12 years old you can stay home alone. 18 years old you're considered an adult. 27 years old, you're not allowed to have autonomy if your parents don't understand your decisions?
12 years old you can stay home alone.
18 years old you're considered an adult.
27 years old, you're not allowed to have autonomy if your parents don't understand your decisions?
I lean strongly towards personal autonomy in almost all cases, so I find it difficult to argue against someone passing away painlessly versus doing it on their own and likely doing it in an...
I lean strongly towards personal autonomy in almost all cases, so I find it difficult to argue against someone passing away painlessly versus doing it on their own and likely doing it in an undignified, painful way or worse, botching it and ending up in a worse position than they were originally. That said, it's a very interesting case.
the only hard evidence suggests that her medical status is "normal"
she refuses to submit any evidence of her own
there's a question of competency due to her autism, which raises all kinds of ableism issues
at least one doctor would refuse to grant her MAID, while two accepted her claim
The procedure that's in place doesn't require her to submit evidence to anyone else like the courts or her family, autism doesn't raise questions of competency, and the fact that a tiebreaker was...
The procedure that's in place doesn't require her to submit evidence to anyone else like the courts or her family, autism doesn't raise questions of competency, and the fact that a tiebreaker was used is within the scope of the procedure that approved her for MAID. I don't see why there's any question here, aside from her father being willing to go to extreme lengths to control his daughter's life.
You don't take pause and question your use of "extreme lengths" when referring to a father trying to prevent his daughter's death? Even a supporter of bodily autonomy should have a vague...
You don't take pause and question your use of "extreme lengths" when referring to a father trying to prevent his daughter's death?
Even a supporter of bodily autonomy should have a vague understanding of a parent's love for their child.
My mother killed herself at the end of an illness. I supported her in leaving this world at a time of her choosing. The thought of someone trying to trap someone else here when the person...
My mother killed herself at the end of an illness. I supported her in leaving this world at a time of her choosing. The thought of someone trying to trap someone else here when the person requesting MAID thinks it's their time to go fills me with disgust and rage. I could be much less polite than my initial statement, if you think it would get my point across more.
You have no connection nor understanding of this family nor their story so flying into a rage over a father's perfectly reasonable reaction to his daughter's decision to commit suicide for obscure...
You have no connection nor understanding of this family nor their story so flying into a rage over a father's perfectly reasonable reaction to his daughter's decision to commit suicide for obscure reasons is probably not the ideal response.
The only concrete evidence we have in this case is that a neurologist concluded their is nothing neurologically wrong with the patient and that she is "normal". While I understand that doctors are not infallible, perhaps there should be reason to inspect this case more closely.
As with a lot of legislation passed by Canada's current government, bill C7 was a good (and very necessary) idea with very little thought or revision put into it. The program has no appeals process and no method for review. It has been criticiszed by healthcare specialists for it's lack of safeguards against abuse, or oversight. The opaque and possibly non-existent evidence in support of this patient's MAiD claim is a perfect example of this lack of oversight and data collection.
Where has anybody flew into a rage? I would expect a little more of a charitable interpretation from someone arguing for the same. I'm not against the court taking on this case but I fail to see...
You have no connection nor understanding of this family nor their story so flying into a rage over a father's perfectly reasonable reaction to his daughter's decision to commit suicide for obscure reasons is probably not the ideal response.
Where has anybody flew into a rage? I would expect a little more of a charitable interpretation from someone arguing for the same.
The opaque and possibly non-existent evidence in support of this patient's MAiD claim is a perfect example of this lack of oversight and data collection.
I'm not against the court taking on this case but I fail to see how the system is failing here. A temporary injunction was granted, and there will be a review if required:
The other part of his decision will deal with whether a judicial review will take place, which would examine how doctors came to sign off on M.V.'s MAID application.
To me, that's the only piece that requires review. If the daughter is competent and she wants to die, that fulfills the intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering condition by itself. All denying her would do is send her off a bridge somewhere else.
Not to get involved with the first two points here, but I'm not so sure your final sentence is true and its something that is sometimes missed in conversations like this. A present desire to die...
Not to get involved with the first two points here, but I'm not so sure your final sentence is true and its something that is sometimes missed in conversations like this. A present desire to die does not mean someone has a persistent desire to die. Most people who attempt suicide and survive do not go on to die by suicide, by wide margins. And most people who die by suicide had never attempted before. Without knowing any more about this case, I really don't think its clear that its either this or jumping off a bridge.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't very clear, but I think the law does a decent job of requiring that. You need a witness, two independent medical opinions plus additional safeguards if your death is not...
Yes, I agree. I wasn't very clear, but I think the law does a decent job of requiring that. You need a witness, two independent medical opinions plus additional safeguards if your death is not reasonably foreseeable:
(a) one of the two practitioners who provides an assessment must have expertise in the medical condition that is causing the unbearable suffering;
(b) the person must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve your suffering, including counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services, and palliative care, and the person must be offered consultations with professionals who provide those services;
(c) the person and their practitioners must have discussed reasonable and available means to relieve their suffering and all agree that the person has seriously considered those means;
(d) the person's eligibility assessment must take a minimum of 90 days, unless the assessments have been completed sooner and the person is at immediate risk of losing their capacity to consent; and
(e) immediately before euthanasia is provided, the practitioner must give you an opportunity to withdraw your request and ensure that you give express consent to receive euthanasia.
"To me, that's the only piece that requires review. If the daughter is competent and she wants to die, that fulfills the intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering condition by...
"To me, that's the only piece that requires review. If the daughter is competent and she wants to die, that fulfills the intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering condition by itself. All denying her would do is send her off a bridge somewhere else."
There are plenty of people who were stopped from killing themselves or failed to do so that later in life were glad they didn't die. So... I'd argue that your last sentence is wrong. People do get to the point of finding life unendurable, been stopped from killing themselves, and managed to find their way to finding life tolerable again.
Honestly I think if it is not a terminal disease (or unfixable physical pain) they are suffereing from, I'm all formaking it very hard and them having to do a lot to prove that this life is not livable for them (I won't deny that some probably just never are going to not suffer alive even if not a terminal disease).
He'll, I've heard from people whose lives turned around after they jumped off the (metaphorical or physical) bridge and realized they didn't want to die mid-air and then ended up surviving.
He'll, I've heard from people whose lives turned around after they jumped off the (metaphorical or physical) bridge and realized they didn't want to die mid-air and then ended up surviving.
From the post I reacted to. If you re-read the post directly stated that is what they are feeling but have chosen to post civilly and my reply is suggesting refraining from allowing their stated...
thinks it's their time to go fills me with disgust and rage.
From the post I reacted to. If you re-read the post directly stated that is what they are feeling but have chosen to post civilly and my reply is suggesting refraining from allowing their stated emotion to affect their post was the correct choice.
I.E. The interpretation doesn't require charity because they explicitly explained the story fills them with rage.
The rest of your reply, minus your final point which /u/GPL addresses, seems to agree with me. The case requires legal review and the facts need to be determined. There is no such system for that in place. This case is the first of.its kind. The defendant's legal council is arguing it's not necessary.
I missed your edit, but I don't think it ending up in the courts is necessarily a bad thing. Pretty much the entire history of this legislation has come directly as a result of court rulings,...
I missed your edit, but I don't think it ending up in the courts is necessarily a bad thing. Pretty much the entire history of this legislation has come directly as a result of court rulings, including the recently added ability for people lacking a reasonably foreseeable death to qualify for MAiD.
Do I think the legislation is perfect? No, it's definitely not but I do think it's a good start. I'm struggling to see what sort of review process would satisfy this situation: the father is upset that 2/3 doctors gave the referral, would he feel any better if it was 3/5 from a review panel? I think having some legal definitions in the legislation would be nice but at the end of the day we're relying on professional opinions and there isn't going to be anything that makes things black and white.
No one in the article claimed that there is "nothing wrong" with her, and we also know that 2 out of 3 doctors approved her application. I don't feel like I have enough information to say what...
The only concrete evidence we have in this case is that a neurologist concluded their is nothing wrong with the patient and that she is "normal".
No one in the article claimed that there is "nothing wrong" with her, and we also know that 2 out of 3 doctors approved her application.
I don't feel like I have enough information to say what ought to be done here, but I don't see how misrepresenting the situation could be beneficial.
You are correct in that my stream of conscious typing I meant to say "nothing neurologically wrong" and for that I apologize. With that said it's clear I was referring to this part of the article...
You are correct in that my stream of conscious typing I meant to say "nothing neurologically wrong" and for that I apologize. With that said it's clear I was referring to this part of the article and a more charitable understanding of my post would recognize that instead of insinuating I was purposely misrepresenting the situation.
The father submitted a 2021 report with the court, authored by a doctor at a neurology clinic who concluded M.V. required no followup and was "normal" and sent her back to her family doctor.
Perhaps the word "normal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but specialists are not commonly rejecting patients that have health problems related to their field.
I would not have said anything if it were just that, but you also said it was "the only concrete evidence" which is not true, because - again - 2 doctors approved the application (for reasons we...
I would not have said anything if it were just that, but you also said it was "the only concrete evidence" which is not true, because - again - 2 doctors approved the application (for reasons we don't know).
I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were doing it "purposely" in the sense of malicuous intent. I assumed you were just playing a little fast and loose with words, as we all do sometimes.
Without knowing anything about those two other doctors, their assessments, or at least their specialties I maintain that the vague suggestion that two gave their approval is not concrete evidence....
Without knowing anything about those two other doctors, their assessments, or at least their specialties I maintain that the vague suggestion that two gave their approval is not concrete evidence. First of all in Canada we allow Nurse Practicioners the ability to judge MAiD eligibility, who I do not believe have the qualifications to make this assessment, I don't even know if I believe regular GP's should have the ability to decide on eligibility.
The 2/3 also means that's one doctor didn't believe the patient should be approved. Why not? We have a neurologist claiming the patient is "normal" and another doctor claiming they don't rise to the level necessary for MAiD.
This, in my mind, is enough to question the eligibility and it's likely this case will play a part in determining that for Canada's MAiD program. If the application for MAiD isn't unanimous why is it as simple as finding a third doctor? Why does the case not pass to a higher level of judgement at that point?
These are the quirks we need to work out in the program and it's not helpful when the bodily autonomy ultras trot out the "shalt not infringe" arguments.
As a non-Canadian who understands the broad strokes of MAiD but not the whole path to its approval, was there ever discussion around having specific panels of doctors to make the MAiD decisions...
As a non-Canadian who understands the broad strokes of MAiD but not the whole path to its approval, was there ever discussion around having specific panels of doctors to make the MAiD decisions rather than it seemingly be something where one could "doctor shop" to find some that will sign off?
As far as I recall this was never the case. Federal legislation for MAiD was first introduced because the Canadian Supreme Court struck down legislation that euthanasia and assisted suicide was...
As far as I recall this was never the case. Federal legislation for MAiD was first introduced because the Canadian Supreme Court struck down legislation that euthanasia and assisted suicide was culpable murder. The court have the government twelve months to come up with the legislation that eventually became the first iteration of MAiD which did not allow for cases where natural death want forseeable. This was in 2016.
Since then, numerous legal challenges pushed the Federal government to releasw bill C-7 which increased the permissiveness of the program to applicants with long term disability, i.e. the necessity of reasonably foreseeable death was removed.
All through this process it has been determined by the federal government that the two physicians and a legal witness ensuring it was done without coercion are most of what's required on top of the patients repeated consent up to and including the moment of administering the treatment.
I think the distinction to make is that a parent can feel love for child, and be afraid the child is making a wrong choice, and be afraid of the idea of them dying. Those are all normal and...
I think the distinction to make is that a parent can feel love for child, and be afraid the child is making a wrong choice, and be afraid of the idea of them dying. Those are all normal and healthy responses that we can empathize with, regardless of the she of the child.
But for the parent to interfere with the decisions of an adult child because they disagree with them is a serious violation of boundaries and the child's autonomy as an adult. I will say there are many relationships between parents and adult children where healthy boundaries do not exist or the not respected by the parents, so that might make this behavior by the father seem more "normal" but does not make it acceptable.
I don't think fact that MAID is final really changes the situation, either. Adult children get tattoos or have babies, both things that permanently change their bodies. They move across the country to strange cities and live in bad neighborhoods. All these things have risks that they might die. All are within their rights as adults to do. I don't see why this should be any different.
Obviously, I don't know all the details of the situation in the article, but I think the father should be trying harder to listen to his daughter and understand what he's doing that makes her want to shut him out of this process. He should be paying for two therapists (a therapist for himself and a family therapist for him and his daughter, if she will go), not two lawyers.
In cases like this I would suggest whoever is preventing the MAID should be 100% responsible for that person in perpetuity. For their upkeep, health, living and all related costs and work should...
You don't take pause and question your use of "extreme lengths" when referring to a father trying to prevent his daughter's death?
In cases like this I would suggest whoever is preventing the MAID should be 100% responsible for that person in perpetuity. For their upkeep, health, living and all related costs and work should fall on whoever wants to interfere.
Otherwise we'll be in a world where anyone's MAID can be vetoed by "a parent's love for their child" and then the parents just go about their life and see the child once every christmas like before.
There is some question as to whether the procedure was in fact followed correctly, and in any case laws are still subject to review by the courts. Autism comes in many forms. I don't know if it's...
The procedure that's in place
There is some question as to whether the procedure was in fact followed correctly, and in any case laws are still subject to review by the courts.
autism doesn't raise questions of competency
Autism comes in many forms. I don't know if it's correct to say that autism never raises a question of competency.
Nothing in my reading of the article says that the procedure was followed incorrectly, barring the patients' statement that their death was reasonably foreseeable and her approval happening on the...
Nothing in my reading of the article says that the procedure was followed incorrectly, barring the patients' statement that their death was reasonably foreseeable and her approval happening on the other track. Was there something more?
As far as autism goes, yes, there are levels of autism at which someone isn't competent to make their own decisions. If that had been the case here, it wouldn't have gotten to this point, as the father would have much more direct and existing power over her medical decisions. I was speaking in the general case that autism alone shouldn't raise a question of competency. It would be better for all of the people on the spectrum if no one used it as a reason to question their life choices.
There's also the fact that she put on her application that her death is reasonably foreseeable, but the evaluation said that it was not. Additionally, the fact that the father said he believes a...
There's also the fact that she put on her application that her death is reasonably foreseeable, but the evaluation said that it was not.
Additionally, the fact that the father said he believes a third party is inappropriately influencing her makes me wonder if there's some sort of abusive relationship involved.
I'm not necessarily opposed to dying in situations that cause extreme distress and are not terrible, but I'm not sure if I truly support medical assistance in dying. Part of me says that if you aren't willing to do it yourself, then you shouldn't be able to get someone else to do it for you. But then there are also diseases like ALS where if you wait too long, you won't be able to do it yourself and you'll be stuck.
There are many more parts of me saying many different things, and I can't list them all here.
Medical assistance in dying is partly a thing because the state asserts control over so many actions and resources that someone could use to kill themselves without said medical assistance. Of...
Medical assistance in dying is partly a thing because the state asserts control over so many actions and resources that someone could use to kill themselves without said medical assistance. Of course there are plenty of valid reasons for the state to regulate those things, but it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that if it blocks pathways that have some rightful actions and some wrongful that they create a new pathway to facilitate the rightful actions. Bodily autonomy is a rightful action.
There's a big issue with the phrase "reasonably foreseeable" and its overly broad definition within the MAID legislation. This article (fairly long PDF) discusses a lot of the issues with the...
her death is reasonably foreseeable, but the evaluation said that it was not.
There's a big issue with the phrase "reasonably foreseeable" and its overly broad definition within the MAID legislation. This article (fairly long PDF) discusses a lot of the issues with the phrasing, but essentially states that it has no legal definition, and that doctors may be wary of saying "yes" to something without knowing exactly what that means. It concludes with a proposal for more concrete guidelines on how to interpret "reasonably foreseeable death", but that's not the legal definition, it's just something that is probably correct within the scope of the existing laws.
By the current (extremely broad, not legally-tested, definition), my death is reasonably foreseeable. I will certainly die within the next 100 years, and based on average life expectancy, probably half of that. Some doctors may be comfortable saying that this is reasonably foreseeable. Most probably would not. But from a legal perspective, until someone challenges this in court, it's basically just a matter of shopping around until you find enough doctors to agree with you.
Would you be more comfortable with a law that allowed people to acquire euthanasia supplies for the purposes of suicide? If I am ever stuck with a terminal illness and wish to die with dignity, I...
Part of me says that if you aren't willing to do it yourself, then you shouldn't be able to get someone else to do it for you.
Would you be more comfortable with a law that allowed people to acquire euthanasia supplies for the purposes of suicide? If I am ever stuck with a terminal illness and wish to die with dignity, I would be willing to do it myself. In fact, I would find it strictly preferable to inject myself in the comfort of my own home surrounded by loved ones.
But where I live, euthanasia medication is tightly controlled and can only be administered by specific medical professionals. I'd have no choice but to either go to a hospital or else resort to rather more horrific methods.
That's what currently happens in California. A mix of four narcotic powders are mixed with juice, and you have to swallow several ounces of it quickly. It's not something you could sneak into...
That's what currently happens in California. A mix of four narcotic powders are mixed with juice, and you have to swallow several ounces of it quickly. It's not something you could sneak into someone's drink.
I don't think it's appropriate for people to be speculating about who's in the right here. The only uncontested fact is that two of the three doctors approved of the procedure. Obviously it's...
I don't think it's appropriate for people to be speculating about who's in the right here. The only uncontested fact is that two of the three doctors approved of the procedure. Obviously it's someone's business to determine whether her suffering qualifies for MAID, but the patient is absolutely right that the reason is "none of [our] damn business".
In my opinion, people are reading way too much into this case given how little we know.
What a heartbreaking situation all around. There isn't a person in the story I don't feel bad for. The daughter for struggling with such challenges; the father fighting to keep his daughter alive;...
What a heartbreaking situation all around. There isn't a person in the story I don't feel bad for. The daughter for struggling with such challenges; the father fighting to keep his daughter alive; the judge, for having to make a decision on such difficult matters.
I hope folks commenting will remind themselves of the individual humanity of the various actors in the story.
Does make me wonder if they worked this hard and had these many people involved to not want her to end her life in the first place. Pure speculation but this very much reminds me of the anti...
Does make me wonder if they worked this hard and had these many people involved to not want her to end her life in the first place. Pure speculation but this very much reminds me of the anti abortion stance whereas they go to massive lengths to remove your bodily autonomy but provide no assistance to the outcome of losing your bodily autonomy.
That's one of the things that very much scares me about MAID. That and the fact that apparently, within the short time that its been approved, over 45,000(!) Canadians have already used it and the...
"As it stands, AHS [Alberta Health Services] operates a MAID system with no legislation, no appeal process and no means of review," wrote Miller in her brief for the court.
That's one of the things that very much scares me about MAID. That and the fact that apparently, within the short time that its been approved, over 45,000(!) Canadians have already used it and the number keeps jumping up every year. That blows me away.
My greatest fear is that MAID is going to be corrupted like all other medical procedures that can be done for profit. It only requires two qualified doctors to approve you for MAID - as far as I know, there's nothing to stop two enterprising docs to set up their one stop MAID clinic and have people come get approved and book their earthly departure date. I can foresee them syncing services with funeral homes and have a one stop shop.
Not really a dystopian fantasy, given that we already have clinics for many other medical specialties already.
Death isn't profitable. Sickness is profitable. Stringing people along as long as you can with more and more expensive treatments is profitable. Two MAID consultations is not any more profitable...
Death isn't profitable. Sickness is profitable. Stringing people along as long as you can with more and more expensive treatments is profitable. Two MAID consultations is not any more profitable than any other daily consultation, takes a lot more paperwork than most, and comes with the threat of criminal liability if misused.
Im on a forum with a lot of older people and there are many who have said they're never going to wait to die naturally if they are struck with a fatal disease or if they suffer from...
Im on a forum with a lot of older people and there are many who have said they're never going to wait to die naturally if they are struck with a fatal disease or if they suffer from dementia/Alzheimer's. I've read more than a few who wish they had something like MAID in their state but say "I'll fly to Canada and do it there if I have to" although I dont think its quite that easy.
Suicide aka assisted dying tourism is already a thing, the best known company being Dignitas in Sweden. And its already profitable:
According to the official Dignitas website, as of 2017 Dignitas charged its patients 7,000 Swiss Francs (approximately £5,180/US$7,980) for preparation and suicide assistance, or 10,500 Swiss Francs (approximately £7,770/US$11,970) in case of taking over family duties, including funerals, medical costs and official fees. Dignitas has been known to waive certain costs where there is hardship. Under Swiss Law, Dignitas operates as a non-profit organization, but does not open its finances to the public, which has elicited criticism from some quarters.
8k or 12k for an event thats over in an hour seems pretty profitable to me even if there is funeral arrangements and paperwork. Looks like Dignitas does over 200 a year. Averaging 10k thats still 2M and the baby boomers are just hitting their stride.
Yes, but it's currently expensive because it's rare and in demand. If you live somewhere that it's legal, it's not an expensive process. The drugs did cost my mom $1,200 because they weren't...
Yes, but it's currently expensive because it's rare and in demand. If you live somewhere that it's legal, it's not an expensive process. The drugs did cost my mom $1,200 because they weren't covered by insurance, but that's a far cry from $10k and a trip to Switzerland.
I'm curious about a forum with older people, do you mind sharing a link? From time to time I also like to "sneak" into conservative/blue ribbon/republican spaces and see what people outside of my...
I'm curious about a forum with older people, do you mind sharing a link? From time to time I also like to "sneak" into conservative/blue ribbon/republican spaces and see what people outside of my bubbles are saying.
"Final Report" on 'mental illnesses' as it relates to the MAID act First, I consider labeling autism as a 'mental illness' to be highly offensive. Highly. But, that aside, it's probably the only...
Structural vulnerability refers to the impacts of the interaction of demographic attributes (i.e., sex, gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity), with assumed or attributed statuses related to one’s position in prevailing social, cultural, and political hierarchies. Negative perceptions of these characteristics may lead to difficult social circumstances such as unstable housing and lack of employment opportunities. It can also affect self-perception and have an impact on how people interact with and are treated by health care systems. These types of circumstances can influence suffering and contribute to viewing death as one’s only option.
At the same time, persons with mental disorders may be assumed, incorrectly, to be incapable of consenting to receive MAiD. Their suffering may not be visible and the severity or unbearableness of it may be underestimated. A request may be taken as evidence the person is suicidal and even lead to coercive measures such as involuntary hospitalization.
That MAiD requests may mask profound unmet needs, or conversely, that such requests may not be received with the seriousness they deserve ... In the course of assessing a request for MAiD – regardless of the requester’s diagnoses – a clinician must carefully consider whether the person’s circumstances are a function of systemic inequality.
First, I consider labeling autism as a 'mental illness' to be highly offensive. Highly.
But, that aside, it's probably the only category autism fits into this discussion under. Canada appears to be continuing to kick the can down the road for some reason, regarding the eligibility of someone with a 'mental illness' to access MAID. Looking over their website on the act shows they've kind of continued to keep extending an exclusion for the category to MAID. So no one with a 'mental illness' is eligible for MAID according to that.
Neurotypicals consider their worldview, their habits, their everything, normal. They've gone on to shape the world and everything in it according to that definition of normal. They expect everything, including societal interactions, personal contacts, everything, to fit into that definition of normal.
Autistics don't fit into that definition. Autistics process the world in their own ways. Since neurotypicals have designed the world autistics live in, this makes autistics neurodiverse. Neuro-atypical.
I have discussed this a lot, in person and online, and even in this age of supposed acceptance, where (especially on social media) everyone seems to profess a desire to bend considerably to show acceptance and favor to anyone who might be different ... autistics really don't get much consideration at all. Allowance. Acceptance.
Flat out, people reject weird, strange, unusual. They want the familiar patterns always, all the time, just so. They want you to act like they expect, to talk and think as they expect. They are taken off guard and often confused when someone doesn't fit into the patterns. They react by rejecting the strangeness. Which, with autistics, usually means they reject the person. They exclude, they push away, they ignore, and they even lash out against.
Nothing about this is right, or fair. It just is. This is what neurotypicals do to autistics. The result is autistics usually feel exactly as they're treated. Like outsiders. Like foreigners. Strangers. Outcasts.
This weighs. Far, far more than neurotypicals seem to ever understand. Every single day for someone with autism, in a world outlined along neurotypical expectations, is a challenge. Every conversation, every workplace interaction, every encounter on the sidewalk or with a store clerk, every everything, is a challenge.
Because the NT world doesn't often doesn't operate logically, or in an understandable manner, to an autistic. People do the strangest damn things, and consider their behavior normal. They say something, but mean something else entirely. All the time. Every sentence is often a dichotomy the NT never recognizes.
NTs communicate a big chunk of the information they're trying to convey via body language and other nonverbal cues. Meanwhile, a lot of autistics with social impact don't understand, and can't readily recognize this nonverbal language. Such cues are hardwired into the NT brain. They're autonomic. Instinctive. Unconscious.
A NT doesn't have to "think" to utilize nonverbal communication. It just happens. They talk and express things nonverbally, and read those same cues from other NTs. It's as natural as breathing most of the time.
Meanwhile, autistics are trying to cognitively process this secondary communication channel that NTs place most of their information into. When you're autistic, you're trying to use brain power to replace this circuit NTs take for granted. This circuit that lets them tap nonverbal communication.
It is exhausting. Think of how hard it is to sit for a test. A big one, like a final exam. You've studied, and that's tiring. Now you're in the test, and you're trying to remember everything. What was this formula, when did that event happen, how do calculate this outcome?
Now imagine having to do that on the fly, on your feet, in every, single, conversation. Sentence by sentence. They just smiled; was that happy, or sarcasm, or resignation? Their tone just shifted; are they upset now, or exasperated, or bored? Wait ... they're definitely upset now. Why? Did you say something to upset them? What could it have been? Oh they're ending the conversation and walking away. You must have fucked up and done something wrong.
Again.
If you think that gets old, if you think that's an exhausting way to live, you're right. It is.
In a world designed by NTs, for NTs, autistics are outcasts. No one makes any allowance. And when they do, it often takes the form of infantilization. By NT standards, autistics who can't fit in and get on with it are broken. And a lot of NTs treat autistics like they're broken. They don't just look down on autistics, they talk down to them, treat them as lesser and incapable.
And it's not just about friends and social contact. Work requires social interaction. You have to pass a social test to get hired; because if the hiring person thinks you're weird or strange or whatever, they're less likely to hire you. Coworkers, supervisors, bosses, put you through a social test on every interaction; and will let you languish without promotion or raise, or even dismiss (fire) you, when you fail their NT social tests.
You will literally not get a job, or be let go from a job, simply because you can't fit in socially. Even though you are probably trying really hard to figure the fuck out how. Even though it makes no sense how or why or what you did that was so wrong, so incorrect, so worthy of punishment. Even though you wrack your brains, sit at home practicing how to smile or inflect or hold yourself. Even though you go on Youtube or scour books trying to figure out decryption keys that'll let you navigate the minefield that every interaction with a NT is.
Some people with autism withdraw. They just give up. Sometimes they never really come out in the first place. They see at an early age that the world makes zero sense to them, and stay mostly in their heads where things do have order and reason. To an NT, this is a sign of being incapable. And by some standards it is.
But often it's mostly because people insist on forcing autistics to act like NTs. You see this constantly. NT parents of autistic children are often quite guilty of this. They want their kid to "be normal", sometimes for a supposedly altruistic reason (my child's life will be easier if they can fit in), but often for a selfish reason (my life will be easier if they act normal).
I point all that out because it's relevant. The patient here wants medically assisted suicide. You look at suicide rates and autism pops up as a risk factor. Someone with autism is very often much more likely to either attempt, commit, or consider suicide. If one doesn't understand how an autistic sees their struggles to live in, fit into, a NT world, these statistics might not make sense. Or have a lot of meaning. A lot of impact.
You get tired of failing. Period. Bottom line. You can't find or keep a job. Everything revolves around money, even basic living. No money you don't eat, don't have a bed under a roof. You don't have clothes or shoes. And you certainly don't have even the simplest things that might distract you from the constant awareness that this life, society, seems to consider you of no value.
NTs want confident, outgoing, charming people. Those are who they like. That's who they gravitate to. Those are the leaders, the supervisors, the business owners, the people in charge. Those types gather others to them, lead them into interesting challenges doing interesting things. Those the types who organize success in just about any form, whether it's business or pay or war or science or whatever.
If you're none of those things, and you can't even keep a simple cashier job because you keep getting fired, yeah sooner or later it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that you might give up. And why not? Your life isn't going anywhere no matter how hard you try. Maybe you can reduce the stress you're struggling to deal with if you just stop trying to hard without results.
NTs take living in a NT world for granted. They look at autistics and sigh. Usually with annoyance. Sometimes even anger. They actively dislike autistics because 'they're just so difficult." This at the same time as a variety of people with other differences do receive accommodation. Sometimes quite a lot of accommodation, even to the point of the entire language being restructured to accommodate them and their sensitivities.
An accommodation that is rarely, if ever, extended to someone with autism. If you say "Could you explain what you mean", for example, that can be taken as an attack. What if, wait for it, the words mean exactly what they sound like they mean. I didn't understand, and I need you to clarify. But if you don't say them with the right nonverbal lacing, you've said them wrong. You've said them in some way you don't get, but that apparently was an attack or an insult.
It gets old. It gets to the point where you wonder how much longer you can deal with the confusion and the lack of understanding. You don't understand them, but they mostly only care that they find you annoying/irritating/difficult and act to push you away.
And that's your whole life. Day in, day out. Sometimes, it's literally everyone; even your parents, who you might be stuck with since you can't hold a job and thus can't maintain your life circumstances and are reliant upon them.
It is saddening and depressing to think that someone with autism would want to end their life. But it happens a lot more than NTs like to consider. Mostly because NTs, including NTs in the medical community, don't often consider autistics. It's only recently, in the past generation or so, that autistics have started to have the opportunity to conduct medical research and contribute information to the medical knowledge bank from an autistic perspective.
And sometimes, when that's happened, NT medical professionals have pushed back hard. They'll question, disbelieve, all while ignoring how they're NT arguing with an autistic doctor or autistic researcher about autism. Maybe the actual autistic person might, just might, know a smidge more about autism than they do? Maybe?
No, of course not. Because the autistic person didn't say it the right ways. Didn't act in the right way. Didn't fit in, didn't communicate across the whole of the NT nonverbal channels properly and appropriately so the information came in a form the NT medical community could understand. Didn't structure their research and organize their results according to NT sensibilities and NT expectations.
They didn't conform to an NT world. They had the gall to assume logic and facts were the bottom line.
At the end of the day, this patient, this M.V. woman, she's an adult. She should have the right to make adult decisions. Her father is simply trying to block her decision, in effect arguing she's incapable of deciding. So even he's infantilizing her. His daughter is 27, and apparently with nearly three decades of time to do it in, he's never managed to build some sort of connection with her that helps her with her position and station in life.
And his answer to this is she should continue to suffer.
The Hollywood version of this would be the movie opens with her applying to end her life. Dad finds out, they argue. Courts come into it. She'll talk to the doctors and explain it's over and she needs this, and somehow they approve it. Then, the Hollywood moment. Dad will come to a realization that he needs to change to help his child. He'll have to do some things differently to reach her, to build a bridge to her, so they can understand one another better.
This moment of clarity would be the climax. He'd suddenly stop ignoring what she's been saying, stop misunderstanding what she's saying, and actually listen to her. Actually understand her. And think of, find ways, to reach her that make sense by her standards. That meet her on her ground for a change, rather than demanding she (again) attempt to come to his.
So she won't feel so alone. So she'll feel like someone's in her corner, on her side, understands her pain.
The music would come up, and maybe they hug, but maybe not. Another NT assumption is physical contact is important, and some autistics do not like contact, which of course is one more reason to outcast an autistic. Who doesn't like hugs? Hint: some people don't. But my point is the Hollywood version would be the two of them arriving at an understanding that leaves them both in a better place.
Somewhere they can live, together. As a family.
That's all most people want. To belong.
Maybe her Dad can see this without the movie, and talk to her, and listen to her. Not ignore her, or shrug off her views and concerns. What happens if he succeeds in getting her kicked off the MAID list? So she can't die peacefully, without trauma.
That'll just fix things? She'll go on in misery? Great job Dad. You won. Proved one more time the world's by NTs, for NTs.
In this case I think that if you have no evidence to suggest that the two separate approving doctors colluded in some way then that should be enough to indicate they are following the guidelines....
In this case I think that if you have no evidence to suggest that the two separate approving doctors colluded in some way then that should be enough to indicate they are following the guidelines. If this was a case of multiple rejections and one odd approval for MAID, and no one besides the patient or doctor knows what physical ailment is relevant, then there should be some mechanism to stop the procedure. That’s not distinguishable from a situation where someone is suicidally depressed and seeks out MAID, which if administered seems to be considered murder in Canada.
12 years old you can stay home alone.
18 years old you're considered an adult.
27 years old, you're not allowed to have autonomy if your parents don't understand your decisions?
I lean strongly towards personal autonomy in almost all cases, so I find it difficult to argue against someone passing away painlessly versus doing it on their own and likely doing it in an undignified, painful way or worse, botching it and ending up in a worse position than they were originally. That said, it's a very interesting case.
The procedure that's in place doesn't require her to submit evidence to anyone else like the courts or her family, autism doesn't raise questions of competency, and the fact that a tiebreaker was used is within the scope of the procedure that approved her for MAID. I don't see why there's any question here, aside from her father being willing to go to extreme lengths to control his daughter's life.
You don't take pause and question your use of "extreme lengths" when referring to a father trying to prevent his daughter's death?
Even a supporter of bodily autonomy should have a vague understanding of a parent's love for their child.
My mother killed herself at the end of an illness. I supported her in leaving this world at a time of her choosing. The thought of someone trying to trap someone else here when the person requesting MAID thinks it's their time to go fills me with disgust and rage. I could be much less polite than my initial statement, if you think it would get my point across more.
You have no connection nor understanding of this family nor their story so flying into a rage over a father's perfectly reasonable reaction to his daughter's decision to commit suicide for obscure reasons is probably not the ideal response.
The only concrete evidence we have in this case is that a neurologist concluded their is nothing neurologically wrong with the patient and that she is "normal". While I understand that doctors are not infallible, perhaps there should be reason to inspect this case more closely.
As with a lot of legislation passed by Canada's current government, bill C7 was a good (and very necessary) idea with very little thought or revision put into it. The program has no appeals process and no method for review. It has been criticiszed by healthcare specialists for it's lack of safeguards against abuse, or oversight. The opaque and possibly non-existent evidence in support of this patient's MAiD claim is a perfect example of this lack of oversight and data collection.
Where has anybody flew into a rage? I would expect a little more of a charitable interpretation from someone arguing for the same.
I'm not against the court taking on this case but I fail to see how the system is failing here. A temporary injunction was granted, and there will be a review if required:
To me, that's the only piece that requires review. If the daughter is competent and she wants to die, that fulfills the intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering condition by itself. All denying her would do is send her off a bridge somewhere else.
Not to get involved with the first two points here, but I'm not so sure your final sentence is true and its something that is sometimes missed in conversations like this. A present desire to die does not mean someone has a persistent desire to die. Most people who attempt suicide and survive do not go on to die by suicide, by wide margins. And most people who die by suicide had never attempted before. Without knowing any more about this case, I really don't think its clear that its either this or jumping off a bridge.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't very clear, but I think the law does a decent job of requiring that. You need a witness, two independent medical opinions plus additional safeguards if your death is not reasonably foreseeable:
"To me, that's the only piece that requires review. If the daughter is competent and she wants to die, that fulfills the intolerable and enduring physical or psychological suffering condition by itself. All denying her would do is send her off a bridge somewhere else."
There are plenty of people who were stopped from killing themselves or failed to do so that later in life were glad they didn't die. So... I'd argue that your last sentence is wrong. People do get to the point of finding life unendurable, been stopped from killing themselves, and managed to find their way to finding life tolerable again.
Honestly I think if it is not a terminal disease (or unfixable physical pain) they are suffereing from, I'm all formaking it very hard and them having to do a lot to prove that this life is not livable for them (I won't deny that some probably just never are going to not suffer alive even if not a terminal disease).
He'll, I've heard from people whose lives turned around after they jumped off the (metaphorical or physical) bridge and realized they didn't want to die mid-air and then ended up surviving.
From the post I reacted to. If you re-read the post directly stated that is what they are feeling but have chosen to post civilly and my reply is suggesting refraining from allowing their stated emotion to affect their post was the correct choice.
I.E. The interpretation doesn't require charity because they explicitly explained the story fills them with rage.
The rest of your reply, minus your final point which /u/GPL addresses, seems to agree with me. The case requires legal review and the facts need to be determined. There is no such system for that in place. This case is the first of.its kind. The defendant's legal council is arguing it's not necessary.
I missed your edit, but I don't think it ending up in the courts is necessarily a bad thing. Pretty much the entire history of this legislation has come directly as a result of court rulings, including the recently added ability for people lacking a reasonably foreseeable death to qualify for MAiD.
Do I think the legislation is perfect? No, it's definitely not but I do think it's a good start. I'm struggling to see what sort of review process would satisfy this situation: the father is upset that 2/3 doctors gave the referral, would he feel any better if it was 3/5 from a review panel? I think having some legal definitions in the legislation would be nice but at the end of the day we're relying on professional opinions and there isn't going to be anything that makes things black and white.
I see, apologies for misreading as accusatory rather than hypothetical.
No one in the article claimed that there is "nothing wrong" with her, and we also know that 2 out of 3 doctors approved her application.
I don't feel like I have enough information to say what ought to be done here, but I don't see how misrepresenting the situation could be beneficial.
You are correct in that my stream of conscious typing I meant to say "nothing neurologically wrong" and for that I apologize. With that said it's clear I was referring to this part of the article and a more charitable understanding of my post would recognize that instead of insinuating I was purposely misrepresenting the situation.
Perhaps the word "normal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but specialists are not commonly rejecting patients that have health problems related to their field.
I would not have said anything if it were just that, but you also said it was "the only concrete evidence" which is not true, because - again - 2 doctors approved the application (for reasons we don't know).
I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were doing it "purposely" in the sense of malicuous intent. I assumed you were just playing a little fast and loose with words, as we all do sometimes.
Without knowing anything about those two other doctors, their assessments, or at least their specialties I maintain that the vague suggestion that two gave their approval is not concrete evidence. First of all in Canada we allow Nurse Practicioners the ability to judge MAiD eligibility, who I do not believe have the qualifications to make this assessment, I don't even know if I believe regular GP's should have the ability to decide on eligibility.
The 2/3 also means that's one doctor didn't believe the patient should be approved. Why not? We have a neurologist claiming the patient is "normal" and another doctor claiming they don't rise to the level necessary for MAiD.
This, in my mind, is enough to question the eligibility and it's likely this case will play a part in determining that for Canada's MAiD program. If the application for MAiD isn't unanimous why is it as simple as finding a third doctor? Why does the case not pass to a higher level of judgement at that point?
These are the quirks we need to work out in the program and it's not helpful when the bodily autonomy ultras trot out the "shalt not infringe" arguments.
As a non-Canadian who understands the broad strokes of MAiD but not the whole path to its approval, was there ever discussion around having specific panels of doctors to make the MAiD decisions rather than it seemingly be something where one could "doctor shop" to find some that will sign off?
As far as I recall this was never the case. Federal legislation for MAiD was first introduced because the Canadian Supreme Court struck down legislation that euthanasia and assisted suicide was culpable murder. The court have the government twelve months to come up with the legislation that eventually became the first iteration of MAiD which did not allow for cases where natural death want forseeable. This was in 2016.
Since then, numerous legal challenges pushed the Federal government to releasw bill C-7 which increased the permissiveness of the program to applicants with long term disability, i.e. the necessity of reasonably foreseeable death was removed.
All through this process it has been determined by the federal government that the two physicians and a legal witness ensuring it was done without coercion are most of what's required on top of the patients repeated consent up to and including the moment of administering the treatment.
However, I think everyone here appreciates your restraint.
I think the distinction to make is that a parent can feel love for child, and be afraid the child is making a wrong choice, and be afraid of the idea of them dying. Those are all normal and healthy responses that we can empathize with, regardless of the she of the child.
But for the parent to interfere with the decisions of an adult child because they disagree with them is a serious violation of boundaries and the child's autonomy as an adult. I will say there are many relationships between parents and adult children where healthy boundaries do not exist or the not respected by the parents, so that might make this behavior by the father seem more "normal" but does not make it acceptable.
I don't think fact that MAID is final really changes the situation, either. Adult children get tattoos or have babies, both things that permanently change their bodies. They move across the country to strange cities and live in bad neighborhoods. All these things have risks that they might die. All are within their rights as adults to do. I don't see why this should be any different.
Obviously, I don't know all the details of the situation in the article, but I think the father should be trying harder to listen to his daughter and understand what he's doing that makes her want to shut him out of this process. He should be paying for two therapists (a therapist for himself and a family therapist for him and his daughter, if she will go), not two lawyers.
In cases like this I would suggest whoever is preventing the MAID should be 100% responsible for that person in perpetuity. For their upkeep, health, living and all related costs and work should fall on whoever wants to interfere.
Otherwise we'll be in a world where anyone's MAID can be vetoed by "a parent's love for their child" and then the parents just go about their life and see the child once every christmas like before.
Emphasis mine.
This is likely already the case seeing as how she lives with her father.
There is some question as to whether the procedure was in fact followed correctly, and in any case laws are still subject to review by the courts.
Autism comes in many forms. I don't know if it's correct to say that autism never raises a question of competency.
Nothing in my reading of the article says that the procedure was followed incorrectly, barring the patients' statement that their death was reasonably foreseeable and her approval happening on the other track. Was there something more?
As far as autism goes, yes, there are levels of autism at which someone isn't competent to make their own decisions. If that had been the case here, it wouldn't have gotten to this point, as the father would have much more direct and existing power over her medical decisions. I was speaking in the general case that autism alone shouldn't raise a question of competency. It would be better for all of the people on the spectrum if no one used it as a reason to question their life choices.
There's also the fact that she put on her application that her death is reasonably foreseeable, but the evaluation said that it was not.
Additionally, the fact that the father said he believes a third party is inappropriately influencing her makes me wonder if there's some sort of abusive relationship involved.
I'm not necessarily opposed to dying in situations that cause extreme distress and are not terrible, but I'm not sure if I truly support medical assistance in dying. Part of me says that if you aren't willing to do it yourself, then you shouldn't be able to get someone else to do it for you. But then there are also diseases like ALS where if you wait too long, you won't be able to do it yourself and you'll be stuck.
There are many more parts of me saying many different things, and I can't list them all here.
Medical assistance in dying is partly a thing because the state asserts control over so many actions and resources that someone could use to kill themselves without said medical assistance. Of course there are plenty of valid reasons for the state to regulate those things, but it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that if it blocks pathways that have some rightful actions and some wrongful that they create a new pathway to facilitate the rightful actions. Bodily autonomy is a rightful action.
There's a big issue with the phrase "reasonably foreseeable" and its overly broad definition within the MAID legislation. This article (fairly long PDF) discusses a lot of the issues with the phrasing, but essentially states that it has no legal definition, and that doctors may be wary of saying "yes" to something without knowing exactly what that means. It concludes with a proposal for more concrete guidelines on how to interpret "reasonably foreseeable death", but that's not the legal definition, it's just something that is probably correct within the scope of the existing laws.
By the current (extremely broad, not legally-tested, definition), my death is reasonably foreseeable. I will certainly die within the next 100 years, and based on average life expectancy, probably half of that. Some doctors may be comfortable saying that this is reasonably foreseeable. Most probably would not. But from a legal perspective, until someone challenges this in court, it's basically just a matter of shopping around until you find enough doctors to agree with you.
Would you be more comfortable with a law that allowed people to acquire euthanasia supplies for the purposes of suicide? If I am ever stuck with a terminal illness and wish to die with dignity, I would be willing to do it myself. In fact, I would find it strictly preferable to inject myself in the comfort of my own home surrounded by loved ones.
But where I live, euthanasia medication is tightly controlled and can only be administered by specific medical professionals. I'd have no choice but to either go to a hospital or else resort to rather more horrific methods.
Theoretically, yes. In a world where someone will use that to kill their spouse, I'm less than 100% sure about my answer.
Perhaps a hospice care professional could deliver the euthanasia supplies and offer guidance (or at least supervision) through the process?
That's what currently happens in California. A mix of four narcotic powders are mixed with juice, and you have to swallow several ounces of it quickly. It's not something you could sneak into someone's drink.
I don't think it's appropriate for people to be speculating about who's in the right here. The only uncontested fact is that two of the three doctors approved of the procedure. Obviously it's someone's business to determine whether her suffering qualifies for MAID, but the patient is absolutely right that the reason is "none of [our] damn business".
In my opinion, people are reading way too much into this case given how little we know.
What a heartbreaking situation all around. There isn't a person in the story I don't feel bad for. The daughter for struggling with such challenges; the father fighting to keep his daughter alive; the judge, for having to make a decision on such difficult matters.
I hope folks commenting will remind themselves of the individual humanity of the various actors in the story.
Does make me wonder if they worked this hard and had these many people involved to not want her to end her life in the first place. Pure speculation but this very much reminds me of the anti abortion stance whereas they go to massive lengths to remove your bodily autonomy but provide no assistance to the outcome of losing your bodily autonomy.
That's one of the things that very much scares me about MAID. That and the fact that apparently, within the short time that its been approved, over 45,000(!) Canadians have already used it and the number keeps jumping up every year. That blows me away.
My greatest fear is that MAID is going to be corrupted like all other medical procedures that can be done for profit. It only requires two qualified doctors to approve you for MAID - as far as I know, there's nothing to stop two enterprising docs to set up their one stop MAID clinic and have people come get approved and book their earthly departure date. I can foresee them syncing services with funeral homes and have a one stop shop.
Not really a dystopian fantasy, given that we already have clinics for many other medical specialties already.
Death isn't profitable. Sickness is profitable. Stringing people along as long as you can with more and more expensive treatments is profitable. Two MAID consultations is not any more profitable than any other daily consultation, takes a lot more paperwork than most, and comes with the threat of criminal liability if misused.
Im on a forum with a lot of older people and there are many who have said they're never going to wait to die naturally if they are struck with a fatal disease or if they suffer from dementia/Alzheimer's. I've read more than a few who wish they had something like MAID in their state but say "I'll fly to Canada and do it there if I have to" although I dont think its quite that easy.
Suicide aka assisted dying tourism is already a thing, the best known company being Dignitas in Sweden. And its already profitable:
8k or 12k for an event thats over in an hour seems pretty profitable to me even if there is funeral arrangements and paperwork. Looks like Dignitas does over 200 a year. Averaging 10k thats still 2M and the baby boomers are just hitting their stride.
Yes, but it's currently expensive because it's rare and in demand. If you live somewhere that it's legal, it's not an expensive process. The drugs did cost my mom $1,200 because they weren't covered by insurance, but that's a far cry from $10k and a trip to Switzerland.
I'm curious about a forum with older people, do you mind sharing a link? From time to time I also like to "sneak" into conservative/blue ribbon/republican spaces and see what people outside of my bubbles are saying.
"Final Report" on 'mental illnesses' as it relates to the MAID act
First, I consider labeling autism as a 'mental illness' to be highly offensive. Highly.
But, that aside, it's probably the only category autism fits into this discussion under. Canada appears to be continuing to kick the can down the road for some reason, regarding the eligibility of someone with a 'mental illness' to access MAID. Looking over their website on the act shows they've kind of continued to keep extending an exclusion for the category to MAID. So no one with a 'mental illness' is eligible for MAID according to that.
Neurotypicals consider their worldview, their habits, their everything, normal. They've gone on to shape the world and everything in it according to that definition of normal. They expect everything, including societal interactions, personal contacts, everything, to fit into that definition of normal.
Autistics don't fit into that definition. Autistics process the world in their own ways. Since neurotypicals have designed the world autistics live in, this makes autistics neurodiverse. Neuro-atypical.
I have discussed this a lot, in person and online, and even in this age of supposed acceptance, where (especially on social media) everyone seems to profess a desire to bend considerably to show acceptance and favor to anyone who might be different ... autistics really don't get much consideration at all. Allowance. Acceptance.
Flat out, people reject weird, strange, unusual. They want the familiar patterns always, all the time, just so. They want you to act like they expect, to talk and think as they expect. They are taken off guard and often confused when someone doesn't fit into the patterns. They react by rejecting the strangeness. Which, with autistics, usually means they reject the person. They exclude, they push away, they ignore, and they even lash out against.
Nothing about this is right, or fair. It just is. This is what neurotypicals do to autistics. The result is autistics usually feel exactly as they're treated. Like outsiders. Like foreigners. Strangers. Outcasts.
This weighs. Far, far more than neurotypicals seem to ever understand. Every single day for someone with autism, in a world outlined along neurotypical expectations, is a challenge. Every conversation, every workplace interaction, every encounter on the sidewalk or with a store clerk, every everything, is a challenge.
Because the NT world doesn't often doesn't operate logically, or in an understandable manner, to an autistic. People do the strangest damn things, and consider their behavior normal. They say something, but mean something else entirely. All the time. Every sentence is often a dichotomy the NT never recognizes.
NTs communicate a big chunk of the information they're trying to convey via body language and other nonverbal cues. Meanwhile, a lot of autistics with social impact don't understand, and can't readily recognize this nonverbal language. Such cues are hardwired into the NT brain. They're autonomic. Instinctive. Unconscious.
A NT doesn't have to "think" to utilize nonverbal communication. It just happens. They talk and express things nonverbally, and read those same cues from other NTs. It's as natural as breathing most of the time.
Meanwhile, autistics are trying to cognitively process this secondary communication channel that NTs place most of their information into. When you're autistic, you're trying to use brain power to replace this circuit NTs take for granted. This circuit that lets them tap nonverbal communication.
It is exhausting. Think of how hard it is to sit for a test. A big one, like a final exam. You've studied, and that's tiring. Now you're in the test, and you're trying to remember everything. What was this formula, when did that event happen, how do calculate this outcome?
Now imagine having to do that on the fly, on your feet, in every, single, conversation. Sentence by sentence. They just smiled; was that happy, or sarcasm, or resignation? Their tone just shifted; are they upset now, or exasperated, or bored? Wait ... they're definitely upset now. Why? Did you say something to upset them? What could it have been? Oh they're ending the conversation and walking away. You must have fucked up and done something wrong.
Again.
If you think that gets old, if you think that's an exhausting way to live, you're right. It is.
In a world designed by NTs, for NTs, autistics are outcasts. No one makes any allowance. And when they do, it often takes the form of infantilization. By NT standards, autistics who can't fit in and get on with it are broken. And a lot of NTs treat autistics like they're broken. They don't just look down on autistics, they talk down to them, treat them as lesser and incapable.
And it's not just about friends and social contact. Work requires social interaction. You have to pass a social test to get hired; because if the hiring person thinks you're weird or strange or whatever, they're less likely to hire you. Coworkers, supervisors, bosses, put you through a social test on every interaction; and will let you languish without promotion or raise, or even dismiss (fire) you, when you fail their NT social tests.
You will literally not get a job, or be let go from a job, simply because you can't fit in socially. Even though you are probably trying really hard to figure the fuck out how. Even though it makes no sense how or why or what you did that was so wrong, so incorrect, so worthy of punishment. Even though you wrack your brains, sit at home practicing how to smile or inflect or hold yourself. Even though you go on Youtube or scour books trying to figure out decryption keys that'll let you navigate the minefield that every interaction with a NT is.
Some people with autism withdraw. They just give up. Sometimes they never really come out in the first place. They see at an early age that the world makes zero sense to them, and stay mostly in their heads where things do have order and reason. To an NT, this is a sign of being incapable. And by some standards it is.
But often it's mostly because people insist on forcing autistics to act like NTs. You see this constantly. NT parents of autistic children are often quite guilty of this. They want their kid to "be normal", sometimes for a supposedly altruistic reason (my child's life will be easier if they can fit in), but often for a selfish reason (my life will be easier if they act normal).
I point all that out because it's relevant. The patient here wants medically assisted suicide. You look at suicide rates and autism pops up as a risk factor. Someone with autism is very often much more likely to either attempt, commit, or consider suicide. If one doesn't understand how an autistic sees their struggles to live in, fit into, a NT world, these statistics might not make sense. Or have a lot of meaning. A lot of impact.
You get tired of failing. Period. Bottom line. You can't find or keep a job. Everything revolves around money, even basic living. No money you don't eat, don't have a bed under a roof. You don't have clothes or shoes. And you certainly don't have even the simplest things that might distract you from the constant awareness that this life, society, seems to consider you of no value.
NTs want confident, outgoing, charming people. Those are who they like. That's who they gravitate to. Those are the leaders, the supervisors, the business owners, the people in charge. Those types gather others to them, lead them into interesting challenges doing interesting things. Those the types who organize success in just about any form, whether it's business or pay or war or science or whatever.
If you're none of those things, and you can't even keep a simple cashier job because you keep getting fired, yeah sooner or later it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that you might give up. And why not? Your life isn't going anywhere no matter how hard you try. Maybe you can reduce the stress you're struggling to deal with if you just stop trying to hard without results.
NTs take living in a NT world for granted. They look at autistics and sigh. Usually with annoyance. Sometimes even anger. They actively dislike autistics because 'they're just so difficult." This at the same time as a variety of people with other differences do receive accommodation. Sometimes quite a lot of accommodation, even to the point of the entire language being restructured to accommodate them and their sensitivities.
An accommodation that is rarely, if ever, extended to someone with autism. If you say "Could you explain what you mean", for example, that can be taken as an attack. What if, wait for it, the words mean exactly what they sound like they mean. I didn't understand, and I need you to clarify. But if you don't say them with the right nonverbal lacing, you've said them wrong. You've said them in some way you don't get, but that apparently was an attack or an insult.
It gets old. It gets to the point where you wonder how much longer you can deal with the confusion and the lack of understanding. You don't understand them, but they mostly only care that they find you annoying/irritating/difficult and act to push you away.
And that's your whole life. Day in, day out. Sometimes, it's literally everyone; even your parents, who you might be stuck with since you can't hold a job and thus can't maintain your life circumstances and are reliant upon them.
It is saddening and depressing to think that someone with autism would want to end their life. But it happens a lot more than NTs like to consider. Mostly because NTs, including NTs in the medical community, don't often consider autistics. It's only recently, in the past generation or so, that autistics have started to have the opportunity to conduct medical research and contribute information to the medical knowledge bank from an autistic perspective.
And sometimes, when that's happened, NT medical professionals have pushed back hard. They'll question, disbelieve, all while ignoring how they're NT arguing with an autistic doctor or autistic researcher about autism. Maybe the actual autistic person might, just might, know a smidge more about autism than they do? Maybe?
No, of course not. Because the autistic person didn't say it the right ways. Didn't act in the right way. Didn't fit in, didn't communicate across the whole of the NT nonverbal channels properly and appropriately so the information came in a form the NT medical community could understand. Didn't structure their research and organize their results according to NT sensibilities and NT expectations.
They didn't conform to an NT world. They had the gall to assume logic and facts were the bottom line.
At the end of the day, this patient, this M.V. woman, she's an adult. She should have the right to make adult decisions. Her father is simply trying to block her decision, in effect arguing she's incapable of deciding. So even he's infantilizing her. His daughter is 27, and apparently with nearly three decades of time to do it in, he's never managed to build some sort of connection with her that helps her with her position and station in life.
And his answer to this is she should continue to suffer.
The Hollywood version of this would be the movie opens with her applying to end her life. Dad finds out, they argue. Courts come into it. She'll talk to the doctors and explain it's over and she needs this, and somehow they approve it. Then, the Hollywood moment. Dad will come to a realization that he needs to change to help his child. He'll have to do some things differently to reach her, to build a bridge to her, so they can understand one another better.
This moment of clarity would be the climax. He'd suddenly stop ignoring what she's been saying, stop misunderstanding what she's saying, and actually listen to her. Actually understand her. And think of, find ways, to reach her that make sense by her standards. That meet her on her ground for a change, rather than demanding she (again) attempt to come to his.
So she won't feel so alone. So she'll feel like someone's in her corner, on her side, understands her pain.
The music would come up, and maybe they hug, but maybe not. Another NT assumption is physical contact is important, and some autistics do not like contact, which of course is one more reason to outcast an autistic. Who doesn't like hugs? Hint: some people don't. But my point is the Hollywood version would be the two of them arriving at an understanding that leaves them both in a better place.
Somewhere they can live, together. As a family.
That's all most people want. To belong.
Maybe her Dad can see this without the movie, and talk to her, and listen to her. Not ignore her, or shrug off her views and concerns. What happens if he succeeds in getting her kicked off the MAID list? So she can't die peacefully, without trauma.
That'll just fix things? She'll go on in misery? Great job Dad. You won. Proved one more time the world's by NTs, for NTs.
In this case I think that if you have no evidence to suggest that the two separate approving doctors colluded in some way then that should be enough to indicate they are following the guidelines. If this was a case of multiple rejections and one odd approval for MAID, and no one besides the patient or doctor knows what physical ailment is relevant, then there should be some mechanism to stop the procedure. That’s not distinguishable from a situation where someone is suicidally depressed and seeks out MAID, which if administered seems to be considered murder in Canada.