XPost: soc.retirement, alt.health.systems, sac.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: jcarter@dont-email.me   
      
   A woman in her 80s put in a request for MAiD services in Canada, but   
   when she changed her mind, an assessor still went through with the   
   process.   
      
   MAiD stands for Medical Assistant in Dying, which is legal in Canada.   
      
   The woman, who is referred to as Mrs. B, had coronary artery bypass   
   graft surgery and was suffering from complications. She asked her   
   husband to look into medically assisted dying.   
      
   It comes after a map was released showing the safest places to raise a   
   family away from crime emerged.   
      
   Mrs. B reportedly asked that he reach out to MAid, in which he did. Upon   
   arrival, Mrs. B told the assessor she "wanted to withdraw her request,   
   citing personal and religious values and beliefs," which is detailed in   
   a MAiD report.   
      
   Her husband brought her to the hospital the next day, where she was   
   determined to be stable. It's being claimed in the coroner report, that   
   this was not Mrs. B's idea, she did not make the request, it was her   
   husband who was advocating for assisted death.   
      
   Her husband expressed fatigue, that he was "experiencing caregiver   
   burnout." As a result, Mrs. Br's doctor applied for in-patient hospice   
   care, but it was denied.   
      
   Her husband put in a second MAiD assessment with the second assessor   
   "objected" to assisted dying.   
      
   "This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for   
   'urgency' and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive   
   evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life   
   goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to   
   caregiver burnout)," the report explained.   
      
   The second assessor put in a request to meet with Mrs. B the next day,   
   which was declined.   
      
   Instead, a third assessor arrived and Mrs. B, going against her wishes,   
   was euthanized that evening.   
      
   Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee members expressed concerns about how   
   the case was handled, which were included in a report released by the   
   Office of the Chief Coroner.   
      
   According to the report, members believe the decision was rushed, based   
   on the "short timeline," which "did not allow all aspects of Mrs. B's   
   social and end-of-life circumstances and care needs to be explored."   
      
   The report listed off a number of concerns, including "the impact of   
   being denied hospice care, additional care options, caregiver burden,   
   consistency of the MAiD request, and divergent MAiD practitioner   
   perspectives."   
      
   It appears their biggest concern was that Mrs. B's husband may have been   
   the person advocating for MAiD but the 80-year-old woman did not   
   actually ask for assisted death.   
      
   "Many members brought forward concerns of possible external coercion   
   arising from the caregiver's experience of burnout and lack of access to   
   palliative care in an in-patient or hospice setting," as addressed in   
   the report.   
      
   Dr. Ramona Coelho, a family physician and member of the committee, wrote   
   a review of the report.   
      
   She said: "The focus should have been on ensuring adequate palliative   
   care and support for Mrs. B and her spouse."   
      
   She added: "Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently   
   re-engaged, given the severity of the situation."   
      
   "Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first   
   assessor's and Mrs. B's concerns without fully considering the impact of   
   her spouse's burnout."   
      
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-was-euthanized-against-her-will-a   
   fter-husband-was-fed-up-with-caring-for-her/ar-AA1VnybH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)