Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 1 of 1
Trudo Lemmens
View Trudo Lemmens Profile
Trudo Lemmens
2021-06-21 18:40
Chairs and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to present today as part of this parliamentary review.
In this polarized debate, where some frame all concerns about MAID as religion based, let me first firmly state that my approach is based on human rights and with respect for the equal rights and dignity of persons who are ill, elderly and disabled and with the recognition of the state's duty to protect against premature death, which is recognized in Carter. It's informed by decades of work on professional regulation, health governance, health and human rights, and end-of-life law.
A review of these new practices from a health governance perspective is laudable. Unfortunately, Parliament put the cart before the horse by expanding the law prior to a serious evaluation of our current practice. Imagine that we decide to allow a novel form of gene therapy for serious and untreatable conditions, but prior to undertaking a legislatively mandated, five-year, solid review of the risk-benefit ratio, we introduce it as a standard form of therapy largely available on demand.
I definitely have concerns about this review, particularly about the premise from which it will start. In any area of policy-making, it is hard to scale back a practice once there is an official, professed confidence in it. It is also hard to change behaviour and expectations once a procedure is promoted and normalized, and to design post-factum structures to uncover problems and to identify lacunae, particularly when a practice leaves so much flexibility and relies heavily on the integrity of professionals committed to the practice.
I urge the committee to take a step back and remember how the B.C. Supreme Court in Carter, which lies at the foundation of our current practice, stated—with references to choice, indeed, but also the best interest of the patient—that “if it is ever ethical...for a physician to assist in death, it would be only in limited and exceptional circumstances.... The concern about imposing stringent limits stems from the consensus that unlimited physician-assisted death would pose serious risks.”
The committee should be willing to question whether the current practice respects this and what even further expansion would mean. It should do more than review the statistical, largely self-reported data and the limited analyses that have been undertaken. It should take the time to listen to family members who have had bad experiences with the rushed MAID of loved ones and to people who are already struggling in our health care and social support systems, particularly during the pandemic, and for whom offers of MAID are often received as a threat to their well-being.
The committee should hear from Jonathan Marchand, a man with ALS, who complained before the Senate about his lack of health care choices; from the family members of Chris Gladders, who received MAID in shockingly dehumanizing, squalid circumstances; from Roger Foley, who was offered MAID instead of access to good care; from the family of Alan Nichols; and about other more recent cases that are emerging. It should take seriously the voices of people with disabilities who experience the explicit promotion of MAID as a confirmation that our society prioritizes ending their lives rather than providing adequate supports and care.
I urge you to be imaginative and ask how societal and legal endorsements of a broad MAID practice may already be impacting what we think our elderly and people with disabilities should do when they struggle and when solutions to their sufferings are complex and not immediately forthcoming. How will this impact how they think about what they should be doing when faced with old age, frailty and disability?
I urge you to keep in mind the challenging health issues that indigenous people and racialized Canadians disproportionately face, the revolting situation of many of our elderly in long-term care homes, exposed during the pandemic, and the lack of choices for the elderly and people with disabilities. Think about that when exploring the risks of normalizing MAID as therapy for suffering, when critically analyzing the premise in our MAID law that capacity and informed consent procedures are already providing sufficient protection against abuse.
Many of these concerns about the impact of ableism are particularly long-term, but I already have mentioned concrete examples of current concerns. How common are these? I suggest that we need more robust data.
The first Health Canada MAID report, however, should be a wake-up call. In addition to showing the normalization of MAID through the rapid uptake—particularly in some provinces—faster than, for example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, two countries with significantly more investment in palliative care and social support, the report confirms—
The Joint Chair (Hon. Yonah Martin): You have 30 seconds.
Dr. Trudo Lemmens: —some of the concerns with our already broader than strict end-of-life practices. It documents, for example, various factors associated with unbearable suffering that lie at the basis of the more than 15,000 MAID requests. It includes fear of being a burden to family, friends and caregivers in 34% of the cases and loneliness in 14% of the cases. For 53%, it's the loss of dignity, a concept profoundly influenced by ableist perceptions that our MAID practice may stimulate; and inadequate pain control or a fear of pain are cited in 54% of cases, reflecting a possible lack of access to adequate health care and palliative care—and even in some cases existential suffering.
In the question period—
Result: 1 - 1 of 1

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data