Not Dead Yet UK: Evidence of a Slippery Slope?

"death with dignity", aid in dying, assisted suicide, Canada, euthanasia, medical discrimination, Not Dead Yet UK, Our News & Commentary Blog

Evidence of a Slippery Slope?

By Not Dead Yet UK

June 14, 2021

Supporters of our campaign to resist a law change on assisted suicide have continually expressed real concerns about the concept of  “a slippery slope”. The idea that once assisted suicide is permitted for one group it isn’t long before it’s extended to include other groups and that this is a bad thing. Our opponents have argued that this is simply not true, that a slippery slope does not exist.

Let’s briefly examine what has been happening in Canada.

In December 2015 – the Quebec Province in Canada (a regional government) passed the Act Respecting End of Life Care, which permits Medical Aid In Dying (MAID).

June 2016 – The law was extended to other Provinces and Territories, making Quebec’s law legal across the whole of Canada. It prioritises mentally ill and vulnerable people and those who have a grievous or irremediable medical condition, including people with an incurable illness or disease, and disabled people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada

In March 2020 – the Canadian courts (nationwide) extended the law to include the following:

  • Removal of the requirement that death should be reasonably foreseeable
  • Only one independent witness to request for MAID
  • A personal or health care worker may be a witness
  • Removal of 10-day period for reflection
  • The waiver should be given in advance

On 17 March 2021 – the Canadian legislature expanded MAID to a broader group of people:

  • A person does not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for MAID.
  • Mentally ill patients can give an advanced waiver to sign off for MAID before they are compromised by their condition.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

The numbers of people assisted to end their lives in Canada are consistently growing year on year:

https://bit.ly/3glUlmp

The Canadian Government now propose that in March 2023 it plans to give patients with mental illness alone and no other underlying issues the option for a MAID.

Within six years the scope of the assisted suicide legislation in Canada has been amended twice with further amendments planned. More people are now eligible, the death rate is increasing and the protections have been weakened we’d call that a “slippery slope”.

Carol Cleigh Sutton: Ableism Is Violence

ableism, better dead than disabled, bigotry, Carol Cleigh Sutton, Day of Mourning, guest blog, Homicide / 'Mercy Killing', Our News & Commentary Blog, quality of life judgments
Image of Carol Cleigh Sutton, a fair skinned woman with white hair, pulled back, wire rimmed glasses, and a white turtle neck top with a silver necklace featuring two connected silver handcuffs with small white stones.
Carol Cleigh Sutton

Listening to the other presenters, many of whom  mentioned ableism, but most especially to the names being read – for more than an hour – during the Disability Day of Mourning, something I’ve known for years snapped into focus and demanded to be written: Ableism is Violence.

The problem is Abled Chauvinism. Like men vis á vis women, the severely abled are deeply, violently, wholly convinced, indoctrinated, certain of their superiority over us in all things, at all times and in all places. It goes beyond privilege and leaves microaggression in the dust. Early feminists said things like, “I may be a woman, but that doesn’t make me disabled.” Well, these wheels upon which I sit make me disabled. That doesn’t mean that anyone is superior to me in any meaningful way. I would concede that many people are my superior in, for example, athletics. Athletics, though, is not a meaningful area of pursuit for me. But most severely abled people would come off far behind Marcel Hug, for example, so even that is not an area of unequivocal abled superiority.

A lot of people think of ableism, if they think of it at all, as a softer, gentler form of discrimination. Some believe that it is in some ways beneficial to disabled people. I’ve even been told that it is not really like racism or sexism because, “no one would actually harm a disabled person.” No,  just murder us and then sympathize with our murderers. Ableism is violence. It is real violence done to real people. It harms and it kills.

As I write this, I can hear them saying, “yes, but it comes from a place of love.” I explain about the leavings of a male bovine. They say, “yes, but it’s really for the best, they were suffering.” I cry bullshit. “Yes, but their lives were a burden.” BULLSHIT! All of these attempts at rationalization are the violence of ableism trying to hide its ugliness inside the trappings of compassion. Their ‘compassion’ is poorly disguised contempt. It is ableism. Ableism is violence.

There is jingoism, chauvinism in the severely abled’s attitudes towards us. I remember an interview I saw with Ed Roberts. Ed recalls being told by everyone around him that he couldn’t have a life, an education, a family or a career and how he tried to kill himself. Then he got some control back and it all changed. He decided to live and he got all of those things and created structures to help others get them as well. Yet, he recounts being met with frank disbelief when talking about having a rich, full life. There is pervasive, pernicious, ableist belief that life with disability is unremitting suffering, sadness and pain. This belief that our lives are horrific and any sane person should rather die, this is the core of the BDTD (better dead than disabled) movement. The very fact that there are large, multi-million dollar organizations promoting this filth, this violence is an affront. It is hate. It is ableism. It is violence. It needs to stop.

ABLEISM IS VIOLENCE.

Wrongful Death & Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Filed In Michael Hickson Case

brain injury, court cases, COVID-19, Do-Not-Resuscitate, Feeding Tubes, futility, Health care decision-making, health disparities, healthcare rationing, life-ending decisions, medical discrimination, Michael Hickson, Our News & Commentary Blog, quality of life judgments, surrogate decision making, treatment withdrawal, wrongful death, , , ,

June 11, 2021
By: Andrés J. Gallegos, Jennifer M. Sender

ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD. SEEKS JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL HICKSON,
FILES WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT AGAINST ST. DAVID’S SOUTH AUSTIN MEDICAL CENTER & ITS PHYSICIANS

Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd. (RSP) on June 10, 2021, filed a multi-count wrongful death lawsuit against St. David’s South Austin Medical Center (SDMC) and two of its physicians, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Despite the absence of an irreversible or terminal condition, SDMC physicians deprived Mr. Michael Hickson, a 46-year-old black man with multiple disabilities, of all life-sustaining treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration for six days resulting in his death.

Admitted to SDMC on June 2, 2020, Mr. Hickson was fighting sepsis, a urinary tract infection and pneumonia. Although he had suspected COVID–19, he had a negative COVID-19 test several days prior to his admission. While seriously ill, all of those conditions were treatable. In fact, only three months prior, SDMC successfully treated him for sepsis, urinary tract infection and pneumonia. Upon admission, SDMC assessed Mr. Hickson having a 70% chance of survival. Almost immediately thereafter, however, SDMC physicians determined he was not worth treating and crafted a plan of “comfort care” only.

Antibiotics were initially provided, and lab results determined they were effective. Mr. Hickson’s physicians even identified the specific bacterial organism at the root of his infection.  Yet, only three days later, they abruptly withdrew the antibiotics and all life-sustaining treatment, designated Mr. Hickson as Do Not Resuscitate, and placed him in hospice. When pressed for an explanation as to why they would not treat him, in a legally recorded conversation, Dr. Viet Vo told Mrs. Melissa Hickson, “as of right now, his quality of life, he doesn’t have much of one.” Dr. Vo then distinguished Mr. Hickson from other of his patients who were being treated aggressively for COVID–19, “his quality of life is different than theirs. They were walking, talking.”

The lawsuit asserts multiple counts of disability-based discrimination, gross medical negligence, wrongful death and deprivation of Mr. Hickson’s constitutional right to life, against SDMC and two of its physicians, Dr. Vo and Dr. Carlye Mabry Cantu. The lawsuit also asserts a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress against SDMC and Dr. DeVry Anderson, its Chief Medical Officer. Among other matters, from June 8 to June 11, 2020, SDMC denied Mrs. Hickson access to her husband, even denying FaceTime visits, claiming the hospital’s iPad was not working on those days. An incredulous claim from a hospital with reported gross patient revenue of over $4.7 billion in 2019.  On July 2, 2020, Dr. Anderson released a media statement concerning Mr. Hickson, demeaning Mrs. Hickson and disclosing his protected health information, falsely stating he had consent from Mr. Hickson’s family. The complaint is available here.

RSP’s litigation efforts are led by Andrés J. Gallegos and Jennifer M. Sender. RSP is co-counseling with Whitburn and Pevsner, PLLC.

Karen McCulloh, Nat’l. Org. of Nurses with Disabilities – Advisor: Basic Life Support

American Medical Association, Americans with Disabilities Act, cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), guest blog, life-sustaining treatment, Our News & Commentary Blog,

Recently,  Not Dead Yet News and Commentary, posted on May 27, 2021 an Op-Ed written by United Kingdom NDY founder, Baroness Jane Campbell who stated,   The Government should be helping people to live– not die through assisted suicide.  The National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities (NOND), a partner with NDY that stands against Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), appreciates this Op-Ed, and while NDY has taken the leadership to strongly advocate against PAS, now there is a way for people with disabilities to confront PAS by helping to save lives.  2,781 people with disabilities already have.

Advisor:  Basic Life Support Program–

American Heart Association

When the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities was founded in 2003, the big question was how can anyone become a nurse, or remain a nurse if they are unable to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)?  NOND worked to resolve this question not only for disabled healthcare professionals but also for all persons with disabilities across the nation that have physical mobility limitations or other chronic health conditions that impact their ability to perform CPR.

NOND’s mission is directed to promoting equity for people with disabilities and chronic health conditions in nursing through education and advocacy.  How NOND accomplishes its work occurs in a variety of ways for example, NOND’s collaboration with the American Heart Association to develop the Advisor:  Basic Life Support Program.

When nurses apply for a job, employment may be contingent upon the nurse being Basic Life Support (BLS) trained/certified.  Some nurses with disabilities have significant physical mobility limitations and are unable to perform all or any of the skills required to perform CPR.  Employer exemption, if willing to exempt nurses from this policy, will depend upon the essential functions of the job.  Most nursing schools require students to receive CPR training, and have an up-to-date BLS card.

In order to address Employer and nursing school policies, NOND reached out to the American Heart Association (AHA) National Center that provides CPR training across the nation, as well as internationally, and requested AHA to collaborate as a “thought leader” with NOND.   NOND Directors believed that collaboration with AHA could result in the development of a new program directed to healthcare professionals and people with disabilities who are unable to perform CPR but could advise someone else on performing CPR while Code Blue Teams or first responders are on the way.

This precedent setting program focuses on the abilities of people with disabilities so that they may direct others to perform CPR.  Candidates who pass the online cognitive portion of the HeartCode® BLS Provider Course and successfully advise an instructor on how to perform CPR, and use an automated external defibrillator (AED), can receive an Advisor: BLS card.

It is important to know that nurses and other individuals with different types of disabilities can perform CPR to the required BLS standards.  Successful completion of the standard BLS card may be accomplished with or without accommodations.  Requests for accommodation if needed should be communicated to the AHA instructor, giving the instructor time to arrange for accommodations for example, request for a sign language interpreter.

The Advisor:  BLS Program will be one year old in July 2021.  As of April 21, 2021, 2,781 individuals with disabilities have enrolled in the program. It is not known how many employers or nursing schools have accepted the Advisor Card but NOND does know that enrollment has included nurses at some healthcare institutions where the Advisor card is accepted in place of the standard BLS card.   It is also known that people with significant disabilities are helping to save lives.

Helpful Information:  Links provided by the American Heart Association

Sincere appreciation is extended to the American Heart Association National Center staff that worked in collaboration with NOND volunteers, Dr. Dawn Dubsky, Dr. Bridgette Jenkins, Shelia Levings, and Karen McCulloh who took the lead in working with AHA in developing the Advisor: Basic Life Support Program.

About the author:

Karen McCulloh, RN, BS, is an RN who has multiple disabilities, including dual sensory impairment (Deaf/Blind), Multiple Sclerosis and has recently become a cancer survivor.  She is one of the co-founders of the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities, and has served as president of the organization twice.  She is currently serving as the immediate past president and as a member of the NOND Advisory Committee.   After becoming visually impaired, Karen left the clinical arena and established her own small business where she developed a new field in nursing, Community Health Disability Education.  She moved into workforce development with a focus on Diversity and Inclusion of people with disabilities in the workforce, and is a strong promoter of nursing as a career for academically qualified people with disabilities.

Coleman Quoted in Gothamist: The Pandemic Threatened Their Ventilators

Art Caplan, bioethics, court cases, COVID-19, diane coleman, Disability Rights New York, healthcare rationing, life-sustaining treatment, lifeboat ethics, medical discrimination, Our News & Commentary Blog, ventilator, , , , , , ,

[Ed. note: We previously reported on the court case discussed in the article below here: Not Dead Yet, NMD United, et al. Sue NY Governor On Ventilator Re-Allocation Guidelines.]

The Pandemic Threatened Their Ventilators. Will NY Officials Change Course Before The Next Crisis?

BY CAROLINE LEWIS
MAY 27, 2021

When COVID-19 struck New York last spring, many people feared they would land in the hospital and get put on a ventilator. But Diane Coleman was worried if she went to the hospital, the ventilator she relies on to breathe would get taken away.

Her trepidation stemmed from guidance released by the state Health Department in 2015 on how ventilators should be allocated during a pandemic. The document, composed by a panel of medical ethicists, lawyers, and health care professionals that included the state health commissioner, provides a range of factors that should be considered when allocating ventilators, including a patient’s likelihood of survival.

One section said any patient who arrived at a hospital with their own ventilator could have it taken away for another person in desperate need. “They are assessed by the same criteria as all other patients, and the possibility exists that these patients may fail to meet criteria for continued ventilator use,” read the advisory, which was crafted in preparation for flu pandemics.

Coleman is president and CEO of the disability rights organization Not Dead Yet, which is among the plaintiffs challenging the guidance in a federal class-action lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo, State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker and the New York State Department of Health. The complaint, filed in October, says the guidelines discriminate against people with disabilities and discouraged some ventilator users from seeking acute care during the pandemic “for fear of being forcibly extubated, which would lead to their deaths.”

Coleman has a rare form of muscular dystrophy called Bethlem myopathy and says her diaphragm is too weak for her to breathe independently. She uses a ventilator 22 or 23 hours a day.

“Luckily, I did not need to go” to the hospital, said Coleman, who lives in Rochester. “But I was very much worried about it because the guidelines seemed very clear that if I did go to a hospital, either for any other type of medical issue or COVID, then I would have the risk that my ventilator could be reallocated.”

The state has sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the guidance was non-binding and wasn’t adopted as an official policy before or during the COVID-19 response. The state also emphasized that the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law recommended the guidelines, not the Department of Health. The DOH, however, is listed on the title page of the document, and Health Commissioner Zucker wrote the introduction.

When asked if any chronic ventilator user’s device was removed during the pandemic, the DOH didn’t respond. The case’s plaintiffs did not put forward any allegations that health care providers applied the guidance during COVID-19 to the detriment of a chronic user.

“We’re not saying anyone’s ventilator was taken, but if it comes to that, it’s too late,” said Britney Wilson, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “Emergency plans like this are by themselves discriminatory.” . . .

To read the full article, go here.