Parliamentary Committee Report on MAiD has Alarming, Contradictory Recommendations
by Dan Fournier, published Friday, Feb. 17, 16:25 EST on fournier.substack.com
Image source.
As reported by Marnie Cathcart of The Epoch Times, a report titled “Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: Choices for Canadians,” was tabled Feb. 15 by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and is already causing outrage among advocacy outfits defending the rights of vulnerable groups subject to MAiD expansion.
For those unfamiliar, Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAiD (French: AMM, or aide médicale à mourir) was introduced in Canada in 2016 through Bill C-14 which led to the legalisation of physician-administered euthanasia (PAE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).
In 2021, the law further amended Bill C-7 to permit assisted euthanasia in additional situations, including for certain patients whose natural death is “not reasonably foreseeable.” Put simply, this second set of applicants would simply need to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable” to become eligible for MAiD.
Last Fall, controversy erupted surrounding the possible expansion of MAiD to groups such as persons with intellectual disabilities, “mature minors”, and infants up to age one.
Though the recently released parliamentary report does not appear to address the infants aged up to one group, it does provide recommendations for persons with intellectual disabilities and those deemed “mature minors.”
Mature Minors
The most startling revelation is found in that of Recommendation 19 which concerns the “mature minors” group which reads as follows:
“Recommendation 19
That the Government of Canada establish a requirement that, where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.”
Put simply, a minor as young as 12 years of age, depending on the provincial jurisdiction, deemed mature would have the ability to make the decision to access MAiD and parents would only have the opportunity to be “consulted” on the matter.
In Canada, as stated in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Children’s Participatory Rights in Canada, the mature minor doctrine “allows children who are sufficiently mature to make their own treatment decisions.”
What appears contradictory in the report, however, are Recommendations 14 and 15 which call for research and consultations for this particular group alongside the aforementioned Recommendation 19.
“Recommendation 14
That the Government of Canada undertake consultations with minors on the topic of MAID, including minors with terminal illnesses, minors with disabilities, minors in the child welfare system and Indigenous minors, within five years of the tabling of this report.”
“Recommendation 15
That the Government of Canada provide funding through Health Canada and other relevant departments for research into the views and experiences of minors with respect to MAID, including minors with terminal illnesses, minors with disabilities, minors in the child welfare system and Indigenous minors, to be completed within five years of the tabling of this report.”
In the “Mature Minors” section of the report, it is emphasised that Conservatives do not support MAID for the group. It also observes that “issues around the decision-making capacity of mature minors remain unresolved.”
“The CCA Report on Mature Minors notes that decisions with increased risk or complexity incite greater concern over the ability of minors to appreciate the consequences of their choice and make it voluntarily.14 Arguably, there is not a weightier health decision than MAID, given the irreversibility of the procedure.”
The report adds:
“Moreover, several witnesses noted that the frontal lobe of the brain, which plays a critical role in balancing risks and rewards and decision-making, is not fully developed until well into adulthood. This raises questions about the appropriateness of MAID for mature minors.15 As Dr. Maria Alisha Montes, a clinical associate professor of pediatrics, said:
“I would argue that MAID for mature minors carries the highest amount of risk, as the consequence is death. It's irreversible. We need to ask ourselves if we should be legalizing this for mature minors when biology shows us that the ability to balance risks and rewards is one of the last areas of the brain to mature.””
In addition, Dr. Timothy Ehmann, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, testified that “a standardized, reliable assessment for the capacity and competence of minors does not exist, and that unaided competence judgments, even from “seasoned and otherwise skilled physicians” are unreliable.
“So long as these issues remain unresolved, it would be irresponsible for the Liberal government to move ahead with any expansion of MAID for mature minors. Minors are a uniquely vulnerable group, having regard for their level of cognitive development,” the report further states.
Such testimony along with the recommendations for further research and consultations regarding MAiD being offered to minors appears contradictory to the Committee’s Recommendation 19 which gives full decision-making authority to the minor.
Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
On February 16, Inclusion Canada, a national federation working to advance the full inclusion and human rights of people with an intellectual disability and their families, issued a press release titled Surprise, Surprise – Harmful Committee Work leads to Harmful Report on MAiD condemning much of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, commencing:
“It can’t be sugar coated – people with disabilities and their allies were ignored. We asked for equality-preserving changes to the law; MPs and Senators decided they knew better.”
“This isn’t surprising. People with disabilities were disrespected by committee members. Their lived experience was discredited and dismissed. Many were also denied requested accommodations to deliver their testimony,” the release stated before providing the following video which “sheds light on AMAD’s mistreatment of Canada’s disability community.”
“The committee’s final report is a discriminatory disaster,” the release expounded.
“It is clear that the members of the AMAD committee made up their mind about expanding MAiD before consulting with the disability community,” says Krista Carr, Executive Vice President of Inclusion Canada, “Committee members failed to heed the numerous warnings and concerns raised by people with disabilities and their allies.”
The release continued:
“Minister of Justice David Lametti’s decision to delay the expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for people with mental illness does not go far enough. The sunset clause must be removed indefinitely and we demand the government roll back the expansion of assisted dying on the basis of disability.”
The sunset clause makes reference to Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), which was introduced in the House of Commons on February 2nd, 2023 and proposes a one-year delay to the date for eligibility for MAID expansion. In other words, there is a fear that the Committee’s recommendations could simply become enacted by default once the delay has expired.
In the report under the section ‘MAID Where a Mental Disorder is the Sole Underlying Medical Condition’, Conservatives raised their concerns with the Liberal government’s plan to expand MAID to cases where a mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition. They sternly added:
“All of this could have been avoided had the Liberals put evidence ahead of ideology, before initiating this radical expansion of MAID. Instead, the Liberals accepted a Senate amendment to Bill C-7, setting in motion the implementation of MAID MD-SUMC with an arbitrary deadline of March 17, 2023. This decision was made before any meaningful study and consultation took place. In short, the Liberals embarked on this expansion without first determining whether it could be implemented safely.”
“With Bill C-39, the Liberals are setting a new arbitrary deadline of March 17, 2024. Given the incompetent and reckless record of the Liberals on this issue, we have no confidence in them to get it right. Offering MAID to those who are suffering from mental illness is likely to be problematic a year from now. There is no evidence to indicate that the difficulties around predicting irremediability, the other clinical concerns, and the inherent risks to vulnerable persons will be resolved by then. A future arbitrary deadline is not an acceptable solution to the problem the Liberal government has created.”
The Conservatives also noted that the Liberals had failed to deliver on their 2021 election platform commitment to dedicate $4.5 Billion to the Canada Mental Health Transfer. And that no allocation of funds was dedicated in either Budget 2022 or the 2022 Fall Economic Statement.
As per the Epoch Times article, MP Michael Cooper, who presented the Conservative Party’s dissenting report, called the committee’s recommendations “reckless.”
“The committee majority, specifically all parties except the Conservatives turned a blind eye to [the] serious problem with the existing MAID regime even after hearing vulnerable people were falling through the cracks due to a lack of safeguards,” he added.
Cooper also opined that the Liberal government is driven by ideology rather than practicality. He said that they can choose to accept all, some, or none, of the report’s recommendations. If all recommendations are accepted, “it would make Canada the most permissive MAID regime in the world,” he stated.
Safeguards and social safety nets are also central to the issue of MAID, given that many who end up seeking it, or having it offered to them, are often faced with inadequate access to palliative care, lack resources to assist in their disabilities, and are often under dire economic distress.
According to the Epoch Times article:
“Ray Pennings, executive vice president of the think tank Cardus, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that the government has not seriously assessed current safeguards for medically assisted suicide, and has not given due consideration to whether Canadians facing poverty, disability, or other conditions have enough support to “live with dignity” instead of choosing to die.”
Pennings added that there are people who would “thrive and prosper with encouragement or other help,” and that the government instead needs to make palliative care universally available.
“No Canadian should be looking at medically assisted suicide because of a lack of housing, insufficient income or inadequate support for physical disabilities or mental illness,” he added.
Recommendation 6 of the report merely suggests that the Government of Canada through its relevant departments “consider” increasing funding for palliative care, but falls short in suggesting any commitment for the current shortfall.
Recommendation 10 states that the Government of Canada ought to “continue” to support persons with disabilities by implementing measures to reduce poverty and ensure economic security. But given the current shortcomings in this regard, it remains to be seen whether the Liberal government would have a sincere interest in doing so.
Articles are all free, but please support the work of this independent journalist by subscribing to his Substack and Twitter. You can also buy him a coffee.
Disclaimer:
None of the contents of this article is to be taken as medical or health-related advice. Seek independent professional consultation before making health-related decisions. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.
Parliamentary Committee Report on MAiD has Alarming, Contradictory Recommendations
Hi Dan, you've done a fine job here revealing yet another shade of darkness which has settled over this country with your latest dispatch from dystopia (dystopia: formerly known as the sovereign nation of Canada).
Although I read the piece shortly after it was published - and had many thoughts about it - I found that I was at a complete loss for words in expressing them without a reflexive recourse to expletives. We wouldn't want that would we, however understandable and justified!
The two phrases that come to mind, among others, are "slippery slope" and "Overton window". It seems here in Canada we have not only "shifted the Overton window", but smashed it right out of the wall, burned the house down and left the property altogether.
The trajectory of our public discourse regarding state-sponsored death (and I use the term "sponsored" accurately here, I think) is lurching into some dangerous territory. We should remember that Canada was a much different place, with a much more sane and sober moral/ethical climate thirty years ago when the controversial cases of Sue Rodriguez and Robert Latimer were at the forefront of Canadian public attention. It also wasn't a client state of Globalists. Back then, the notion of life and death were the matters of grave (pardon the pun) concern that they ought to be. Fast forward thirty years, and these conversations have been reduced to the equivalent of discussing "fast-tracked" infrastructure spending bills.
We should not allow ourselves to be lulled into indifferent, disengaged passivity just because a "panel of experts" or a "Joint Committee" (headed up by a former astronaut!) is "overseeing the situation". Don't think, with blind and credulous innocence, that just because a formal "framework" is instituted that abuses and atrocities will not be committed.
Think for a moment, what happened over the last three years: we had a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Common Law - the Law of legal precedent - supposedly enshrining our protections as citizens in "The Law of The Land". These instruments were ostensibly there to protect us from the arbitrary power of the state. We laboured under the assumption that "checks and balances" were in place to forestall egregious overreach by federal and provincial governments.
Charter protections include freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media communication; the right to vote and participate in political activities; the right to a democratic government; mobility rights to travel across the country, and enter and leave Canada; legal rights to a lawyer; language rights; the right to life, liberty and security of the person; freedom of religion and conscience; freedom of association; freedom of peaceful assembly; and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on personal characteristics including race, religion and sex.
To anyone who has been paying attention, there is no need to elaborate on the various and myriad ways in which these "protections" were cast aside and obliterated. "The Law of The Land" so quickly morphed into "Anything Goes & Nothing Matters" and the implicit, if not overt message from our regime could pretty much be summarized by "Shut up and get used to it!"
As concerned, engaged and vigilant citizens, we should accept no reassurance in this instance that nothing can or will go wrong; that human dignity and the sanctity of life will not be tossed aside in service to political ideology or "key performance indicators"or simply bureaucratic incompetence and indifference. This regime has already shown and proven by its behaviour and "policies" that it has little to no regard for actual human lives, be they "mature" minors or otherwise. Rather, it coldly discounts citizens as a kind of amorphous substrate, a mass, subject to technocratic and totalitarian edicts and decrees, "collateral damage" be damned. (e.g.: https://takeactioncanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/TAC-Deaths-of-Despair-2021-White-Paper-B-LR_Final.pdf).
The report itself - Report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying - is fraught with purblind and tone-deaf statements that only disconnected bureaucrats and politicos are capable of. Are these people extraterrestrials, like John Kerry claims to be in his recent statements at Davos? Have they not mingled for the last few years or even decades with the people they now claim to be governing?
For example, this thorough and wise committee, which held "36 meetings and heard from close to 150 witnesses" and "received more than 350 briefs and other correspondence" and was comprised of well over 60 distinguished, notable and in most cases "honourable" members, nevertheless seemed almost surprised that perennial and chronic issues that have been plaguing Canadian society for decades had only recently come to their attention.
Such statements include these. Let's unpack them.
"On the topic of palliative care, the committee heard that not everyone has access to
palliative care, and that access can depend on where you live. Witnesses talked about
the need for palliative care to be provided earlier and not only at end-of-life."
"Access to palliative care" has been an ongoing and chronic issue for as long as anyone has been paying attention and listening to the news for the majority of their adult life in this former nation! Innumerable reports and "Action Plans" have been issued repeatedly and ad nauseum for the last 20 years at least. (e.g.: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/03/building-future-palliative-care-together.html)
(e.g.: https://journals.lww.com/jhpn/Abstract/2009/07000/Homecare_Nurses__Attitudes_Toward_Palliative_Care.6.aspx)
And yet, the committee seems to have implied that they have only recently "discovered" this explicit fact! Hearsay and witness testimony from the real world are so useful to governments trying earnestly to take the pulse of the nation from plebs down on the ground!
Similarly, the following statement is a prime example of the extent to which our above-mentioned "honourable" betters are completely abstracted from reality. This is as mealy-mouthed a statement as I have ever seen written or recorded in the annals of government bullshit!
"For persons with disabilities, the committee heard that more financial supports are
needed so that persons with disabilities do not live in poverty."
To which I can only say...Duhhh! Did ChatGPT write this? Or an actual human?
Here's one more, lest we don't yet realize our regime does not have our best interests, never mind any of our interests, in mind:
"That the Government of Canada continue to support persons with disabilities by implementing measures to reduce poverty and ensure economic security."
What does this squishy word "support" even mean in this context? Blow them kisses? Issue provisional CBDC vouchers for 'Quietus'? And ditto for "implementing measures". What measures? Oh...I think I get it: it's that old "officials continue to monitor the situation...for ever and ever" stuff.
We should find it more than coincidental that for the last 3 years our reigning regime seems to have done everything under its power to exact widespread immiseration, precarity, and a world of hurt upon its citizenry (e.g: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/nearly-60-per-cent-of-canadians-find-it-difficult-to-feed-their-families-poll-finds-1.5748898), (https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/covid-mental-health-issues-soar-young-canadians-report), and yet now seems to be hell-bent on fast-tracking and ramming through legislation to "remedy" the fallout with expansion of GuvDeth to the very victims it has heartlessly hastened to create.
And so I ask, because I cannot help myself: Do the phrases "Life unworthy of life" or "Useless eaters"ring a bell, or am I being "hyperbolic"? (How dare you!) Are there historical precedents, inscribed in the annals of history, which would do us well to pay attention to? Or should we go back to sleep like the numb, ignorant, mis- and uninformed Canadians that certain parties would like us to be?
I think not.
For it is easy to imagine, given the craziness we have already experienced, that in 5 or 10 years hence we may witness "MAiD Brigades", having "expanded" further, going around door-to-door conducting "Wellness checks" in order to ascertain who is or who is not fit for life. Already we have seen the idea floated on the part of some political parties (notably Quebec Solidaire in Qc and the NDP in Alberta) suggesting, in their roles as "official opposition", that the governing parties of those provinces ought to have sent teams around door-to-door, especially in recalcitrant and minority communities, in order to incentivize "vaccine uptake" and eradicate "vaccine hesitancy"
Last, one would have to be saturated with spike proteins and suffering from iatrogenic brain fog not to recall that emergency room waiting times and health care waiting times or even access to a friggin' doctor generally have been a recurring topic of perennial concern for some time now. What's more, our health care system is becoming ever-more militarized and subject to a Command and Control structure from the very top. Why is it then that access to MAiD should suddenly receive such accelerated priority even as access to other medical interventions, such as cancer screenings, remain languishing in intolerable queue?
The report expressly states:
"There is no waiting period for people who apply under track one."
One might find oneself concluding that to our "government", access to death "care" is a more important priority than access to health care.
I leave you with this. Let's not go here!
https://youtu.be/KtTNhPm1_xg