Matt McIsaac

This document has significant conflicting advice. -the vast majority of those who object to MAiD, which is, in fact, state condoned physician assisted suicide, will have this objection due to obvious religious reasons, valuing the sanctity of life as primary. These 'conscientious objectors', would see this as murder, and not only outside the bounds of the hippocratic oath, but outside the bounds of any conceivable action. MAiD would definitely not fit in the definition of 'care' according to any objector. So any objection to provide information or referral would not, by definition of the objector, be preventing access to 'care'. Condensed preamble points 2-4 therefore do not make sense. -standard 1b- conventional medical options. MAiD is in no way conventional. It was passed only in 2015. It is new and non-conventional. It is available only in 7 jurisdictions worldwide. It is condemned heavily by the majority of humanity, and has created a significant rift in physician groups in the countries in which it is practiced. If 'convention' is defined as: a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity, then MAiD is decidedly NOT conventional. The vast majority of humanity current and historical have not died in this manner. The vast majority of physicians current and historically would view this as opposing the hippocratic oath, which is the oath binding physicians back to the time of Hippocrates, around 460BCE. The majority of the developed west being Christian, current and historic, would also vehemently oppose this as murder. So it should not be listed as 'conventional medical treatment'. -section 1 e,f and all of 2 collectively oppose the charter of rights and freedoms. This actively seeks to prevent a physician from having freedom of religion. To proactively send someone to seek planned death at the hands of a physician is a sin of commission. The Charter, particularly freedom of religion in this case, is not superseded by a medical licensing board. If the CPSA desires a human rights challenge, then carry on. But this should be rethought to avoid that. The CPSA has faced enough damage in recent years by not doing the right thing about serious manners, and this is dead serious.

Comments for this post are now closed. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic, please email

« Previous EntryNext Entry »