Episodic suffering not counting towards MAiD makes it extremely hard to access. It seems like if you had some success with a treatment for fifteen years, and then that treatment stops working or starts harming you, then as far as MAiD is concerned, the clock has only just started on your suffering. Even if you have thirty different drugs and countless hours of therapy in your treatment history, it barely seems to matter if the suffering was less profound at the time, or if there was a period of relative happiness in between periods of suffering. Presumably you'll be expected to take the medications all over again, or else the clock may not have started at all. After all, you need to demonstrate that you're trying to treat the suffering, even if medication is likely to be harmful at that point (you came off it for a reason). Not to mention how people who can't tolerate psychiatric medications for any period of time, or aren't comfortable with the substantial risks, have no chance at MAiD for mental illness. One of the best points in the video is that only those who have had access to extensive treatment will be eligible; it's difficult to see what use it would be to withhold the expansion until care is more accessible. (Contrary to what is said in this video, however, the argument that MAiD shouldn't happen until care is improved *is* utilized in regards to other Track 2 cases by many of the same disabiliy activists Kutcher mentions.) There is something related to this point I wonder about, though. I'd like to know how much and what kinds of therapy patients wanting MAiD MD-SUMC would be expected to have had, considering that it's much more difficult to access affordably than medication is. I haven't been able to find information on this. Will it be that MAiD MD-SUMC is only available to those wealthy enough to afford lots of therapy, or will assessors allow people through whose therapy experience is limited to their allotted free six weeks? (That seems to be what is available in my area for free-six hours of CBT or more general talk therapy, although you can get in line again and repeat it.) I doubt they would be so lenient, so it follows that MAiD for mental illness would be inaccessible to the poor-demonstrating again just how hard it is to have a sufficient MAiD résumé. But on the other hand, if they *are* that lenient, then the argument that we should wait until there is better quality mental health support would hold some water.
Episodic suffering not counting towards MAiD makes it extremely hard to access. It seems like if you had some success with a treatment for fifteen years, and then that treatment stops working or starts harming you, then as far as MAiD is concerned, the clock has only just started on your suffering. Even if you have thirty different drugs and countless hours of therapy in your treatment history, it barely seems to matter if the suffering was less profound at the time, or if there was a period of relative happiness in between periods of suffering. Presumably you'll be expected to take the medications all over again, or else the clock may not have started at all. After all, you need to demonstrate that you're trying to treat the suffering, even if medication is likely to be harmful at that point (you came off it for a reason). Not to mention how people who can't tolerate psychiatric medications for any period of time, or aren't comfortable with the substantial risks, have no chance at MAiD for mental illness.
One of the best points in the video is that only those who have had access to extensive treatment will be eligible; it's difficult to see what use it would be to withhold the expansion until care is more accessible. (Contrary to what is said in this video, however, the argument that MAiD shouldn't happen until care is improved *is* utilized in regards to other Track 2 cases by many of the same disabiliy activists Kutcher mentions.) There is something related to this point I wonder about, though. I'd like to know how much and what kinds of therapy patients wanting MAiD MD-SUMC would be expected to have had, considering that it's much more difficult to access affordably than medication is. I haven't been able to find information on this. Will it be that MAiD MD-SUMC is only available to those wealthy enough to afford lots of therapy, or will assessors allow people through whose therapy experience is limited to their allotted free six weeks? (That seems to be what is available in my area for free-six hours of CBT or more general talk therapy, although you can get in line again and repeat it.) I doubt they would be so lenient, so it follows that MAiD for mental illness would be inaccessible to the poor-demonstrating again just how hard it is to have a sufficient MAiD résumé. But on the other hand, if they *are* that lenient, then the argument that we should wait until there is better quality mental health support would hold some water.
Welp. Guess I have to do this myself.
What date is the upcoming vote on bill c-62