","tag-webcast","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4744"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4745,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744\/revisions\/4745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}