Help Canada, Bill C-7 denying MAID to persons solely of Mental Illness

[alizee]

Hello everyone,​

Please see the following about Bill C-7.

Firstly, it's a big FUCK YOU to everyone that suffers intolerable pain from solely a mental illness and who wish to receive Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).

Simply, everyone should be outraged from the House of Commons having the nerve to even consider what's being proposed.

You don't have to study ethics & morals to understand the section (b) if the bill c-7 passes, will discriminate against everyone that solely has a mental illness; and who suffer intolerable pain resulting in a great desire to receive Medical Assistance in Dying while rationally considering or trying all the options offered by healthcare insurance.

The Bill was brought forward by the Minister of Justice David Lametti. The same person that persuaded Canadians to be surveyed about Medical Assistance in Dying; after the Quebec Superior Court ruled the criteria of having a natural death be foreseeable is discriminatory but also against our liberty, equality and pursuit of happiness. The survey was a mockery if you're not aware, the questions were all aimed at adding restrictions and when the Quebec Superior Court ruled to remove a restriction.

I've even contacted David Lametti about my own personal situation of wanting Medical Assistance in Dying. My letter was sent about a little over a year ago to him. Lametti responded to my letter a few months ago, when the survey was out (about restricting people such as myself) and said I should voice my opinion by answering the survey. I've researched David Lametti afterwards and he grew up in a religious family. Go figure.

In any case, David Lametti has also created a motion that was granted and which made an extension period from March 12 to July 11. The extension period is to block Canadians from receiving Medical Assistance in Dying that don't have a natural death being foreseeable. The Judge of the Quebec Superior Court granted the motion and decreed all Canadians that meet the criteria (excluding the natural death being foreseeable) can motion to Superior Court to receive Medical Assistance in Dying (during the extension period). I've been working on this process and I'm still considering other possibilities but I'm outraged by the foregoing.

I've been calling the Committees as the House of Commons, voicing my opinion and requesting to be able to speak my opinion at the House of Commons. I believe any other Canadians on this site should as well voice their opinions if you have the energy & time available for it. I believe a petition of signatures can be created as well but I have been too busy to work on it yet. Any further ideas would be helpful.

I've been trying to get MAID for a few years now and for my illness Gender Dysphoria (Psychological). I've tried everything the healthcare covers for context. I've now been trying to get MAID during the extension period. I've spoken to a lawyer that will help but the pandemic is making it difficult. Nevertheless, I believe Bill C-7 could easily be fought in Superior Court if the bill were to pass because it invalidates everyone that suffers intolerable pain from solely a mental illness and that's extremily discriminatory. Although, it would likely be a two year costly legal battle.

Please see the following about the bill.

BILL C-7
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)​

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,

(a) repeal the provision that requires a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;​

(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;​

(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person's natural death is reasonably foreseeable;​

(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and​

(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.​

Source - https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-7/first-reading

 

[IrRegularjoe]

I am also from Canada. And have been waiting for reasonably foreseeable to be removed. I thought they would appeal because I know that people don't support people with mental illness. We were suppose to qualify once reasonably foreseeable was struck down. So they went out of their way to do this. Lametti is lazy in my eyes. And backbenched mental illness for the Patliamentary review. What he doesn't realize is he's made it more difficult for mental illness to be taken more seriously for MAID. We deserve equal rights. What did your lawyer say? I am equally upset. It infuriates me that we meet criterion but they prohibited it for mental illness. Canada has sanctioned suicide suicide but gets to irresponsibly decide who has it. They're are no countries in the world like ours where the discrimination is so blatant. I can't name one. I'd love to talk to you. I feel the same way.

 

[alizee]

@IrRegularjoe well USA is definitely worse than Canada. I'm transgender for context again and when I used to live in USA I was being bullied. I told psychiatrist of wanting help transitioning and was labeled schizo with being stuck in a psychward (when I wasn't suicidal or a harm to others) for a few months while being drugged against my will until my insurance ran out. The hospital was private and religious. I've never had such a bad experience in Canada (I have had bad experiences here but not on that scale). I live in Quebec where religion is almost dead and treated as a delusion.

Lametti is catering to the religious crowd & employees in the healthcare (who feel a few of their customers will disappear if given the MAID option). I think the majority of the public can understand why it's wrong to not treat mental illness similar as other illnesses qualifying for MAID. The problem I assume is the public won't make the connection of being religious or being in the healthcare profession as why people have opinions against MAID for mental illness. There is also the possibility some people will just think of people that cannot function at all when they hear mental illness. That's why I'm hoping to be able to attend the house of commons if given the chance and for helping against the incorrect image of associating mental illness with someone not capable of functioning.

The good news is every lawyer I've spoken with has said they think Bill C-7 will take forever to be discussed. I'm somewhat worried if support for our side will be weaker because people are so afraid of being labeled by their peers and ostracized. I also think people struggling of pain from a mental illness are less able to voice their opinion contrary of my ability.

I'll be speaking with my lawyer later today. I haven't had luck finding a supportive doctor for MAID and while searching for +2 years in Quebec. The ones that are supportive will say they cannot help but express I should be able to get what I want. I respect them for that at the very least but they're as useful as the ones who don't want me to get MAID. I'm also having a hard time being referred to anyone that has done MAID. I don't have a family doctor because I'm only been living in Canada for around +3 years. Every hospital where I live will probably fire someone that would give me a referral to someone that has done MAID. When I used to be followed by a psychiatrist, she referred me to one of her colleagues and with stating he helped work out the process of MAID. Well, I later found out he is a psychiatrist that had never helped someone receive MAID and told me I'm not eligible because of the natural death being foreseeable criteria. This year I contacted his secretary for another evaluation and she let it slip that he told her that he would never allow someone to receive MAID by an evaluation from him. So the whole evaluation was a charade from the start.

So I'm going to be speaking with my lawyer about these issue later today and hopefully it doesn't make the filing at Superior Court impossible. I'm going to ask for going ahead with filing at the court on the grounds of I think a doctor would be willing to help me if I was given authorization before meeting a doctor that has done MAID. There is even a committee for requests of MAID and they're not even helping because of just knowing the Federal Government being against MAID for mental illness. The committee thing is a joke and reminds me of how women used to have to wait for a committee to get permission if they can have an abortion.

edit: I wrote this all while I'm fairly tired so sorry for the bad grammar.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

If you go to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality would be questioned I think. Therefore if you won a court case against the Supreme Court they would have to ammend it for mental illness. Bill c7 had a deadline. But I don't know what will happen with Coronavirus.
Good for you for wanting to speak at the House of Commons. It would be nice to see someone share their personal experience. Without doctors running the show. It's very personal, so brave of you.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

If you go to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality would be questioned I think. Therefore if you won a court case against the Supreme Court they would have to ammend it for mental illness. Bill c7 had a deadline. But I don't know what will happen with Coronavirus.
However two years in court I wonder if the laws would change by then.

 

[alizee]

The call with the lawyer was pleasant. He explained further of why having a Doctor for attesting "I meet all of the criteria besides a natural death being foreseeable" is necessary for the Judge. Even though it's obvious I do meet all of the criteria, a Judge will want it and a doctor has to administer the treatment anyway.

So a few of the private practice doctors will be contacted. I will have to pay a lot out of pocket for the private doctor and there still is the possibility that going private practice can have the same outcome as the other doctors I've seen. Although, this is very positive for me because I even asked if Bill C-7 pass would challenging the law be an option and yes they would. It would likely be expensive in that case but I'm sure I could afford it if nothing bad happens with my employment status while having a monthly payment plan.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

I thought that the Quebec ruling made it possible for people with physical disabilities to apply now. How are you able to apply with mental illness. Is it because Bill c-7 hasn't passed yet. So it's in a grey area with reasonably foreseeable gone.

 

[alizee]

I thought that the Quebec ruling made it possible for people with physical disabilities to apply now. How are you able to apply with mental illness. Is it because Bill c-7 hasn't passed yet. So it's in a grey area with reasonably foreseeable gone.

I wouldn't even say it's a grey area. The requirements for medically assistance in dying has always been suffering from an intolerable illness/disease and be it either physical or mental. The only thing that kept anyone from getting MAID in the past has been the natural death being foreseeable clause. Doctors can interpret natural death as anything and same for foreseeable.

Even a person just suffering depression is eligible now but I assume there would be more resistance with helping a person in that case compared to my own. I'm curious if a development disorder is truly considered an illness and similar for a physical disability. Example being blind from an accident in life.

 

[cursum.perficio]

I hope this is taken to court in Canada

 

[IrRegularjoe]

I wouldn't even say it's a grey area. The requirements for medically assistance in dying has always been suffering from an intolerable illness/disease and be it either physical or mental. The only thing that kept anyone from getting MAID in the past has been the natural death being foreseeable clause. Doctors can interpret natural death as anything and same for foreseeable.

Even a person just suffering depression is eligible now but I assume there would be more resistance with helping a person in that case compared to my own. I'm curious if a development disorder is truly considered an illness and similar for a physical disability. Example being blind from an accident in life.

Yeah, I don't find bill c7 very clear. But the law before this was for end of life. Easier to understand. I can't tell what kind of physical disabilities it will be limiting to. If any. It would also depend on the doctor I suppose.

 

[alizee]

I hope this is taken to court in Canada

I would hate to undergo a lengthy court case. I'm hoping it doesn't happen because it really doesn't need to if Bill C-7 doesn't pass. The reason the law even changed in the first place was from two plaintiffs that were fairly old and had the finances to see the court case through. Most people suffering a mental illness don't have the finances or support to challenge the law.

Yeah, I don't find bill c7 very clear. But the law before this was for end of life. Easier to understand. I can't tell what kind of physical disabilities it will be limiting to. If any. It would also depend on the doctor I suppose.

Sorry, I wrote to you in regard of the superior court motion that passed for the extension. The motion had the Judge allowing people such as myself for applying to the superior court during the extension period and to get authorization for going ahead with MAID. Bill C-7 is fairly straightforward and it was just written to ban people with mental illness from MAID. Physical disabilities imo should be eligible but I don't believe they are and depending on if they're considered an illness by a doctor or just a disability from a physical problem. I think there is a good chance Bill C-7 doesn't pass and people become eligible without having to file in Superior Court for authorization.

 

[ThisIsIt]

The problem is that the term suicide is inherently tied to mental illness, and suicide has a negative connotation.

For whatever reason, we've decided that euthanasia is okay and suicide is bad. The problem with that line of thinking is that euthanasia and suicide are the exact same act--an individual deciding to end their life.

In my opinion, this issue really boils down to complete ignorance as to why people want to kill themselves or end their lives. And until the scientific community gives two rats asses about actually investigating that question, we're going to be perpetually stuck in this current battle of semantics and fallacious legal arguments.

 

[alizee]

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) isn't considered suicide or it would be named Medical Assistance in Suicide. Although, I do understand your point. I don't believe that will be the argument brought before the House of Commons. It's actually a weak argument as like you said the word "suicide" is just a word used for sharing human expression from one person to another. It does have an emotional impact towards people when they hear it and contrary to euthanasia but some people still view that the same as suicide. I'm speculating but I assume the ones in favour of Bill C-7 will be using healthcare "experts" that will be attempting to push a narrative that things can get better for people suffering mental illness. I cannot see any real legal argument that will actually be strong for that side.

 

[time2register]

Tbh I wouldn't want to have to go through the scrutiny of defending my mental illness to receive access to MAID. Wanting to die is a personal choice not something I feel needs the validation and permission of authorities on; especially considering how barbaric and primitive the DSM 5 and Western understanding of mental health is in general. I don't actually believe "mental illnesses" are permanent physiological or chemical conditions though.

 

[alizee]

Tbh I wouldn't want to have to go through the scrutiny of defending my mental illness to receive access to MAID. Wanting to die is a personal choice not something I feel needs the validation and permission of authorities on; especially considering how barbaric and primitive the DSM 5 and Western understanding of mental health is in general. I don't actually believe "mental illnesses" are permanent physiological or chemical conditions though.

The word chemical gets thrown around a lot. It's typically used for the phrase "chemical imbalance" and there's nothing scientific about that expression when understanding how the brain actually functions. I believe it's impossible to know if something is permanent when it comes to a problem with the brain and similar to other illnesses. We can only theorize based on current understanding and observing other people that have similar symptoms. I don't actually mind the idea of disputing people in a legal setting but I would prefer just receiving MAID without the nonsense.

 

[ThisIsIt]

I cannot see any real legal argument that will actually be strong for that side.

Mental incompetence.

 

[alizee]

Mental incompetence.

No that would make whoever gives that argument look ridiculous. The law isn't encompassing everyone that has a mental illness as mental incompetent. You generally have to be psychotic to get that label. Also don't forget that the person has to still be evaluated by a doctor as rational before even having the opportunity of obtaining MAID. That goes for everyone in the existing laws that wants MAID.

 

[ThisIsIt]

No that would make whoever gives that argument look ridiculous. The law isn't encompassing everyone that has a mental illness as mental incompetent. You generally have to be psychotic to get that label. Also don't forget that the person has to still be evaluated by a doctor as rational before even having the opportunity of obtaining MAID. That goes for everyone in the existing laws that wants MAID.

The argument wouldn't be that everyone that has a mental illness is mentally incompetent.

The argument would be that anyone whose mental illness is causing them to seek out medically assisted death is not of sound mind as a result of their disorder.

Mental incompetence is usually defined as follows(it varies from state to state/I imagine province to province in Canada): A person is deemed to be incompetent when they no longer display the ability to make decisions that are in their best interests. From a legal perspective, it's easily argued that a medically assisted death isn't in someone's best interest if they're suffering from a mental disorder that is causing them to seek out a medically assisted death; rehabilitation from their mental disorder would be in their best interest, because it would preserve their life. It's not a hard argument to make.

 

[alizee]

The argument wouldn't be that everyone that has a mental illness is mentally incompetent.

The argument would be that anyone whose mental illness is causing them to seek out medically assisted death is not of sound mind as a result of their disorder.

Mental incompetence is usually defined as follows(it varies from state to state/I imagine province to province in Canada): A person is deemed to be incompetent when they no longer display the ability to make decisions that are in their best interests. From a legal perspective, it's easily argued that a medically assisted death isn't in someone's best interest if they're suffering from a mental disorder that is causing them to seek out a medically assisted death; rehabilitation from their mental disorder would be in their best interest, because it would preserve their life. It's not a hard argument to make.

I disagree with what you assume is a legal perspective but is really just an opinion. Furthermore, the example of your assertion could theoretically be argued against anyone desiring to obtain Medical Assistance in Dying; be it a mental or physical illness and where intolerable pain is the reason for wanting MAID.

The reason the example doesn't have strength is because of it being firstly discriminatory when encompassing all pain from a mental illness as lesser or even curable than physical illnesses and when there is no evidence.

One could incorrectly argue with your assertion "a person suffering cancer should first get chemotherapy" as their rehabilitation treatment and before considering MAID. Except a judge has already ruled that patients have a right to decide upon their own treatment plan and people have a right to deny treatment in Canada.

All persons in Canada have a right to life, liberty, and security of a person, as set out in Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that example you gave is not justifiable within the meaning of Article 1 of the Charter of Canada.

Mental incompetence is the inability of a person to make or carry out important decisions regarding his or her affairs. An individual is defined as mentally incompetent if h/she is manifestly psychotic or otherwise of unsound mind, either consistently or sporadically, by reason of mental defect.

The forgoing is used in the rarest of situations and when a person needs someone managing their affairs because they're unable and or are facing criminal prosecution without being able to comprehend the situation.

I'm extremely doubtful it would happen but whoever attempts at labeling persons with a mental illness and that want MAID as mental incompetent. Well, they would have a difficult time defending their opinion because one could argue persons suffering physical illnesses cannot be any different than the mentally ill that want MAID. Thus, the argument results in thinking about the intolerable pain. Nobody can measure pain of someone to another. We can only feel our own pain and make assumptions from what people tell us of how bad their pain happens to be.

I know in my case I've been in pain from Gender Dysphoria my whole life. I've tried all what's covered by the healthcare insurance in Quebec without success. I've even tried seeking coverage for treatments not covered by the health insurance. I think in any case it will be interesting to see what arguments do get used. I'm speculating the argument you gave won't be used.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

I would hate to undergo a lengthy court case. I'm hoping it doesn't happen because it really doesn't need to if Bill C-7 doesn't pass. The reason the law even changed in the first place was from two plaintiffs that were fairly old and had the finances to see the court case through. Most people suffering a mental illness don't have the finances or support to challenge the law.



Sorry, I wrote to you in regard of the superior court motion that passed for the extension. The motion had the Judge allowing people such as myself for applying to the superior court during the extension period and to get authorization for going ahead with MAID. Bill C-7 is fairly straightforward and it was just written to ban people with mental illness from MAID. Physical disabilities imo should be eligible but I don't believe they are and depending on if they're considered an illness by a doctor or just a disability from a physical problem. I think there is a good chance Bill C-7 doesn't pass and people become eligible without having to file in Superior Court for authorization.

If bill c7 doesn't pass. Wouldn't we go back to bill c14.

 

[alizee]

If bill c7 doesn't pass. Wouldn't we go back to bill c14.

Judge in Quebec ruled the criteria of requiring a natural death being foreseeable is to be removed on March 12, 2020. So that means in Québec you're now eligible if you meet the other criteria. Other provinces I'm not sure about but one could easily bring an issue to court citing the Quebec case.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

David Lametti was granted a four month extension. I don't know what's happening with Coronavirus and that is bill.