Month: January 2020

No Picture
News Briefs

Perform euthanasia or lose government funding, Canadian hospice told

January 22, 2020 CNA Daily News 0

Vancouver, Canada, Jan 22, 2020 / 11:00 am (CNA).- A Canadian hospice is at risk of losing its government funding over its refusal to euthanize patients who request an “assisted death.” 

Fraser Health Authority, a publicly-funded organization responsible for administering healthcare for 1.6 million people in the western Canadian province of British Columbia, is ordering the Irene Thomas Hospice, a 10-bed hospice facility, to offer euthanasia to its patients. 

The hospice is operated by the non-profit organization the Delta Hospice Society, which is opposed to Canada’s “Medical Assistance in Dying” (“MAiD”) laws. 

In September 2016, about three months after euthanasia became legal in Canada, Fraser Health introduced a new policy which required all hospices receiving more than 50% of provincial funding for their beds to offer euthanasia to their residents. The hospice receives $1.4 million of its $3 million operating budget from the Fraser Health Authority, and Fraser Health funds all 10 of the beds at Irene Thomas Hospice. 

Faith-based healthcare organizations, as well as medical professionals opposed to MAiD, are not required to euthanize patients in Canada. Doctors, however, must refer patients seeking an “assisted death” to a healthcare provider who is willing to euthanize them. The Delta Hospice Society is not affiliated with a religion, but is opposed to euthanasia as a matter of principle. 

Euthanasia is readily available at Delta Hospital, which is a one-minute drive or four-minute walk away from the Irene Thomas Hospice. 

Dr. Leonie Herx, a palliative physician and the president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, told CNA that less than 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. 

Unlike other healthcare services, including MAiD, which are fully funded and accessible to all by the Canada Health Act, disability care, palliative care, and homecare services are not guaranteed or accessible everywhere. 

“So while MAiD needs to be funded provincially and accessible to all Canadians, the same does not apply to palliative care,” said Herx. 

“The rights of individuals to autonomy and their ‘right to die’ therefore seems to trump the right to assistance in living,” she added.

Herx said that presently, palliative care organizations throughout Canada are pushing for more funding for palliative care, to better assist patients in need. 

“MAiD was legalized before we had broad uptake of and access to palliative care,” she said. 

“The government missed an opportunity when crafting the Canadian MAiD legislation and could have made these important safeguards of ‘care’ (which we know mitigates desire for hastened death in many cases) also part of the Canada Health Act.” 

In Canada, unlike assisted suicide laws in the United States, those who opt for an “assisted death” are not required to self-administer the lethal medication. The vast majority of Canadians who have an “assisted death” do so by euthanasia and do not self-administer. 

Herx said that misconceptions about the purpose of palliative care can push people away from pursuing hospice care. The addition of MAiD into hospice settings makes the confusion worse. 

“Some patients are already afraid that palliative care will shorten their life and these worries can be intensified when MAiD is provided in that same palliative care centre,” she said. Considering that less than 2% of deaths in Canada each year are from MAiD, the “vast majority” of the remaining, “natural” deaths could serve to benefit from palliative care. 

The number of Canadians who chose MAiD during the first 10 months of 2018–2,613 people–is four times the total number of homicides in Canada in 2018. That year, 651 people were the victims of homicide.

Herx told CNA that “the healthcare authority in British Columbia is not recognizing the unique approach to care that is at the core of hospice palliative care.”

Speeding up death, she said, is never the aim of palliative care. Herx said there was “no reason” to mandate that hospices perform euthanasia, as it is already widely available at hospitals and in patient homes. 

Herx pointed to “strong lobbies” which are backing this new effort to expand MAiD into additional institutions which receive provincial funding, including faith-based hospitals or hospices. She warned that the pressure on all such institutions to offer assisted dying would continue.

“This current case in Delta Hospice may set the precedent for other non-religious hospices,” said Herx. 

“But then, faith-based institutions may be next.”

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Trump administration considers travel bans on up to seven more countries

January 21, 2020 CNA Daily News 0

Washington D.C., Jan 21, 2020 / 07:01 pm (CNA).- More travel bans and restrictions could be coming from the Trump administration, with up to seven countries targeted.

Citizens of Belarus, Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania could face more travel restrictions, as initially reported by the news site Politico. The restrictions could be announced Jan. 27, the third anniversary of the administration’s first travel bans.

The restrictions under consideration are not finalized and might not necessarily be a complete ban, but rather could apply only to certain government officials or certain types of visas, like business or visitor visas.

Some countries the Trump administration is considering for new travel restrictions have had good relations with the U.S. or have been the subjects of U.S. efforts to improve relations, Politico reports.

The administration has justified travel restrictions as an anti-terrorism measure, saying the travelers are not adequately vetted.

The original executive order was issued Jan. 27, 2017, prompting hundreds of demonstrators to gather at airports. The first order denied visas to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The order was modified and went through several court challenges. In its current form it restricts entry of some citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea. Chad was on the original list, but was removed.

Lawyers, advocates for Muslim immigrants, and other critics said the administration’s travel ban still constituted a “Muslim ban” since most of the countries under the ban are Muslim-majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in June 2018, ruling that President Donald Trump was acting within the limits of his authority when he enacted the travel ban on nationals from seven countries.

At the time of the ruling, leaders of the U.S. bishops’ migration committee and religious freedom committee said the travel ban “targets Muslims for exclusion, which goes against our country’s core principle of neutrality when it comes to people of faith.” The Supreme Court “failed to take into account the clear and unlawful targeting of a specific religious group by the government,” the bishops said.
 
Most possible additions to the list do not have travel restrictions. The Wall Street Journal said people from Eritrea, Nigeria, and Sudan on business or visitor visas appeared much more likely to overstay their permits.

This week White House spokesman Hogan Gidley did not confirm to Politico any details about expanded ban or travel restrictions, but said the original order “has been profoundly successful in protecting our country and raising the security baseline around the world.”

“While there are no new announcements at this time, common sense and national security both dictate that if a country wants to fully participate in U.S. immigration programs, they should also comply with all security and counter-terrorism measures — because we do not want to import terrorism or any other national security threat into the United States,” Gidley said.

Trump first proposed a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. after a string of terrorist attacks, including a December 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, California that left 14 dead and 22 injured. The shooters were a married couple who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group shortly before the attack. One was a U.S. citizen and the other was a Pakistani national who moved to the U.S. on a fiancée visa.

His comments drew condemnation and concern from many who worried explicitly targeting migrants based on religion was wrong in itself and would enable U.S. laws and policies targeting other religious groups.

[…]