Dear editor:
A close relative had developed a series of medical issues which did not readily fit into successful treatment patterns. When he checked in with his general practitioner some time ago, his GP suggested MAiD (medical assistance in dying) as the best prognosis.
More recently, he was taken to the Marotta Family Hospital, formerly the St. Catharines General Hospital, with some non-positive symptoms. The presiding physician also suggested MAiD as a final solution.
The good news is that if you are conscious and in your right mind, the staff probably won’t put a pillow over your face while you are sleeping. The bad news is that if you are not conscious, or appear to be in a confused state of mind, the situation changes somewhat.
COVID was a wake-up call for politicians and administrators at all government levels that health costs could be substantially reduced by simply letting patients die. Budget cuts could largely go without comment in the midst of a pandemic.
The Ontario government passed a law specifically exempting long-term care homes, and related institutions, from liability for failing to provide adequate treatment for the people in their care. Sections of nursing homes could be cordoned off, and patients simply left to die on their own recognizance. What a great idea.
Nowadays, politicians and administrators have their own various agenda, and providing public funds for chronic health care is certainly not among them. Premier Doug Ford began his regime (before COVID) by making massive cuts to public health services.
These, plus cuts to epidemic response programs by the federal government, ensured that COVID hit Canadians much harder than would otherwise have been the case. But here comes the bright side.
COVID prepared Canadians to accept a much higher level of death in public institutions than might have been the attitude formerly. The problem was that, after COVID had peaked, we were back in the valley of despond.
Without further large cuts to health care (a politically-risky proposition), politicians might be unable to transfer massive amounts of public funds to their own pet projects.
Enter the “death with dignity” proponents. Governments could channel “happy death” through the entire medical and social system, and take minimum responsibility for these programs.
The fact that these deaths were particularly happy for politicians, administrators and “death with dignity” enthusiasts was usually left out of the advertising prospectus.
It was truly remarkable how energetically physicians and medical personnel entered into the spirit of “happy death.” They, too, could be happy that MAiD would conceivably slow down further cuts to health care, along with providing some residual powers to the medical profession itself.
The parameters set by old white males, such as Hippocrates, had long since been exploded by more progressive thinking. What was formerly known as “the oath of Hypocrites” (in one comedian’s parlance) is no longer a topic for discussion. Medicine has transitioned into a culling of the herd.
It is characteristic of Canada circa 2026 that no one is likely to advocate a “life with dignity” initiative. Apart from a lack of government interest in such dubious social proposals, this might well prove to be a white elephant, unlikely to take the popular fancy.
In the meanwhile, it is much better to focus on “business as usual.”
As an afterthought, we may add that the immediate cause of our relative’s visit to hospital turned out to be the side effects of a new drug that he had been recently injected with.
This drug stays in one’s system for six months; so further negative effects of this drug are possible.
Meanwhile, hospital staff decided to administer a further injection which would counteract the first one, but were not very successful at it.
Apparently, only one practitioner in the hospital was very skilled at doing this particular injection. So, a bad arm was another side effect of our relative’s visit to the hospital.
Kevin McCabe
St. Catharines
