shockedcanadian
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2012
- 43,702
- 42,742
- 3,605
Any of you protecting the Creepy Ones here go and hand in your Man Badge. This is becoming more sickening every day.
Save those of us who have been persecuted.
nrlc.org
The story of the Canadian woman, known as Mrs. B, who was killed by euthanasia after her spouse experienced care-giver distress, even though she had requested palliative care, has been reported by several media reports.
To provide greater context, I went to the original MDRC [MAiD Death Review Committee] report of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario titled: Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions.
This was the MDRC 2024 – Fourth report.
When examining Same Day or Next Day euthanasia provisions the MDRC report states:
A small proportion (4.8%) of all Track 1 MAiD deaths occurred on the same day or next day of a request for MAiD.
In 2023, 65 MAiD provisions (1.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the same day of a request and 154 MAiD provisions (3.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the next day of a request.
Therefore there were 219 same day or next day euthanasia deaths in 2023 in Ontario.
There were several concerning cases outlined in the MDRC report. The particular case concerns Mrs. B. The report states:
Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services).
Summary: Mrs. B had significant health issues and has chosen to receive in-home palliative care support. The case continues:
Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.
Summary: Mrs. B was assessed for MAiD but then asked to withdraw her request for MAiD and once again requested palliative care services. The case continues:
The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care application was offered.
Summary: Mrs. B returned to the emergency department the next morning. Her spouse was experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed as stable and sent home. Mrs. B was then denied in-patient palliative care and given an application for long-term care. The case continues:
Save those of us who have been persecuted.
Canadian woman was killed by euthanasia after her spouse requested it for her - National Right to Life
Woman killed by euthanasia wanted palliative care. By Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. The story of the Canadian woman, known as Mrs. B, who was killed by euthanasia after her spouse experienced care-giver distress, even though she had requested palliative...
nrlc.org
The story of the Canadian woman, known as Mrs. B, who was killed by euthanasia after her spouse experienced care-giver distress, even though she had requested palliative care, has been reported by several media reports.
To provide greater context, I went to the original MDRC [MAiD Death Review Committee] report of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario titled: Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions.
This was the MDRC 2024 – Fourth report.
When examining Same Day or Next Day euthanasia provisions the MDRC report states:
A small proportion (4.8%) of all Track 1 MAiD deaths occurred on the same day or next day of a request for MAiD.
In 2023, 65 MAiD provisions (1.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the same day of a request and 154 MAiD provisions (3.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the next day of a request.
Therefore there were 219 same day or next day euthanasia deaths in 2023 in Ontario.
There were several concerning cases outlined in the MDRC report. The particular case concerns Mrs. B. The report states:
Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services).
Summary: Mrs. B had significant health issues and has chosen to receive in-home palliative care support. The case continues:
Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.
Summary: Mrs. B was assessed for MAiD but then asked to withdraw her request for MAiD and once again requested palliative care services. The case continues:
The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care application was offered.
Summary: Mrs. B returned to the emergency department the next morning. Her spouse was experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed as stable and sent home. Mrs. B was then denied in-patient palliative care and given an application for long-term care. The case continues:
Last edited:
