I agree to Idea Choice in dying
Voting Disabled

557 votes

I disagree to Idea Choice in dying


This idea is active.
Health Care »

Choice in dying

I suggest a panel of informed people be given a limited period to consult citizens about end of life choices for dying and report to Cabinet at the end of this period. I suggest 3 months and 9 locations. The panel to consist of those free from any prior conflict of interest as in doctrinal allegiance to ant-euthanasia dogma or financial conflict as in investments in nursing home and private elder care for profit.

Submitted by 1 year ago

Comments (65)

  1. This is an absolute must.....not only to allow voluntary alleviation of endless suffering; but to allow our overburdened Health Care System to fund care required for the balance of the population.

    1 year ago
  2. I too am in total agreement and I actually had no problem instructing our DRS for my parents and my wife's in private with no witnesses that there was to be no "heroics" and a DNR followed. all 4 parents passed peacefully with no further pain within 48hrs. The CMA and all medical bodies should change their Charter/ Hypocritical oath also as this has not changed since my grandfather taught MEDICINE at the UofT while establishing and running Sick Children's Hospital for 40 years

    1 year ago
    1. It is important for the patient to have prepared a "LIVING WILL" and then the family in particular the Power of Attorney (POA)or named executor (family only)to speak with the doctor in charge of the patient to find out if they are at the palliative stage and if ; so then fulfill the wishes of the patient

      1 year ago
  3. Jon

    It is high time we move to allow individuals to die with dignity.

    1 year ago
    1. I couldn't agree more Jon!

      This Allow Dying with Dignity idea seems like it needs a dedicated voice in the Legislature. Your voice Jon! Goodness knows no backbencher or mainstream party leader is going to be vocal on this deserving topic each and every day.

      Vote for the following idea and it'll be easier for you, Jon, the Leader of the Allow Dying with Dignity Party of Ontario, to get a seat in the Legislature!!!


      Thanks in advance for voting for the idea and helping yourself, and us other likeminded Ontarians, to get someone in the Legislature who will advocate for allowing people to die with dignity every single day!

      Sincerely, Mark Andrew Brown, @SaultCabbie

      1 year ago
  4. Jim

    How is it possible to have a panel free of anyone with conflict of interest? Let's realize that everyone has a bias, including those in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

    To say that assisted suicide and euthanasia will clear up our hospitals effectively says that very sick people are better off dead. Money is not more important than human life, and to have this as a reason to legalize only paves the way for the sick to be pressured by family or ideals to end their lives.

    Dying with dignity is telling someone that their life has value, not killing people so we can empty another hospital bed. Let's put our money towards palliative care, which identifies pain, and not the fact that the patient is still alive, as the problem.

    1 year ago
    1. Sorry Jim....I can't agree. I don't know if you have ever suffered interminable delays in a dear one's inevitable decline into death. But I have...and I will not allow that to happen to me. I'll get it over with one way or the other if/when I reach the stage of finality.

      1 year ago
    2. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

      I have read quite a lot about this and in Oregon and Belgium and elsewhere there is no evidence for a "slippery slope" paradigm. The numbers choosing assisted suicide is not large and is almost constant year after year. The biggest benefit is the universal reporting that seniors find themselves much relieved of anxiety and have much better aging experience simply knowing the choice is there if they need it.

      1 year ago
    3. Dont worrry so much JIm . We are talking about letting individuals that ARE dying and in pain constantly until they pas, having the human right to say SAVE ME and let me go PLEASE!!

      1 year ago
    4. Couldn't agree more with Jim. This will become a duty to die. We are seeing evidence of this in The Netherlands. The Daily Mail article interviewed Dr. Peter Saunders, campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance UK who stated:

      ‘Euthanasia in the Netherlands is way out of control. ...

      ‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is more accurately termed 'incremental extension', the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’

      ‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’

      The Daily Mail article continued by stating:

      Most euthanasia cases in Holland involve cancer patients but increasingly that have included dementia sufferers and even psychiatric patients.

      In 2005, however, the Groningen Protocol protected doctors from being prosecuted for the euthanasia of infants as long as they followed approved guidelines.

      Euthanasia is carried out by administering a strong sedative to put the patient in a coma, followed by a drug to stop breathing and cause death.

      Holland is following a pattern of incremental euthanasia deaths wherever the practice has been legalised.

      Last year, Belgium, where euthanasia came into force in 2003, saw a 25 per cent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths, leaping from 1,133 in 2011 to 1,432, a figure representing about two per cent of all deaths in the country.

      Last month Nancy Verhelst, 44, was legally killed by euthanasia after doctors botched her sex change operation, leaving her with physical deformities she felt made her look like a ‘monster’.

      The doctors who killed her - David Dufour and Vim Distelmans – were the same men who killed the Verbessem twins.

      This week the Belgian parliament will discuss proposals to extend euthanasia to children, dementia sufferers and people with long-term illnesses.

      Where is the compassion, love and respect for all human life.

      1 year ago
  5. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    Choice, choice and more choice about my or your life. Why should I surrender my choice to your god, be it dogma or money. Palliative care is the first argument to keep people alive against their will, as in forced feeding in a clinic in BC. now before the courts.

    1 year ago
    1. It is not gods or ala's choice. it is a Human choice to stop the pain during the ehd of life stage , end of story

      1 year ago
  6. Jim

    I don't only see this as an ideological thing, but also as something that could affect me personally. I don't want the legalization of assisted suicide to legitimate ending my life early. There's always the chance of ideological doctors or family members making decisions to bring that about through manipulation. There's also the aspect where the law doesn't work as is intended, like in Oregon, where a non-terminally ill man ended his life because the law couldn't prevent it (http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/oregon-doctor-could-not-save-patient-from-assisted-suicide/article_a4b605ba-6767-11e2-bf94-0019bb2963f4.html). But, with all due respect, by the logic of assisted suicide, we shouldn't argue with someone who finds life unbearable, be they a person dying from cancer or a depressed teenager. If I have the right to end my life, then what does the circumstance matter? This, I strongly take issue with and, as much as I'd rather not, will call this the "slippery slope" of the issue.

    1 year ago
    1. I'm not sure where that leaves you Jim. Do you wish to clarify? As with any law, there will always be one example that one can point to to say that it didn't work; he died but didn't want to; etc. Maybe so. Byt that is one exception out of thousands of desired results. I just don't see why anyone should be able to foist their own views upon someone that is terminally ill; has no chance of recovery; has no quality of life; is a burden (against his/her wishes) to his family; is costing 000's in Health Care; and simply wants to go away peacefully. In my view, that is life. Let him/her go; and help him/her get to where he/she wants to go. That's what I want.....and what i will get, one way or the other!

      1 year ago
  7. Jim

    To clarify, I was trying to demonstrate the logical progression of arguing in favour of assisted suicide. My fear is that if we say it's okay that one person ends their life for one reason, why can't a different person. If we support the assisted suicide point of view, then suicide has to be accepted too. I disagree with this, though, and think that suicide is a terrible thing, assisted or not. To reiterate, my fear is the logical progression where at first assisted suicide is for the terminally ill: why? because life is unbearable because of physical pain. But, what happens when people start arguing that life is unbearable because of psychological pain? Ultimately, we end up saying it's a personal choice and they are permitted to end their lives (as the link above demonstrates in one instance) without seeking to treat their problem. I hope that cleared my point of view a bit. My way of expressing the pro-assisted suicide position may have sounded like it was my opinion, which was a fault on my part.

    1 year ago
    1. My understanding of locales where euthanasia exists is that there are very specific criteria that must be met; and more than one person has to concur (including the subject). In my view, my life belongs to me. If I choose to end it, that's my right. Under certain criteria, it will be understood, accepted, and i will have assistance. If I don't meet the criteria, then i would have to resort to an unassisted and likely unpleasant suicide.

      Euthanasia makes perfect sense under certain circumstances. We all just need to grow up and do what simply makes sense.

      1 year ago
    2. Assisted suicide must not be taken lightly. The decision is not only the decision of the "patient", but must also have the agreement of mostly medical experts who can determine the validity of the person's desire. Never, never should that decision be influenced by the high cost of health care, and the burden to the family. He who wants to die must be lucid enough to understand what is the meaning of what he wants. Alzeimer patients could never be provided with assisted suicide.

      1 year ago
  8. A great idea - Quebec recently struck a similar "Dying with Dignity" panel to explore this sensitive but important issue. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-panel-backs-md-assisted-suicide-in-exceptional-cases-1.1234687)

    1 year ago
    1. Thanks for providing this, Craig!

      1 year ago
    2. I fully agree but what are 'exceptional' cases? There are many cases where a person is languishing with absolutely NO possibility of return, and the family must watch in vain. That's not exceptional - it's all too common and should be included in this.

      1 year ago
  9. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    The opposition to assisted dying as a human right is well organized and well disguised in some cases. The opponents like to masquerade as ethical experts. But ethics is a two way street and some of us think that giving adult citizens the right to choose when to die and helping them end their lives painlessly and with dignity, when it is no longer tolerable, is the ultimately ethical idea.

    When we find ourselves engaging in this debate at a public level we will need to be ready to meet the most common objections with clear thoughts and arguments. Here are some of the common anti euthanasia positions that show up in one form or another.

    1. "the slippery slope": this means that we start off with a few cases but having opened the door to assisted suicide we will soon find that the flood gates open and before you know it every one wants to die. There is no evidence from any jurisdiction where right to die laws exist that this is the actual case. Numbers stay constant over years. People cling tenaciously to life as long as quality of life produces enough compensations to reward living, and those choosing to die believe that for them the rewards of living have now ceased to be enough.

    Killing the weak and elderly will become a form of exploitive murder. The right to die is only exercised by those who have expressed such a wish and who make their choice clear with well attested witnesses. The right to die will lead to honest discussions with family and physician while they are still able and this will be a relief to everybody involved.

    Living is good; dying is bad. A piece of dogmatic moral nonsense that takes no account whatever of context, circumstances or human experience. Keeping people alive while torturing them was part of the challenge for engineers of the Spanish Inquisition.

    God wants; god knows; god said. There is no shred of evidence that god has made it clear when he or she has a death date in mind for our dying or our being born for that matter. There is no arguing with people who know what god thinks or who speak on behalf of a god with any special privilege.

    The quality of an individual life must not be left to the judgement of the individual whose life it is. This is a slave owning mentality that has no place in a free and educated society.

    Becoming a helpless organism is ok as long as you are sedated enough. This is the palliative care argument. This treats human beings as bodies with sensation but without emotion, fear, anxiety, isolation, or dignity. A way of avoiding the very core of the issue.

    1 year ago
    1. "Becoming a helpless organism is ok as long as you are sedated enough. This is the palliative care argument. This treats human beings as bodies with sensation but without emotion, fear, anxiety, isolation, or dignity. A way of avoiding the very core of the issue." so true as we must allow them their input nut never above immediate families wishes be they right or wrong

      1 year ago
    2. > "....never above immediate families wishes be they right or wrong..."

      Wait a goldern minute. How/when to end the individual's unnecessary relievable-by-death suffering is the issue --- not the family's right to make the decisions. Families indeed can be "wrong". And often are. It's a mistake of gigantic proportions to divert this issue to 'family's rights to make decisions'.

      What's needed are appropriate accountable means/mechanisms/procedures for making compassionate decisions to end the suffering,

      As far as I can see this proposal isn't about a family's rights. KIndly don't hijack this proposal with your own personal agenda.

      1 year ago
    3. Tim A G Kelley: To be clear: 'Choice in Dying' is fundamentally an issue regarding one's personal right to make decisions for oneself about one's own life.

      The question of who should make the final decision about when/if to pull the plug when/if the person is no longer capable of doing it him/herself, and/or not capable of making that decision him/herself, is an issue of substitute decision-making.

      If you strongly believe that families should always have the power/authority to be making end-of-life decisions about their loved-ones, and that their opinions/wishes should trump everyone else's including doctors and the Consent & Capacity Board in pull-the-plug circumstances, then it might be more helpful if you directed your energy and your opinions to that issue.

      1 year ago
    4. It is important for the patient to have prepared a "LIVING WILL" and then the family in particular the Power of Attorney (POA)or named executor (family only)to speak with the doctor in charge of the patient to find out if they are at the palliative stage and if ; so then fulfill the wishes of the patient

      1 year ago
  10. The Ontario Young Liberals (OYL) have an annual policy conference called "Summer Fling." The policies at that conference were passed in their respective region of Ontario and thoroughly debated at various consultation points. The OYL is both provincial and federal Liberal members aged 14-25.

    At the end of Summer Fling, 2 provincial and 2 federal policies out of the many brought forward are voted as priority resolutions or "OYL policies." "Physician assisted suicide/ Death with dignity" was one of the policies passed at the most recent Summer Fling held in Ottawa in August 16-18.

    The issue was passed as a FEDERAL priority resolution though. This issue *is* important, but the mechanisms to sort this matter out are a matter of criminal code violations, not health care service delivery.

    Here is the text of that resolution:


    WHEREAS, on June 2, 2013, Quebec introduced Bill 52 which if passed would legalize physician assisted suicide for some terminally ill cases.

    WHEREAS, both the BC Supreme Court and the Quebec government believe that the current laws against physician assisted suicide are unconstitutional.

    WHEREAS Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana have all legalized some form of doctor-assisted suicide in North America, and countries such as Belgium, and the Netherlands, have permitted the practice as well;

    WHEREAS, the choice to take one’s life when terminally ill is extremely personal and patients suffering from a terminal disease should reserve the right to decide when their life ends and when their suffering ends.

    WHEREAS an individual should be granted the right to end their own suffering in a clean setting and through a respectable method, thus limiting trauma to the family and/or anyone else to find them;

    WHEREAS, modern medicine should try and inflict the least amount of harm on a patient as possible, and disallowing a patient their right to end their life with dignity can be considered inflicting harm.

    WHEREAS any evidence to suggest doctors, family members, or other persons pressured, lied, or manipulated someone to die with dignity would result in punishment by law;

    BE IT RESOLVED, that the Liberal Party of Canada adopts and stance in favour of legalizing physician assisted suicide in Canada.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Liberal Party of Canada adopt a policy similar to those in place in both Oregon and Washington where patients must meet a pre-set standard to be eligible for this alternative.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no power of attorney can exercise this right on behalf of another individual


    I strongly recommend you reconsider the jurisdiction and aims of this policy proposition. You will be seeing this issue brought up at the federal LPC Biennial Convention in Montreal this February. I'd be happy to have your support and help with that, but encouraging OLP to do a lobbying effort on the federal government on justice policy is a bit ineffectual.

    With the federal Conservatives, it is more realistic to replace them than to convince them using a provincial Liberal government.

    Thank you for reading

    1 year ago
  11. This is under review in Quebec; and if gets widespread approval in Quebec & Ontario....and perhaps other Provinces, the Feds will have no choice but to get aboard the train.

    1 year ago
  12. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    let's do the decent thing. When the business of life is over, let the body die with dignity.

    1 year ago
  13. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    It is your story. You should have the right to choose the ending you want.

    1 year ago
  14. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    Who has the copyright to your painstakingly written life story? Every decision and every adaptation along the way from birth to death was written by you and your awesomely complex organism. You did your best. Now you should have the right to choose how to leave your family and community when the time feels appropriate and how to do this with peace and dignity and with professional and compassionate help and respect. No one else has the right to deny this choice.

    1 year ago
  15. as someone who has watched her mother, uncles, brother and sister become afflicted with Huntington's Disease I believe in the right to die. My brother would call me from the nursing home and beg me to help him die and because of the laws of Canada I could do nothing to help him other than love him. He spent his last two years of life confined to a broda chair unable to convey his thoughts his swallowing became worse and he got aspirated pneumonia 3 times before he finally passed away. It is time. My plan B is stashed under my bed

    1 year ago
    1. You've described what I would consider Hell.

      1 year ago
  16. Isn't this about the only thing one will encounter throughout life where there ISN'T a choice? No question it should be up to the individual.....I don't buy into other people telling me different if I have decided it's time to go.

    1 year ago
  17. This man decided to end his life's suffering, as posted by the National Post today. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/02/im-a-monster-belgian-dies-by-medical-euthanasia-after-botched-sex-change-operation/

    1 year ago
  18. Please read my comment above if you have a chance. As passionate and emotional an issue this is, it is a federal issue in the criminal code and no provincial government will sway their opinion. Jurisdiction matters when it comes to public policy. http://www.canada.com/health/Federal+government+reopen+assisted+suicide+debate+health+minister+says/8806523/story.html

    1 year ago
    1. A positive development....looks like the Feds are joining the discussion. The Feds will ultimately support the Provinces....


      1 year ago
  19. I don't think I wish to live in a place where, for example, in Holland people over a certain age are fearful of going into hospital or to the doctor. In Holland and Belgium they have a "doctor assisted deat with dignity i.e. suicide" program. Unfortunately anyone over a certain age is denied treatment for diseases because of age. I don't think that is positive when we have so many ways to alleviate pain from diseases. Even Dr. Lowe's wife said that he died with noe pain.

    1 year ago
  20. There are obviously always going to be differences of opinion. But as long as there is a CHOICE available to those whose quality of life and/or their age and ailments hav made them a candidate for an assisted good-bye, it will be positive. if one chooses not to take advantage of such a system...that's fine. But please give me the choice; and let me select someone to make the choice if/when I am incapable of making the choice and have no hope of returning to normality.

    1 year ago
  21. Honestly, it's really nice you're having this debate and keep going on, Gord, but you've admitted it's a federal debate that the provinces play no role in. End of story. I have strong doubts the moderators will let this one onto the next round since the provincial government will not be challenging the constitutional division of powers on this one.

    1 year ago
    1. I tend to disagree with that Shane. In my view, the Feds will sit back and watch and eventually take the lead of the Provinces. And that's fine. Quebec is well underway; and acouple of more Provinces debating the issue will increase the general level of attention and interest. The Feds are watching for sure.

      1 year ago
    2. You tend to disagree that the criminal code is under federal jurisdiction under the Constitution? Well, that's nice, but facts are facts. The judicial process provincially in any province can take on a federal issue, but the federal government will reinforce its stand and win every time. See here: http://www.canada.com/health/Federal+government+reopen+assisted+suicide+debate+health+minister+says/8806523/story.html

      This federal government will not support this policy or be swayed. Work on replacing the government with a federal Liberal government and then these sorts of bilateral talks are possible. Until then, it's just spitting in the wind.

      1 year ago
    3. I think the Federal government should ask voters for ideas too; instead of Hudak slamming Kath for opening this "think tank" on the premise that she lacks ides of her own. "Get with the Program " Shane as it now seems that the PC's now did a 360 after this Sept 28th "Common Ground" idea showed the overwhelming need for "medical marijuana" among "Mental Health" and "The Right to Die" as top CANADIAN concerns. We are honoured that all parties can learn from voters here from this dumb idea of asking 35 million voters what they want. Go figure we should ever ask "the people" ;)

      1 year ago
  22. The fact that this idea is behind raising the speed limits shows the twisted priorities of this country. People have a right to end their life and die with dignity. END OF STORY.

    1 year ago
  23. I deny any government and/or any agency and/or any person the authority or right to decide that I MUST live if I don't want to.... for any reason.

    No one owns my life or my thoughts and ideas but me.

    1 year ago
  24. Our lives were given to us as a gift by God, if your are a believer, or by our Creator, if you are not a believer. A gift like none other, both unique and precious. to be used for the betterment of mankind and not for our detterment. A gift you do not throw back at the giver by choosing death. While every life has a purpose (hopefully to make the world a better place)life and death is not in our hands. It is not in our hands, we as humans advanced as we are, still do not have the capacity to create a single living being from nothing. Let not fool ourselves, even test tube babies are come from using the egg and sperm from original creations. What or who then gives us the right to end life. Pure and simple its either suicide or murder.

    If we choose death over life today for the very sick, when the pursuit for the perfect race gets even more intense. we will find ourselves being killed for not so serious illnesses while our healthy organs are donated.

    One only has to look at history when abortion was made legal. Today the amount of murder committed by abortion has long surpassed the holocaust. The start of our quest for the perfect race, who may I ask is responsible for this mass murder of the innocent defenceless children?

    Man (mankind) or man, not too far from now your children or even yourself could be a victim of your own thoughtless actions. Be accountable an chose life. The selfishness and pride of our race has got to stop.

    As for suffering, what on earth happened to suffering with dignity or the dignity of suffering.

    Are we forgetting that Humans are "Rational Animals" or why then we acting like "Animals" where the strong thrive on the weak? One day I assume we will no longer call ourselves Human for we seem to be attracted to the base nature of the Animal, rather than take pride in our Humanity..... a condition for which a cure would be hard to find. We no longer need cancer or any such disease be it natural or self-inflected kill us.. we could just kill ourselves. A crying shame indeed.

    In light of the above reasoning I ask you to reconsider and take responsibility for your own actions and choose life.

    1 year ago
  25. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    This comment is filled with unprovable assumptions and opinions beginning with the assertion that my life was a gift from "god". I have said before that it is a complete waste of time to argue or debate with someone who starts preaching about "god" from the get-go. What I can say about this is that like Moses, Ms. Fernandes asks me to choose life. Fair enough. She seems willing to let this be my choice. No argument from me. But is she willing to fight for my civil right to make that choice or is she telling me that if I want to ignore her advice she will fight for her right to keep me alive, or what she calls alive.

    1 year ago
  26. This is "Madness"! Anyone who believes that they have to go to Government to ask permission to Die is 1 of the Sheeple. I have seen loved ones suffer through cancer and if the unfortunate case happened were I was in so much pain and suffering I would answer to myself and Loved 1's. This is a personnel discussion and not the role of Government. I answer to a higher power then Government and it's not some "Sky God". It's to the love and caring of my family and friends. How arrogant our Government is thinking they have the right to our most intimate dealings in our lives! Get rid of 50% of all Government, put them back in there place and let citizens make decisions in there own lives!

    1 year ago
  27. Joseph Gold Idea Submitter

    There is no end to the certainties known to thoe who speak for god. The latest device of the anti-choice chosen is to claim with absolute assurance that if people are allowed to choose assisted dying and when to choose it the result will be that everyone who is old and ailing and will feel a duty to die to make room for young, unemployed and healthy people. What kind of nonsensical prophecy is this? There is no shred of credible, truthful data to support such a scare tactic. The anti choice voices are always fear mongering, falsifying and telling others what to do and how to live their lives. Death is part of life and must like other health decisions be left to the patient.

    1 year ago
  28. big topic still will be on the agenda now

    1 year ago
    1. DRS can/should never have the power ( as they do in the USA) to pull the plug ( actually a result of the ins. companies direction to hospitals). The family must be the choice makers regardless of medical facts. This ruling was perfect and should have been 7-0 not 5-2. If you have any medical background you will have been taught about my Grandfather Dr Alan Brown.

      1 year ago
    2. please stop your Google links and post your own ci=constructive opinion on whether or not a terminal patient's family should have the right to end the pain and ease the suffering and pain

      1 year ago
    3. Tim A G Kelley:

      Sorry if I offended you with these links.

      I believe a person has a right to end their own life (at any time) if they so wish - for any reason they wish. I believe very strongly that a person has a right to assisted suicide if they wish. I also believe that carefully considered euthanasia is a respectful, merciful and compassionate way for one's life to end when there is suffering.

      I've had to deal with the process of substitute-decision making for an elderly person in her last time on this earth. I am very familiar with the law regarding powers of attorney and substitute decision-making. I am very familiar with the Consent & Capacity Board --- both the best and worst of that particular agency.

      The right to make decisions for oneself is one issue. The laws, processes, procedures and agencies involved in substitute decision-making can be a nightmare. Who makes these decisions if the individuals isn't able can be a nightmare.

      The situation recently resolved today is a prime example of doctors trying to control the decision-making when they shouldn't be able to.

      1 year ago
    4. With respect to your question about DNRs:

      Of course DNRs have to be respected if the person him/herself has made their wishes clear in that regard.

      DNRs have to be respected if the person's legal substitute decision-maker has given these instructions. Family members are not necessarily the legal substitute-decision makers. Sometimes they shouldn't be.

      Doctors have no business signing DNR orders on their own without the person's consent or the person's substitute decision-maker ...except under a few exceptional circumstances.

      The Consent & Capacity Board exists to resolve these disputes when they arise. And the Board has enormous powers in these matters. Most people know nothing about this very powerful --- out-of-sight Board. The Board is far from perfect. Sometimes the Board makes awful decisions.

      It is possible to appeal 'wrongful convictions' by this Board by making application to the Ontario Superior Court, but there is a very short limited window of time within which this must be done, and it is very expensive.

      How things are handled by the Consent & Capacity Board depends a great deal on a number of factors:

      One factor is who is sitting on the panel at that time. Some Board members are considerably more experienced and competent than others. The psychiatrist on the panel for my mother's hearing appeared to be asleep a good deal of the time.

      Another vital factor is the lawyer who is representing the individual in question. The individual must have a lawyer at the hearing to represent his/her interests and wishes. Unfortunately not all lawyers who represent clients before the Board are competent. Not all lawyers understand that it is their job to advocate only for what the individual wishes and for his/her legal rights. Some lawyers believe that it is their job to decide what is best for the individual and then argue for that.

      the lawyer who 'represented' my mother before the board was assigned by the Consent & Capacity Board. This lawyer was easily one of the most incompetent lawyers allowed to practice law in Ontario.

      Another factor is the informality of the Board process and hearings. The Board is a quasi-judicial body --- a hearing is like a trial, sort of, but it's not. There are rules, sort of, about evidence. There's too much room in the process for people to lie and not be held accountable for that. The Board often considers hearsay rather than solid evidence.

      SO ... you cannot count on the Consent & Capacity Board making the right or the wisest decision.

      I will be very interested how this turns out if the doctors in this current situation decide to make an application to the Board to turn off life-supports for this individual. They can make this application if they wish to --- almost anyone involved in this particular situation can make the application. So this may not be over for this individual and his family.

      The Board might say --- 'Go ahead and pull the plug'. In which case the family will have a few days to go back to another court here in Ontario.

      As I have said above, it can be a nightmare. I have followed this family's situation, and I can imagine what they are going through.

      This can happen within a family where one person syas 'Pull the plug" (he/she wants to get their hands on the estate asap) and some one else in the family says 'No' out of compassion.

      So the answer to these dilemmas doesn't always lie with the family. Unfortunately.

      1 year ago
    5. Just one other point. One would hope that families would be the best ones to make these kinds of decisions. But that is not always the case. Not all families, nor specific family members are going to be the 'good guys' in these situations. Family are just as able to make awful --- often self-interested --- decisions in these kinds of situations.

      But should it be up to the doctors? NO.

      1 year ago
    6. And lastly. What does your grandfather have to do with this discussion? I don't understand.

      1 year ago
    7. Thank you so much for your positive and informed opinion a I agree now with you a we are now on:the same oage"

      1 year ago
  29. I have submitted an idea which is closely related to this proposal about Choice in Dying.

    Mine is titled:

    "End of Life Decision-Making".

    My proposal raises concerns about the existing processes and procedures in Ontario for substitute decision-making at the end-of-life, and is related to several other specific concerns and suggestions I've raised here under the titles:

    - Consent & Capacity Board,

    - Elder Abuse,

    - Seniors Beware,

    - CCAC and others.

    As you all know end-of-life issues are extremely important. Many of you I expect believe strongly that your wishes for yourself should be respected and followed.

    I would appreciate if you would read the proposals I've submitted to this forum, and hopefully support them.

    Thanks, Bob

    1 year ago
    1. Ok Bob . what is your opinion on the right of the family to request DNR & No heroics or further ; a common sense request of the family based on prognosis to end the pain and suffering of a family remember? I do but disagreed with today's family that being Muslim was a reason to make their relative suffer more. BUT it should never be a doctors choice nor a panel of the hospital's choice. It must always be the choice of the individual or the Immediate family only; otherwise bad choices would be made

      1 year ago
    2. Google him

      1 year ago
    3. Google him? I don't have the hours++++ to waste.

      1 year ago
    1. sorry stay on this topic and state your opinion and then i may find an hour+++ to read all the posts regarding your other topics

      1 year ago
  30. Assisted suicide is legal in other countries, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as in Oregon and Washington in the United States. The Quebec government has passed first reading on Bill an act for end of life care . It is not only time but we have a social respnonsiblity in Ontario to have a full discusson on the this very important health issue

    1 year ago
  31. We need to recognize the current palliative care programs in Ontario, including the practice of terminal palliative sedation, and support medical aid in dying as an option in the medical spectrum of end-of-life care in Ontario, where the decision to proceed with palliative care has been made at the behest of the patient and at the suggestion of the medical expertise of the patient’s medical team.

    1 year ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Events Show