More alarming statistics on ‘medical aid in dying’: Selley

Article content

A recent report from the Ontario Coroner’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) Death Review Committee has caused a number of ripples; it really should have made waves. Significant socio-economic differences were found between those who received euthanasia under “Track 1” (for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable) and “Track 2” (for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable). It suggests that once again what the government had warned would happen is happening.

Article content

The commission found that 48.6 percent of track 2 euthanasia recipients – people who have not yet died – lived in the most marginalized areas of the province, compared to 41.8 percent of track 1 recipients, which in itself is a disturbing figure can be. A Western University study looked at all euthanasia requests in London, Ont. between June 2016 and December 2019 and found that the number of requests among those living in the poorest parts of the city was almost three times higher than in the richest areas.

When age and employment participation are included as measures of disadvantage, the review committee’s figures are even more stark: fifty-seven percent of Track 2 applications were made by those in the lowest, most disadvantaged quintile – in contrast to 42 percent of Track 1 -requests.

That’s not necessarily shocking: poorer Canadians have more chronic and terminal illnesses. But crucially, this is not what researchers in other jurisdictions have found. A meta-analysis of studies from the Netherlands and Oregon found that “death under the (Oregon Death with Dignity Act) was associated with having health insurance and with high educational status, both indirect indicators of wealth.”

Article content

Article content

In the Netherlands, using zip code data – as Ontario’s Death Review Committee did – it was noted that “overall rates of assisted dying were slightly higher for people (living in areas) of higher socio-economic status.”

This seems at least worth urgent further investigation. Outside of Quebec, this debate has centered almost entirely around the federal government. But as always, it is the provinces that provide health care, and in every respect your experience may vary.

It’s not that we don’t have horror stories to illustrate these statistics. We know what happens, we just don’t know how often. Readers will likely have heard of Sophia (not her real name), a 51-year-old woman who was given MAID for multiple chemical sensitivities—a perceived extreme intolerance to atmospheric contaminants (in Sophia’s case, cigarette smoke and chemical cleaning products) that is clearly the cause of great mental suffering, but which does not seem to be a real illness.

What Sophia received was no medical assistance in dying at all. What she received at best was social assistance in dying

Lacking a suitable apartment – ​​something many perfectly healthy and reasonably well-off Ontarians struggle with these days – Sophia chose death in 2022. “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a nuisance,” Sophia said. in a video.

Article content

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

“No harm, no foul, was the coroner’s verdict in both cases.” But “several members (of the review committee) expressed concerns,” the report notes. At least that’s a relief. Expanding MAID to cover only mental illness has been postponed; Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to cancel the proposal if elected. But ‘Track 2’ is where the real horror stories come from. What will the Ontario government do about this?

As always, this requires you to pull yourself out of this unholy mess of a debate and look at it clearly. What Sophia received was no medical assistance in dying at all. Death is no more appropriate prescription for multiple chemical sensitivities – or for the mental conditions that likely explain them – than chemotherapy or hip replacement.

Article content

What Sophia received at its best was social assistance in dying. In the absence of usable We offered social assistance, such as an apartment that she considered habitable, or appropriate psychiatric care, to properly put her out of her misery. Our successive failures in housing and health care unfortunately make such terrible situations inevitable; they don’t impose any obligation on society to help someone like Sophia die.

An incredible number of Canadians disagree, citing concerns about “discrimination” and “fairness” – even as disability advocates wave their arms in panic, each of their predictions is now rapidly becoming reality in succession. But they could at least stop calling it ‘MAID’. Sophia received help, and the Canadians did not sign up for it.

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

National Post

[email protected]

Get more in-depth political reporting 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 explore what’s really happening behind the scenes of Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Article content