Article content

A recent report of the Death Review Committee of the Office of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) of the Ontario Coroner has had some impact; it should have made waves. The study found significant socioeconomic differences between those euthanized in “Pathway 1” (for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable) and “Pathway 2” (for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable) . what would happen happens.

Article content

The committee found that 48.6 per cent of Track 2 euthanasia recipients – people who are not already dying – lived in the most marginalized areas of the province, compared to 41.8 per cent of Track 1 beneficiaries, which in itself can be a troubling figure. A study from Western University reviewed all requests for euthanasia in London, Ontario. between June 2016 and December 2019 and found that the application rate among people living in the city’s poorest neighborhoods was nearly three times higher than in wealthier neighborhoods.

When age and labor market participation were taken into account as measures of disadvantage, the review panel’s figures were even more striking: 57 percent of Track 2 applications were made by people in the lowest and most deprived quintile, compared to 42 percent. channel 1 requests.

This isn’t necessarily shocking: Poorer Canadians have higher rates of chronic and terminal illnesses. But importantly, this is not what researchers have discovered in other countries. 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 having a high level of education, both proxies for wealth.” »

Article content

Article content

In the Netherlands, using postal code data — as did the Ontario Death Review Committee — the study found that “overall rates of assisted dying were slightly higher among people (living in regions) of higher socio-economic status.”

At the very least, this seems worthy of further and urgent investigation. Outside of Quebec, this debate revolves almost entirely around the federal government. But as always, provinces provide health care, and your experience may vary in every way.

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

What Sophia received was not medically assisted death at all. What she received, at best, was welfare to die

Lacking a suitable apartment – ​​a situation that many perfectly healthy and reasonably well-off Ontarians struggle with today – Sophia chose death in 2022. “The government considers me disposable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass ”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 compounding factors including “a history of mental illness, prior episodes of suicidal tendencies, and ongoing abuse of alcohol and opioids.

“No harm, no foul, was the coroner’s verdict in both cases.” But “several members (of the review committee) expressed concerns,” the report noted. It’s at least a relief. Expand medical assistance in dying to cover only mental illnesses was pushed back; Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to cancel it if he is elected. But it’s from “Track 2” that the real horror stories come. What will the Ontario government do about this?

As always, this requires getting out of the ungodly mess of a debate and looking at it clearly. What Sophia received was not medically assisted death at all. Death is no more appropriate a prescription for multiple chemical sensitivities — or for the mental disorders that likely explain it — than chemotherapy or a hip replacement.

Article content

What Sophia received, at best, was welfare to die. Lack of useful social assistance such as an apartment that she considered habitable, or appropriate psychiatric care, we offered to put her out of her misery cleanly. Our serial failures in housing and health care sadly make such horrific situations inevitable that they give society no obligation to help someone like Sophia die.

A staggering number of Canadians disagree, citing concerns about “discrimination” and “fairness” – even as disability advocates wave their arms in panic, each of their predictions quickly coming true one after the other. But they could at least stop calling it “MAID”. Sophia received humanitarian aid, and that is not what Canadians signed up for.

Mr. A, on the other hand, was introduced to AMM in 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 follow 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 National Post political coverage and analysis delivered to your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin find out what’s going on actually goes behind the scenes on Parliament Hill, every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Register here.

Article content