Content of the article

A recent report from the Ontario Coroner’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) Death Review Committee made some waves; should have caused a stir. She found significant socioeconomic differences between those receiving euthanasia under “Track 1” (for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable) and “Track 2” (for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable). would happen happens

Content of the article

The committee found that 48.6% of Track 2 euthanasia recipients – people who have not already died – lived in the most marginalized areas of the province, as opposed to 41.8% of Track 1 recipients, which itself may be a worrying figure. A Western University study reviewed all euthanasia requests in London, Ont. between June 2016 and December 2019 and found that the rate of claims among those living in the poorest areas of the city was almost three times higher than in the wealthiest areas.

When age and labor force participation were taken into account as measures of disadvantage, the review board’s figures were even higher: fifty-seven percent of Track 2 claims were made by those in the lowest and most deprived quintiles. disadvantaged – unlike 42% of Track 1 applications.

This is not necessarily shocking: poorer Canadians have higher rates of chronic and terminal illnesses. But crucially, this is not what researchers have found in other jurisdictions. A meta-analysis of studies from the Netherlands and Oregon found that “death under the (Oregon Death with Dignity Act) was associated with health insurance and high educational attainment, both proxy indicators of well-being.”

Content of the article

Content of the article

In the Netherlands, using zip code data—as did the Ontario death review committee—the study noted that “overall rates of assisted death were somewhat higher for people (living in areas) with a socioeconomically higher”.

At the very least, this seems to merit urgent further investigation. Outside of Quebec, this debate has centered almost entirely around the federal government. But as always, it’s the provinces that provide healthcare, and in all respects, your experience may vary.

It’s not like we don’t have horror stories to illustrate these statistics. We know what happens, we just don’t know how often. Readers will probably have heard of Sophia, (not her real name), a 51-year-old woman who received housekeeping for multiple chemical sensitivities — an extreme perceived intolerance to atmospheric contaminants (in Sophia’s case cigarette smoke and cleaning chemicals) which clearly causes great mental distress, but which does not appear to be an actual illness.

What Sophia received was not medical aid for death at all. What he got, at best, was welfare in death

Due to the lack of a suitable apartment – something that many perfectly healthy and fairly well-off Ontarians struggle with these days – Sophia has chosen death in 2022. “The government sees me as trash, a whiner, useless and a pain in the ass” , Sophia said. in a video.

Content of the article

Then there is Mr A (as the review board report calls him). who had a psychiatrist proactively suggest euthanasia for his diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease, with aggravating factors including “history of mental illness, prior suicidal episodes, and alcohol and opioid abuse.”

“No injury, no foul, was the coroner’s verdict in both cases.” But “several members (of the review committee) expressed concern,” the report notes. That’s a relief, at least. Expanding MAID to cover only mental illness was pushed back; Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to overturn it if elected. But “Track 2” is where the real horror stories come from. What will the Ontario government do about it?

As always, this requires taking yourself out of this unholy mess of a debate and looking at it clearly. What Sophia received was not medical aid for death at all. Death is no better prescription for multiple chemical sensitivities—or for the mental conditions that probably account for it—than chemotherapy or a hip replacement.

Content of the article

What Sophia got, at best, was welfare in death. For lack of useful social assistance like an apartment she deemed livable, or proper psychiatric care, we offered to get her out of her misery. Our serial failures in housing and health care make such horrible situations unfortunately inevitable, they give society no obligation to help someone like Sophia die.

An incredible number of Canadians disagree, citing “discrimination” and “equity” concerns — even as disability advocates wave their arms in panic, each of their predictions now coming true in quick succession. But at least they could stop calling her “MAID”. Sophia got AID and that’s not what Canadians signed up for.

Mr. A, on the other hand, was introduced to MAID the same way they sell Ozempic and Cialis on American television: “Why don’t you take these drugs?” If we can’t trust the system to establish and adhere to a rule as basic as “don’t proactively bring up euthanasia,” then we can’t trust the system, period.

National Post

[email protected]

Get more in-depth political coverage and analysis from the National Post in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin find out what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill in every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Register here.

Content of the article