Public healthcare facilities that ban assisted-dying services on their premises and force sick and frail patients to go elsewhere to access their right to choice are failing to provide patient-centred care, writes Dr. David Amies.
Two distressing stories have appeared in the media recently concerning officials employed by Alberta’s Covenant Health who actively sought to prevent two severely ill and suffering patients from applying to end their lives with medical assistance in dying (MAID).
Covenant Health is the largest Catholic healthcare provider in Canada. It is operated by a board of 11 directors, appointed by and answerable to the Catholic Bishops of Alberta. It has 16 facilities in 11 communities across Alberta. It provides a third of all palliative care beds in the province. It is very largely funded by the public purse.
- Unassisted death: Read Doreen Nowicki's story
- "He couldn't verbally scream or he would have": Read Bob Hergott's story
Doreen's story
In May 2017, Doreen Nowicki, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), was a patient in the Edmonton General Continuing Care Centre (EGCCC) — previously the Edmonton General Hospital, run by the Grey Nuns of Montréal. Her condition deteriorated to the extent that she decided to seek MAID, a legal process since Bill C-14 came into effect in June 2016.
For a patient to proceed with MAID, two separate medical assessments are necessary, and the assessors have to agree that the patient qualifies. (Details of the qualifications can be found here.) Catholic healthcare facilities are averse to MAID. Church doctrine holds that MAID is sinful because it considers the taking of human life in all circumstances to be reprehensible. That’s why many faith-based healthcare facilities have prohibited the necessary assessments for MAID and its actual implementation on any of their premises.
In spite of this attitude, the administrators at EGCCC decided to allow Doreen to undergo the necessary assessments in her room. However, their thoughtful and compassionate consideration was abruptly cancelled at the last minute for reasons that have not been made clear, and arrangements were suddenly put in place to transfer Doreen to a non-Catholic facility. The family was “blindsided” and told a little more than an hour before the assessment was scheduled to take place.
Unfortunately, in the ensuing chaos and confusion, logistical problems occurred, and Doreen and the medical assessors were forced to conduct her sensitive, private business on a sidewalk bench outside the facility. Doreen was so distressed by the experience that the assessment had to end early. Thankfully, despite the obstacles and inhumane treatment she faced, Doreen was eventually able to receive and complete the necessary assessments and later exercised her right to an assisted death in another facility in June 2017.
Bob's story
The second story concerns Bob Hergott, a 72-year-old man suffering with ALS. He had been a patient in Edmonton’s St. Joseph's Auxiliary Hospital for five years when he opted to ask for MAID. Covenant Health, the operators of St. Joseph's, took a very hard-nosed stance with him, even refusing to let him complete the official request form for the procedure in his room. He was forced to mount his motorized wheelchair and go across the street to meet the two witnesses. It was pouring rain, and he and the independent witnesses had to take refuge in a bus shelter where the paperwork was completed.
Whatever did the staff of St. Joseph's think they were doing when they refused to allow Bob Hergott to complete his request form for MAID? He was filling out a legal government form! Do hospitals or hospices have the right to stop such activities? That action was positively Orwellian and badly misjudged.
Bob was also forced to leave St. Joseph’s for his assessments and later took a cab to the Royal Alexandra Hospital where he received MAID. His transfer was “horrible for him,” according to his best friend, who said Bob “couldn’t verbally scream or he would have.”
"Healthcare in Canada ought to be patient-centred"
Reviewing this pair of harrowing stories, I find it hard to believe that I'm describing events that took place in Canada in the 21st-century. These appalling stories are examples of forced transfers for assisted dying. Such transfers occur when frail, sick people seeking the relief of MAID are obliged to vacate beds in healthcare facilities because their desires run counter to the views — often religious, but not always — of those operating the institutions in which they are lodged.
The conflict between patients’ legitimate desires and rights and the conscientious objections of organizations such as Covenant Health is complex. Citizens of this country are free to hold religious beliefs and to act accordingly. On the other hand, the very sick are now entitled to seek a medically assisted death. Occasionally, these competing desires and beliefs will clash. As yet, we are uncertain how frequently such clashes occur, but it will be in everyone's best interest to find an acceptable way through these dilemmas.
A few fundamental principles are worth stating. Healthcare professionals and organizations must put the needs and desires of their patients above all other considerations. Healthcare in Canada ought to be patient-centred. Forcing the very sick and frail to leave a facility in which they may have been living for months or years to seek assessments or even to go and die is cruel.
Forced transfers are very stressful and such stress may even lead to a loss of capacity rendering the person incapable of giving the necessary, legally required, informed consent immediately prior to undergoing MAID. It is absolutely not the business of the facility’s management to interfere in the discussions a patient may wish to have with an outside clinician, even when that clinician has come to discuss MAID or to make an assessment for that purpose. Such transactions are private and confidential. Neither do dissenting organizations have the right to prevent their patients from completing legal paperwork on their premises.
When health practitioners are faced with requests that they in all good conscience cannot fulfill, then it is their duty to ensure that the patient is informed of or put in touch with an alternative source of help. They cannot and must not put their own desires and wishes first. If that is too hard, perhaps their choice of profession was misguided.
Dr. David Amies
Indeed, John Savelescu, a formidably credentialed professor of philosophy at Oxford, holds that the care received by a patient should not be determined and influenced by the personal and private beliefs of the professional he or she happens to encounter. He goes further and maintains that healthcare workers have a duty to avoid appointments to posts where they are likely to be faced with complex ethical problems that challenge their beliefs. For example, some Catholic physicians working in gynaecology are going to have their religious ideas tested repeatedly by the desires of their patients. Savelescu even suggests that selection panels should ensure that applicants for appointments or training should do their best to screen out those whose belief systems are likely to clash with patients’ expectations.
"Stony-hearted treatment"
Organizations such as Covenant Health are historical relics and might do well to phase themselves out of the healthcare field and allow secular organizations to replace them. Since almost all of their funding comes from the public purse, the additional costs faced by the governments after their withdrawal would be minimal. A frequent complaint from the public is that publicly funded organizations ought to do what the public wants.
The two stories that prompted this piece do not do much credit to the reputation of Covenant Health or its masters. Such stony-hearted treatment of the most grievously afflicted members of society is hardly consonant with Christian doctrine and does little to enhance its reputation. Organizations like Covenant Health are going to be around for a while yet and the demand for MAID is not going to disappear. Unedifying clashes such as those that so badly affected Mrs. Nowicki and Mr. Hergott may become more frequent. Some constructive imagination is required to find a solution.
May I suggest that Covenant Health and others of its ilk consider administratively excising from their religious control those rooms in which patients seeking MAID are lodged until the assessments and procedure are completed? Once the patient has died, the room would be “returned” to the institution. In that way, the sufferer would not be unjustly treated and be forced to move, and the institution's conscience would be clear. Such a process would be immeasurably kinder and more considerate than the ghastly travesties that took place in Edmonton. This solution would require some sophistication to put into place, but it would not be the first time that useful lateral thinking has been employed to get around awkward situations.*
Dr. David Amies is a retired doctor in Lethbridge, Alta., and a member of DWDC's Clinicians Advisory Council.
*Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Ottawa in 1943 while her family was in exile. She was heir to the Dutch throne and it was essential that she have full Dutch citizenship. The Canadian government of the day declared the hospital in which she was born to be extra-territorial in order to bring this about.
Showing 9 reactions
Sign in with
Facebook TwitterI neglected to read the last paragraph of your post. The hospice erred (in spades) if they did not make it very clear to your brother that they did not allow MAID in their facility. He had every right to know that up front. They shouldn’t have to allow it, but they must make it clear to every patient before they are admitted, so a patient can make alternative arrangements if necessary.
Condolences on your brother’s loss. Clearly something went wrong with wrong with the pain control given to your brother near the end of his life. It is my understanding that guidelines of the Catholic Church it is all right to give medication sufficient to relieve pain even if it may hasten death, as long as the primary intent is pain relief, not causing death. Even terminal sedation is allowed if absolutely necessary to provide patient comfort. The hospice staff did not understand the guidelines or did not choose to follow them. That is no reason to require MAID on Catholic or other faith-based health care facilities, such as those run by Orthodox Jews or evangelical Protestants.
I’m aware of a number of people who have passed away under the supervision of Catholic hospice services at home or in secular long-term care facilities, and others who have passed away in Catholic hospitals or long-term care facilities. I know of no credible evidence that any of these people were not treated with dignity, respect, and they all died peacefully and without pain.
The answer is simple: understand a facility or hospice’s policy about MAID before being admitted there. If it conflicts with your wishes, don’t darken its door. Conversely, if you have conscientious objection to MAID, don’t visit a facility where it is allowed. In either case, if you end up in one that conflicts with your values, get out of there ASAP!
By the way, it is not just religious people who object to MAID. The non-sectarian disability rights group,
Not Dead Yet, firmly opposes it. They have chapters in many countries. Liz Carr, a disabled atheist from the UK, speaks eloquently against it. Kevin Yuill, an academic from the UK, made a cogent case against it in a recent article in The Economist. Use your favorite search engine to learn more.
I don’t think any religion should have a effect on how a person chooses to pass. Yes I get that it’s “suicide” to a great amount of religions but when someone is terminal or they are diagnosed with a illness that will never let them return to their old healthy state then let them pass peacefully.
In the 3 weeks my brother was in the hospice I heard a lot of people struggling till the end. I am a retired personal care aide and have been with many different families at the time their loved one is passing away, I have gone far and beyond my job description to make the family comfortable and understanding what stage is next, what to expect while the registered nurse does her job with keeping the resident comfortable and with peace. and I’ve been the family.
I also think that communication was missed. If my brother had known that he couldn’t have recurved MAID at the specific hospice I don’t think he would have left the cancer centre.
We don’t let our animals suffer so why should our loved ones ?
No one requires anyone to receive care in a faith-based health care facility. If that were the case, you would have a point. Anyone that says that a health care provider or health care facility must perform a medical procedure that is tantamount to murder to them does impose their beliefs on them. No patient ever has an absolute right to have any health provider perform any procedure just because the patient wants it.
People uncomfortable with the ethics of faith-based health care facilities can certainly find plenty of other places where their values are respected. Leave the ones with pro-life values alone so people who are uncomfortable with MAID can have theirs respected, too.
“Standing firm in their beliefs.” That says it all. They are “your” beliefs. Then let the rest of us stand firm in “our” beliefs. We have the right to ours as well. Do not impose yours on anyone else. WE are not imposing our beliefs on you. Does that not make sense?
Although I belong to another Christian denomination, I must stand up for my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. They are not being hypocritical. They are standing firm in their beliefs. Roman Catholic Christians do not believe that life must be preserved at all costs. There are times to refuse treatments. There are good Catholic hospice and palliative care programs. Catholics just believe that is wrong to deliberately take life prematurely, be it by assisted suicide or euthanasia. My Anglican priest recently told me that our church also believes this.