Tag: Assisted Suicide

06 Jul

Billing Physician Assisted Deaths

Doreen So Ethical Issues, General Interest, Health / Medical, In the News, News & Events Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

I have blogged about assisted suicide in the past with reference to the Canadian television show Mary Kills People.  The availability of assisted suicide continues to be a subject of public interest as each province deals with the implementation of the outcome of Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General).

As reported by The Globe and Mail, one particular doctor has removed himself from a roster of doctors who will administer assisted deaths because of changes to the physician fee schedule in British Columbia.  Notwithstanding his support for assisted death, Dr. Jesse Pewarchuk of Vancouver Island wrote a letter to his colleagues to explain that the new fee schedule made “medical assistance in dying” economically untenable for his practice.

According to Kelly Grant of the Globe and Mail,

“Under the new fee schedule, B.C. physicians will now be paid $40 for every 15 minutes, up to a maximum of 90 minutes, to conduct the first of two eligibility assessments required by law. Each of the assessments has to be provided by a different clinician. That works out to $240, a significant increase from the $100.25 interim assessment fee that has been in place in B.C. since shortly after assisted death became legal.

For second assessments, the time is capped at 75 minutes.

In the case of providing an assisted death, the province has set a flat fee of $200, plus a home-visit fee of $113.15.”

Within the same article, it was reported that Ontario does not have specific billing codes for this type of medical service at this present time.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for reading.

Doreen So

31 Jan

Mary Kills People: A New Canadian TV Show on Assisted Suicide

Doreen So Elder Law, Estate Planning, Ethical Issues, General Interest, Health / Medical, In the News Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Mary Kills People is a brand new Canadian television show starring Caroline DhavernasMary Kills People is a fictional show which centers around Dr. Mary Harris, an ER doctor who engages in assisted suicide.  The series premier took place on January 25, 2017.  According to this Toronto Star interview with the show’s writer, Tara Armstrong, Tara came up with the idea for the show while she was at the University of British Columbia.

As you may be aware from our blog, by reasons dated February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada found the criminal code prohibitions against physician assisted suicide to be unconstitutional.  This landmark decision originated in proceedings before the British Columbia Supreme Court.  In 2011, the Plaintiffs in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), amongst other evidence, put forth 13 affidavits from individuals who wished to have the option of assisted suicide.  The Plaintiffs also sought to admit additional witness evidence, on an anonymous basis, from a person called “L.M.” who swore an affidavit which set out the circumstances in which his terminally ill father had ended his own life with the help of his physician and how L.M., his sister, and his sister’s physician assisted L.M.’s terminally ill mother in ending her life.  In an order to protect L.M.’s identity the Plaintiffs’ also sought procedural relief which would allow L.M. to be cross-examined and/or testify behind a screen.  However, this relief was rejected by the Hon. Madam Justice Smith at first instance and L.M.’s evidence was not a part of the trial record.  See Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] B.C.J. No. 1897, for this particular evidentiary ruling.

While I have not seen the show (yet), and I am not aware of the inspiration or research behind the show, it will be fascinating to see if and how the role of the Courts and judicial reform will be featured on Mary Kills People.

Click here for the Season 1 teaser of Mary Kills People.

Happy reading (and watching)!

Doreen So

06 Jun

An Update for Physician Assisted Suicide: Legislative Delay and Constitutional Validity a Concern

Ian Hull Estate Planning, General Interest, Health / Medical Tags: , , , 0 Comments

The Canadian government, after receiving a four month extension for passage of Bill C-14, which enables medically assisted suicide, will not meet today’s deadline set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.  The Bill has passed its second reading in the Senate and has obtained agreement in principle. Yet, after this vote, the Senate adjourned its hearing until June 7th.  As previously blogged, the Bill is a result of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 SCC 5, where the Supreme Court ruled that the blanket criminal code provisions prohibiting physician assisted suicide were unconstitutional. The federal government was initially given a year’s time to put in place remedial legislation, and recently received a four month extension to this deadline. In granting the extension, the majority of the Court stated that it would be unfair to those who already qualify based on Carter to delay the legislation any longer.

Despite this, as of the end of today, physicians and patients will be left in legal limbo. While guidelines have been provided to doctors across the provinces, these could be the cause of significant variation in medical practice.stethoscope, medical, health, doctor, macbook, laptop, computer, objects, office, desk

There are already concerns about the constitutional validity of the proposed legislation. The Alberta Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. F. (E.), 2016 ABCA 155 considered the Supreme Court’s guidance in Carter and found that Carter did not limit applications for physician assisted suicide to only those who were terminally ill. It rejected the Attorney General for Canada’s argument that these limits could be inferred from the language in the Carter decision.

The Alberta Court of Appeal found that any attempt to read restrictions into the Carter decision would have to take into account the balance of values struck in Carter: autonomy and dignity of the applicant on one hand, and the sanctity of life and protection of the vulnerable on the other. The Court found that because of these important interests, it would be inappropriate to exclude, by inference, those who meet the criteria in Carter, and were never expressly excluded by the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal also found that the Supreme Court did not exclude mental illnesses as the basis for application.

The Bill, as it is currently written, appears only to allow those who are terminally ill to apply. It will be interesting to see whether at this late hour any revisions will be made to the legislation to avoid the obvious challenge to its constitutional validity. Any such revisions will only increase the delay and uncertainty that will exist as of the end of today.

Thanks for reading.

Ian Hull

03 Mar

Seeking Exemptions to the Prohibition Against Physician-Assisted Death

Nick Esterbauer Ethical Issues, In the News Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Our blog has previously covered updates regarding the historic decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), which declared the prohibition against physician-assisted death unconstitutional, the subsequent extension of four months of the of the declaration of the invalidity of the terms of the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibit physician-assisted death, and the practice advisory guidelines recently released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in this regard.

A woman from Alberta, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, was granted a legal exemption for physician-assisted death by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and died in Vancouver on Monday.

In HS (Re), 2016 ABQB 121, the Court considered the criteria to be met in order to qualify for an exemption for physician-assisted death, as outlined within the Carter decisions in determining that the Applicant would have access to the relief that she sought:

  • The applicant is a competent adult;
  • The applicant clearly consents to the termination of life;
  • The applicant has a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
  • The condition of the applicant causes enduring, intolerable suffering; and
  • The suffering of the applicant cannot be alleviated by any treatment acceptable to the applicant.

The Applicant suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and was in the final stages of the disease when her life was ended earlier this week.  The Applicant had previously enjoyed an active lifestyle, which had been compromised by the progression of the disease, which had rendered her “almost completely paralyzed.”  The Court accepted that the Applicant had no more than six months to live and was in severe pain.  In its decision released on February 29, 2016, the Court used the Applicant’s own words to describe the reasons behind her request for physician-assisted death:

I am not suffering from anxiety or depression or fear of death. I would like to pass away peacefully and am hoping to have physician-assisted death soon. I do not wish to have continued suffering and to die of this illness by choking. I feel that my time has come to go in peace.

Until the extension of the invalidity of the Criminal Code expires on June 6, 2016, individuals like the Applicant in Re HS can apply to the superior court of the relevant jurisdiction to be considered for physician-assisted death prior to the enactment of new legislation.

Thank you for reading.

Nick Esterbauer

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET