Against the law
It has been legal in Canada since 2016 for medical professionals to assist people who have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” in ending their suffering.
According to the government website on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID):
“To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:
- have a serious illness, disease or disability
- be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
- experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable
“You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.”
I hope most people would agree that this is a good thing. No one should be compelled to live with unbearable mental suffering. Sadly, there are many people who are forced to do just that, because the line below that last one on the website says:
“If your only medical condition is a mental illness, you are not eligible for medical assistance in dying until March 17, 2027.” (This deadline has been extended when a previous attempt to include “mental disorder as the sole underlying condition” failed. There is no guarantee it will not be extended again.)
There are many forms of mental illness, as a psychiatrist points out in this CBC piece.
It is understandable that the medical community might be divided on whether someone who, say, suffers from debilitating anxiety should have access to medical assistance in dying.
What is not understandable, what is inexcusable is that no effort is being made to establish an exception for dementia, which has left countless Canadians living in the mental torture chamber of their shattered minds. Unfortunately for them, the underlying principle of “informed consent” is no longer a condition they can meet.
A friend of mine’s nonagenarian mother is one of those countless Canadians. Every waking moment of every day is a form of torture for her. She is living (if you can call it that) in a very nice, very well-run home that is nothing more to her than a prison from which she cannot escape.
If a doctor were to ask this once proud and fiercely independent woman if she was ready and willing to check out permanently, her answer would be an enthusiastic. ”yes!” Tragically for her (and heartbreakingly for her two powerless sons), she is no longer entitled to have an opinion.
I understand the need to protect the elderly from avaricious heirs. Obviously. But equally obviously (I would hope) no one should be forced to live like this.
What is the first rule of medical practice? Do no harm. In a sane and humane society a doctor should be able to consult with the care aides who are in the most intimate contact with my friend’s mother (or anyone else in her situation) and her family before reaching the obvious conclusion that her suffering is both grievous and irremediable, and is doing her a great deal of harm.
My friend and his brother should then be able to go to their mother’s room to sit on either side of her bed while the doctor takes the step needed to ease her on her way. Then they should be able to hold her hands, allow her to feel the love they have for her as she gently slips away.
How is not doing so not a form of elder abuse, which, last time I checked, was against the law?
Anne M. Holmes 
Absolutely agree. It’s heartbreaking.
Some definite misinformation in this post. Dementia is a neurological condition not a psychiatric one. There is now a protocol for allowing people to include dementia in their maid protocol … it’s called a waiver of informed consent and in progressive hospice care is becoming more mainstream.
Many people now in their 90s and facing death grew up in strict religious environments and would never consider ending their life sooner than God calls them. So, I would object to the idea that this woman’s sons should be able to make a decision ie put her out of her perceived misery early, as that would not be her wish.
The issue of assisted dying is complex and should be studied with care. Thankfully those in our 70’s will have greater choice when we come to the end of life. accurate information is important.
I’ve sat bedside at several deaths over the last few years. Generally the final moments are peaceful and almost always reflect the way that individual led their life.
Profoundly privileged to have sat vigil with some incredible people.
Thank you for your comment. I think there may be some quibbling here when you speak of “neurological” versus “psychiatric”. What I’m talking about is extreme mental anguish and having to live with it, whatever its cause. If you are reading this and are able to do so, I would very much appreciate being directed to information about waivers of informed consent as they would apply in these circumstances.
No quibbling…Dementia is clearly defined as a neurological disorder and mental illness is a psychiatric disorder, two separate and different conditions. You can do a quick google search to learn the difference. Also just search for Waiver of Informed Consent relative to MAID. This process is being used widely by compassionate hospice doctors. It only applies to neurological conditions like dementia and NOT to psychiatric/mental health conditions. That is why it is important to understand the difference between these two conditions. Not quibbling at all.
Thankfully the government is moving more slowly to change the MAID rules around psychiatric issues. Ten years ago I rescued my son from close to death after a suicide attempt. With help & significant support from family and the medical system he is now, at 40, a functioning and productive, sweet man. Had he access to MAID 10 years ago I believe he would have used it.
Not trying to be critical but this is an area I am passionate about and reasonably well informed about.
Hope this info helps to clarify.