DEATH WITH DIGNITY is a right, that should never have had to
have been granted, but a right that is inherent in our humanness as determined
by our ability to reason. The Charter of
Rights and Freedoms holds as equity millions of lives and more than 300 years
of toil, it is a beautiful document, it should be respected.
The following is discourse on the functionality of Bill 14 legislation that would ensure people can exercise choice AND would ensure that DEATH
WITH DIGNITY stays entirely in the hands of people. Our country is institutionalized
and people tend to forget that Canada is in no way collective citizenry, but
rather, a collection of individuals. Thankfully now, with the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, individuals have choice and the government is compelled to provide it
absent any influence other than to administer “interface” between people.
The critical element in this legislation is that functionality
builds a firewall between the state administering “treatment” and the choice to
access DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures. The present DEATH WITH DIGNITY process as
posited by Bill C 14 is dangerous in the extreme.
“PRIOR DIRECTIVES” are essential in administering DEATH WITH
DIGNITY measures, while provisions are required for persons absent PRIOR DIRECTIVES;
PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be a part of the mix. There are basically three management categories
for people wanting DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures; PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place (no
competency or competency in place), No PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place with competency
and No PRIOR DIRECTIVE absent competency.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be managed in a manner that informs
medical personnel of DEATH WITH DIGNITY triggers and measures, in and for
actuation, in a standardized way and the fact that there is Prior Directive in
place (as opposed to the "document" itself) and must be registered centrally. In
this way, if an event that removes mental competency occurs there are means in
place to have people’s wishes attended to and all relevant family and or
designates informed.
The Registry would contain the fact there is a PRIOR
DIRECTIVE in place and contacts provided by the patient at the time they
registered. This facilitates strict
privacy requirements AND allows for circumstance where people arrive to care
absent mental competency to be cared for as they've directed. The registry would be managed by the
respective jurisdiction or it could be nationwide and managed co-cooperatively if
various jurisdictions if agreed.
People with PRIOR DIRECTIVES would have no requirement for
court proceeding as the process precludes; an immediate assessment of choice, the
application of institutional maleficence or other duress.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
In the event a person wants to access DEATH WITH DIGNITY
measures absent a Prior Directive and they have mental competency, then all the
processes laid out in the present iteration of the legislation must be actuated
PLUS, an expedited court process. The aforementioned registry could also serve
as a gazette to notify people of pending court processes and requirements to
notify next of kin must be in place. A special process measured in hours would
require that a court process be initiated, announced via the gazette,
reasonable effort to notify next of kin is made, opportunity for intervenors is
provisioned and finally the order is provided. This order process would be similar
to the “bench order process”: very quickly executed, no hearing required, unless
next of kin offered objection or someone applied for intervenor status.
In the event that an individual enters care absent mental competency
and absent a PRIOR DIRECTIVE, then all medically necessary measures to sustain
life must be undertaken.
It must be emphasized that under no circumstance can state
representatives of any kind in any number authorize the ending of life. The
provision for two doctors’ opinions absent judicial oversight is sheer folly and
obscenely irresponsible from the perspective of vulnerable populations and the possibility
of measures being misdirected in some way.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
People have the right to choose their own course in life and
in managing life’s end, the state's only role here is to ensure that people’s
wishes are attended to and facilitated, that interface between conflicted
parties is managed and that the vulnerable are protected. Bill C 14 is failing on
all counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment