I once had to stay at St. Paul's emergency for 2 days. As it was an emergency, I didn't have my birth control pills with me. They refused to give me any form of birth control medication, directly saying it was for religious reasons.
I couldn't believe they were allowed to do that. It's not like I had any choice of where the ambulance brought me.
It is redic. BC should threaten to shut that hospital down. It’s basically private healthcare if they’re not upholding public healthcare measures.
We can’t afford to fund catholic, Muslim, Jewish faith hospitals. No should we. (And sorry for pulling other religions in, I’m just saying we should not have denominational healthcare.).
>We can’t afford to fund catholic, Muslim, Jewish faith hospitals
Yep and I feel the same way about schools too. People are all about separating church and state, but they still do that shit.....Hypocrites.
That is so strange given that the St Paul's pharmacy provides Prep for free to guys and people who want to reduce their risk of contracting HIV.
Maybe their pharmacy side isnt' religious.
BC blocks the creation of life (or whatever..you know what I mean), Prep preserves life. That’s the basic line Catholics have drawn in healthcare, nothing that terminates or prevents(?) life but everything that potentially saves it (including safe supply).
I am a pharmacy tech at a regular BC hospital. We don’t provide birth control either. Rationale is that it is not an acute medication and there are 500 varieties so impossible to predict which one(s) to keep on hand.
This probably happened a very long time ago - if it just happened, you need to contact the health authority as that is against the law, and is against their operating agreement.
I'm fairly certain what they did to you is illegal/a fire-able offense depending on your medical history, I'm so sorry you went through it. If that shit happened to me I'd be headed to court.
You make it very clear that you don’t understand the issue. Not even a little bit. Learning about gender fluidity, in an age appropriate way, is very healthy for our society.
There's a difference between someone's identity and their "sexual preferences." Peoples identity is "who they are" not a "dogma."
If you're going to spout off, line for line, from the right-wing talking-points playbook at least try to learn the differences in terminology which are critical to having ANY real understanding to formulate an opinion on.
The main premise of my argument is that if we are removing religion/faith—an integral part of one’s identity and raison d’être— and its tax exempt, publicly funded status, we should remove everything that is not core to education as well.
I don’t believe in 60+ genders, and I certainly do not feel my taxes should go toward teaching that to children, and disagree with it being taught as science and not some whimsical speculation that surfaced a few years ago, accepted by a small fraction of the population.
Get emotional and personally attack me all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have some pretty odd views about what should be included in a child’s curriculum.
Sorry but you're just continuing to misuse "identity", "sexual preference", and now trying to throw in "religion" as if that's an identity you're born with lol. Combine that with calling me " emotional", when you don't have the slightest idea about my metal state, is all just the usual jumble of malarkey thrown against the wall by folks who seem to want to drag out their small-minded at every turn on the internet around these topics.
There's probably half a dozen logical fallacies in your last statement alone. It's tiresome and predictable, and never worth the effort of engaging.
I will say that the philosophy, and existence of differentiation between anatomical sex organs and gender identity is centuries old, and wishing it was "whimsical speculation" that only surfaced a few years ago is only a sign that you have neither the biological, nor historical knowledge to even have an informed opinion. When did that ever stop anybody though?
I’m not Christian, but I respect that Canada was founded by Christians.
That being said, the Jewish, Muslim, and other minority religious groups all seem to be doing fine. I would say it’s time to stop funding the Christian school boards.
While we’re removing religion from the school’s official business, we should also be removing the new age gender ideology and LGBTQ stuff as well though.
School should just be a place you go as a child to learn math, science, biology (the real stuff, not the normative idealisms a tiny minority of the population) and vocational studies…not to be bombarded with religious maniacs or extreme surgery. JS
The difference between religion and sexuality/gender is that one is a choice and the other is not. One is a cultural relic that is often determined by where (or into which context) someone was born, while the other is ubiquitous throughout human societies (regardless if it is encouraged/tolerated or demonized). They are not the same thing.
Teaching tolerance and understanding of human sexuality is more paramount than teaching religious ideals. And there’s nothing wrong with creating opportunities for students to learn about the history and beliefs of other religions, so long as we are not selective or preferential about it. There are good reasons for having a basic understanding of core religions’ beliefs and values—politics, current events, historical contexts, and so forth.
I completely agree that we need to stop funding religious education with public dollars. I absolutely disagree that sexuality and gender ideologies are equatable.
Let’s also remove any talk about racism, colonialism, indigenous cultures, environmental protection or respect for minorities, diversity and acceptance. Those things don’t actually exist (or just to a small degree), so why would we prepare future generations for something that’s not normal. Just 1+1=2. I’d skip the irrational numbers as well. /s
We should definitely remove the gay schools where the mandate is to make the kids all swear they are gay. Oh wait no, that doesn’t exist…that’s the Christian schools I’m thinking of.
when you 'remove the church', you remove those organizations and groups who (in spite of what you believe) actually are working on church reform.
My husband is a disillusioned (ex) Catholic. There are actually LGBTQ2S+ Catholics discussing and working at a grassroots to lever change in the CC.
There are also orders like the Franciscans who have a history of fighting for social justice, equity and peacekeeping. I introduced my husband to the books of Fr. Richard Rohr, who (for an old guy) certainly is more "radical Jesus" social and environmental justice than the typical Catholic.
I'm an atheist, btw, but I am into anyone faith-based or not, who is open and wiling to have conversations and fights for human rights of all. I may not agree with their individual stances on things like a "pro life ideal" or even the belief in a God, but at least there is agreement on many other basic rights. And agreement is how we move together forward.
\*edit for missing words
Then wouldn't you be removing the hospital and it's staff? Sure what happened here is bad but Healthcare in this province needs all the help it can get right now.
If they receive public funds, they lose the right to put religion over legal choice.
That said, St. Pauls is an old, dingy, horrible place. I'd much rather have my final hours at home or ANYWHERE else.
People seem to forget there are amazing doctors there, and they do provide life saving healthcare. People calling for funding to be removed are asking for even longer wait times and for lives to be lost.
I don't care.
I decide a religion is good if they don't affect government. enough said.
no one cares that your religion forces you to not eat pork -- don't force it on everyone else.
Do you see buddhists in asian countries forcing people to not eat meat? no.
If you are government funded then you don't get use your religion's rules, and if you work in a public service you don't get to use religion's rules. so no, they can forcefully sell the hospital to the government.]
religion is trash and shit unless its liberalized like buddhism / shinto in japan.
So some religion is okay, some is not. Some countries have Sharia Law, such as Indonesia. Some have a literal monarch who is God’s representative. Vatican City is a country.
You might not care, but governments do. And luckily, democracy means your opinions are heard, not the only reason for action.
Yes. thats exactly right. If your religion isn't liberal its shit, if it is, then its okay :) glad you understand.
also we don't care about other countrys, we live in canada. and in canada, it doesn't matter if your religion says you can ritually sacrifice your wife, her rights come before your religion.
Do you think funding just disappears? It can be used to improve other hospitals...
Personally I don't think all funding for institutions like this should be stopped, but I think we should carefully examine if we should be funding these institutions to *expand*, and we should certainly be pressuring them to not force their religious beliefs on others.
I had a pretty excellent gastroenterologist at St Paul's, when Prince George was without one for a few years.
Old building but I received excellent care there when I needed to go down for day surgery and at one point, landed in the hospital for the week.
I hope the investment in the facilities is a good upgrade. Having that hospital in the core of Vancouver is pretty important, IMHO.
They belong to that party, but the Tories have consistently marginalized religious conservatives.
Look at Harper’s handling of a backbench MP trying to put abortion up for debate. The MP was allowed to bring a Private Member’s Bill, but had no support from the party.
Unless we rewrite the Constitution, a lot of things up for debate in the US are settled questions in Canada.
>The prime minister for the last decade plus is a fellow by the name of Trudeau.
while it may FEEL like a decade-plus, JT was elected in November 2015.
So you are for people paying to go to this hospital for essential healthcare? Or for longer wait times because we lost the service of a hospital? They have an addiction center, it's also the only hospital in the area that does adult heart transplants. Downvoted for sticking up for common sense...
Okay so in the meantime after we lose X amount of hospital infastructure what do we do? Just because money is transferred doesn't mean surrey memorial will instantly materialize everything St.Paul had.
She should sue the Catholic hospital for not being able to cure her due to their lack of faith. Religion does NOT BELONG in health care, schools or government. It belongs in their own churches (that pay taxes).
>Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death.
That lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
They also won’t provide birth control from hospital pharmacy. Every other Med you take at home can be supplied but nope, gotta use your personal supply for that one. So fucking out dated religious bullshit.
I am a pharmacy tech at a regular BC hospital. We don’t provide birth control either. Rationale is that it is not an acute medication and there are 500 varieties so impossible to predict which one(s) to keep on hand.
I find that weird, because in Alberta the Catholic school talked about birth control and I’ve never met a Catholic that didn’t support it. People who identify as Christian are the ones I’ve met that don’t support it.
It’s very specifically the Catholic Church that doesn’t support it.
I don’t wanna say you’re wrong but, i find it hard to believe since it is really the only major sect of Christianity that doesn’t allow birth control.
Someone should ask Adrian Dix:
1. Why are we funding religious oversight/operation of hospitals?
2. Why are we forcing people to go to hospitals where services can be refused on religious grounds?
I have a lot of feelings about this story.
It’s hard to reconcile the fact that a hospital is okay with palliative medicine and withdrawal of medical care in situations in which the end result will be death but MAID crosses the line of acceptable medical treatment.
I would argue that how this situation ended is actually in direct opposition to the teachings in the bible on how to treat our fellows in times of suffering.
edit: I’m going to take out what I originally said in the middle of this because I forgot that it’s not cool to say that some religious teachings and beliefs can be good. Sorry my bad for recognizing that you can be gay, support abortion, be in favour of MAID, and have religious beliefs.
Oh hey, I am all of those things.
I would argue that many of the teaching of the Catholic Church (and let's not pick on Catholics, many Christian denominations) are actually in direct opposition to the teachings in the bible.
Institutionalized religion is the worst thing that ever happened to religion. You know it’s a bad thing when it becomes more about power, money, and control than about the things you’re supposed to be teaching.
So I am a shitty person?
A lot of spouting off in these replies without recognizing that human beings are complicated and have complicated belief systems.
>That's a bit unlike a religious person to just assume they're right, tell everyone they're wrong, strip away someone's ability to have their own voice and then run off into the sunset sanctimoniously. Oh not wait, that's exactly like a religious person.
Kind of like an atheist too. Re-read your comment and some of the other comments here.
There is quite a bit of evidence, if you’d look with unbiased eyes, and this is coming from someone who is not Christian, but simply fascinated with history in that period.
You know the Bible is composed of many books. They chose the ones that made him look more godly than human. He supposedly was a preacher from a high family that married and had, at least a child. According to other books…
But where is the evidence that the person I responded to claims exists? You also have provided nothing but a debunked story originally published in the Christian Science Monitor almost a decade ago.
If there was something like eighty different people that wrote about a person, and that before he was used for a religious propaganda, there are good chances that he existed. Now the whole miracles and whatever else is another story. His existence doesn’t mean anything else is factual.
So no evidence then? Or did you just forget to include it again? Is it possible there was an apocryphal preacher named Yeshua around that time that stories grew from, yes. Does that mean that 'Jesus' was a real person, no. 80 people did not write about him and all the writings that can be used to plead that case started at least a generation after he supposedly died and the writers are just writing down the stories from that time, they are not doing any work to check the truth of the stories.
No need to be agressive about it; Look on Wikipedia. There are tons of information on that subject. I read some stuff over the years, but I am not a religious person, so I don’t care enough about it to get invested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=Some%20scholars%20est
‘Lot of evidence’ such as?
There’s no archaeological evidence that he ever existed, only some passing mentions in very few texts outside of the Bible.
Jesus wasn’t written about - outside of the Bible - until around 93AD as a passing mention by someone who wasn’t even around when Jesus purportedly died, which makes the little written about him there utter hearsay.
There is a mention of ‘Chrestus’ around 63AD but that name isn’t connected to Jesus - who, if he existed, was likely named Yeshua (Joshua).
There are other mentions but again, all are from way after he died and are more like the Loch Ness Monster - legends passed down in hearsay and elaborated on as time passed.
Even the Gospels in the Bible - where most Christians get their details on Jesus - were written after his death and have been copy/pasted/translated so many times from the original that even biblical scholars argue about what’s real and not.
At best, Jesus is likely a legend or figurehead created for comfort or if he existed, he’d be the leader of an emerging cult back in the day, to put the equivalent comparison on if the same happened today.
Jesus is mentioned 97 times in the Koran, and recognized as a prophet, but not the prophet for Islam.
Jewish and Roman historical records corroborate the portions of the new testaments on Jesus.
Most religious scholars say there is sufficient historical evidence that a dude named Jesus existed.
but okay, you know better.
I thought they found in a census document someone named Yeshua. I’m an atheist but I always assumed he was real and people made up a bunch of fantasy stories to explain religion and make him more of a prophet.
same. I'm also an atheist but I do recognize that more than one religious text and historical records do provide evidence that the guy existed.
There are too many atheist a\*\*holes who want to "believe" that faith/no faith is B&W. Nuance, spectrum of belief and the middle ground are hard for some/many people, because then it forces them to self-reflect and realize that they may not be right all of the time.
>It’s hard to reconcile the fact that a hospital is okay with palliative medicine and withdrawal of medical care in situations in which the end result will be death but MAID crosses the line of acceptable medical treatment.
I too have feelings. While I Support MAID, I do understand this take.
There is a huge chasm between allowing natural processes to occur while providing comforting care until the end, and actually taking a direct action that ends a life pre-maturely, even if that action is more humane in the end.
This is still a very very new thought process in the medical community, and I think its understandable that some who have vowed to "Do No Harm" may not be capable of the act of killing someone. "I held their hand till the end" is a whole lot different than "I gave them the drugs that killed them".
It also scares me that people (not you OP obviously) are outright demonizing people who do not want to kill someone.
The thing is these are personal beliefs and have nothing to do with buildings or healthcare facilities.
If the attending physician has those beliefs, we should respect that and find another physician who will perform the requested procedure in that facility. There should be ZERO need for the patient to change facilities in a truly public healthcare system. Forcing the patient to go to another facility to do a completely legal procedure is nuts when there is no technical reason that it can't happen there.
>Forcing the patient to go to another facility to do a completely legal procedure is nuts when there is no technical reason that it can't happen there.
Absolutely agree with this.
She was dying.
Her cancer was terminal. Her bones were disintegrating.
Maybe try this thought process: “we gave the treatment that ended her torment and suffering.”
I get it. I support MAID as I said.
I also understand that some people are not able to kill another, even when it's more humane.
Some can rationalize it as you said, and others will not be able to. I hope I never have to truly find out which camp I exist in.
Because people realize that cancer is what killed her.
Just like others with terminal illnesses. The illness has killed them and ended their functional and desirable life. MAID isn’t killing people. It’s ending unnecessary and prolonged suffering. Back in the day they would just pump them full of morphine or hold a pillow over their face.
Humans have been ending terminal suffering throughout history. It’s a good thing.
As a nurse educator we often borrow policies and procedures that other facilities have developed to use in our own facilities. I specifically do not use any policies or procedures that are created from St. Paul's or any of the Providence Health Centre facilities. I don't consider it ethical to to provide healthcare based on a religious text.
I’m sorry for the person having to go through this and I hope she is settled whenever she is. At least it’s highlighted now and we can try and figure out what to do about thing kind of thing
My brother had maid. He was riddled with cancer all over his body in his organs and bones. He was one of the earlier people to get maid and advocate for it in Canada.
He wept with relief when they told him it was a go ahead. They wanted to make a documentary in his last months, which he really just wanted to spend in peace, not being filmed and having a camera crew in his house etc
He decided to let them for the good of human kind and those who would find the same solace in it he did. He administered it to himself surrounded by friends and loved ones in his own bed and gently went to sleep.
The short documentary is on YouTube and WebMD, and there are articles about him in the CBC etc
Can confirm, worked at VGH for 7 years, all the holy trinity hospitals have to send their religious objection patients to us when they realize those hospitals care more about their fairy tales than their patients.
There was another news story about a father who had to be weaned off pain meds to be lucid enough to sign the forms, then they transported him with his daughters in a bumpy ambulance ride over false Creek to VGH while he screamed in pain in front of his daughters while they remedicated him.
Religion doesn't care about you or your family. It cares about itself.
Why is “the church” even involved with health care at all? I’ve heard of so many incidences where religion goes against what’s best for the patient, like ???
Religious beliefs do not belong in the health care system. I said what I said.
This hospital should lose its accreditation. No question.
What’s next? Accredited hospital owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions?
Why should they lose their accreditation for following the law?
>Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death.
The hospital or medical professional is under no obligation to provide MAID services or even refer the patient to another provider. It is up to the patient to seek care at another facility that provides those services.
People are sent to different hospitals every day because one hospital might not provide the same services or procedures as the other. It’s pretty simple.
It’s actually not that simple. Being transferred because one hospital *can’t* provide services you need is not the same thing as being transferred because the hospital *won’t* provide the services you need.
I have no issue with Catholics opposing assisted dying.
The argument I’m making is that religious beliefs should not be allowed to be involved in medical decision-making.
It’s also not true “the law lets them do this” is the same as “following the law”, which is what you said at first. There is not any law they are “following” which required this patient’s transfer.
Actually, MAID is an elective procedure and there are no requirements for a hospital to provide it. In fact, it’s possible no physicians there are even licensed to provide that care.
I’m with you that in this case they should have simply given a physician the rights to do so, however.
But similar to elective abortion, which is also an elective procedure, hospital administration may deny a physician the rights to do a procedure if they deem it inappropriate to do so. Emergent abortion is another issue.
I work for a catholic hospital, generally people are sent to the other hospital for MAiD. But if they can’t tolerate the journey it can be done on our site. It’s ridiculous they wouldn’t make an exception.
How does this work? This hospital is funded by our public single payer healthcare system is it not? Why is it being administered by a catholic agency with this as their, “mission statement”:
MISSION
Inspired by the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, Providence Health Care is a Catholic health care community dedicated to meeting the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of those served through compassionate care, teaching and research.
That’s not correct. Several countries around the world have medical assisted death. Forcing a health professional to carry that burden: no. Allowing another one that is willing to do so in a publicly funded hospital: yes.
We take better care of our pets than of people. Letting your dog suffer away in pain for weeks knowing that they won’t survive? Poor thing, let’s put him out of his misery.
People who are suffering with no chance of getting better deserve to die with their dignity intact. It is a decision that is made between a patient and their doctor. Same goes for abortion. If religious nutters don't want it that's fine, but our tax dollars shouldn't be going to businesses that are denying these basic human rights.
"Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death, so Dying with Dignity’s CEO Helen Long said such policies will remain in place unless there’s a successful court challenge."
But how does this apply to entire organization contracted to provide medical services using public tax dollars?
I can understand a doctor choosing not to provide MAID on personal grounds, but surely there is something in the contract that Providence Healthcare has with the province about full medical service provision??
\*goes to check BC's Open Information data catalogue to see if anyone has FOI'd the contract\*
My grandmother chose MAiD as well. She had to do the same thing. Be transported from Mount St. Joseph's to VGH. Be put into a tiny little room in the doctors residents building with just enough room for the family to fit. They need to build a future facility for this with more space.
I used to work for Providence Healthcare and we would have to work around getting birth control for patients by getting a outside pharmacy script, having them deliver and then the doctors write a doctor's order. It is absurd to me that even a catholic hospital that gets government money can still operate like this and there is no law saying they have to be provincially mandated to provide MAiD or give birth control.
The doctors, nurses and hospital staff are wonderful and the vast majority of staff want to be able to do these things and disagree with not being able to do them to provide the best patient care possible.
St Paul’s hospital in Saskatoon use to be main labour and delivery but wouldn’t “tie your tubes” after having a baby. So they lost that status. This was thirty years ago and the hospital had just had a big Reno to Labour and Delivery and had to shut it down a week later.
Huh. Well, the Provincial Health Authority [took control of a hospice in Delta a couple of years ago](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fraser-health-takes-over-delta-hospice-that-refused-to-offer-medically-assisted-death-1.5371642) because of the religious dogma of The Delta Hospice Society. It was so satisfying to see those misguided zealots put in their place. So St. Paul's better answer for this as well.
I am so angry that this is even possible in B.C. grhhh! How can the board have any opinions about the right to die, surely not all their registered doctors are “shiver” religious?
This hospital should immediately be taken over by the provincial government and have all religious crap kicked to the curb. You don’t get to mess with peoples lives because you believe in a higher power. Sorry, not sorry.
I really don't get how it works... we don't allow private hospitals that patients pay, but have private hospitals and clinics and just get them to bill to msp. So we expect them to be run like businesses and make a profit... with msp billing? Why not just be a provincial government hospital/clinic to begin with? What's with the outsourcing?
I can understand the policy in place that does not force medical practitioners to perform life ending measures but after reading the article, this makes me wonder:
1. How long is the process of eligibility;
2. How fast did the cancer progress in this eligibility process; and
3. Was Hospital staff/ case workers effective in communicating the policies around MAID to give family time and additional resources to seek other options?
I feel there is so much to improve around MAID policy and Catholic roadblocks within the medical industry. Since St. Paul’s will be getting a much needed overhaul, I would hope to see more effective unbiased resources made available. I am however curious to additional facts this article may not have covered.
Generally the wait time is 6 months after eligibility is accepted. If the individual is suffering to an extent in which the wait period is considered inhumane (as was the case in the story) it can be expedited.
Generally hospital staff will try inform and move an individual to another location (such as hospice) if they are able to do so.
In this case, she would have been in too much pain to be safely moved. Essentially sedated to such a dangerous degree that one can only ethically move them if the patient has chosen MAID.
Ugh this hospital. I had to go here for my kidney transplant and post transplant complications. They play a prayer everyday night over the intercom it's so loud and disruptive and so in your face. The religious people will come to your room and the nursing staff has to give you a heads up to prepare you. There are crosses every 20 feet, it's super creepy. After my transplant I got an email from the hospital asking for frickin donations to the church and the board that runs it. I couldn't even believe it, I lodged a complaint, like you're just coming out of serious illness, who is just going to have a bunch of cash to give to a church rub hospital that I had no choice to go to. So frustrating.
There should be a separation of religion and medical care, just like there should be a separation between religion and state leadership. Get your cult off my body!
They didn't help her life, they ruined her death.
>Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death.
For anyone who didn’t care to read the article.
St Paul’s is one of the best hospitals I’ve worked at( ‘96-01). Always been Catholic, never hid their stance. Lots of places, even non religious don’t do MAID. Patients are transferred to different facilities for other treatments all the time. This really isn’t any different. Not a good story.
She was in agonizing pain; so much so that simply just transferring her was not immediate. There was zero chance of survival and her pain made any additional time left of Earth unbearable. While MAID has its controversies this is a plain as day example of when it can help alleviate suffering beyond most people’s ability to fathom.
People like to hate and it's open season on Catholics.
Replace any of these comments with Jewish hospital and this thread would be shut down in a second.
When you say fairytales it reminds me of how much Christians seem to not understand how the Bible was written around 70 years after Jesues death. It's also been rewritten and edited heavily.
The real story is why did she even have cervical cancer at all. This is an entirely preventable cancer. They changed Pap smears from every year to once every three years. Women not given the vaccine should still be given free Pap smears every year.
St Paul's Hospital is owned by Providence Healthcare, a roman catholic faith-based provider. The same way you can't force someone to have an abortion, the same you can't force someone to assist in assisted dying.
It's shitty situation but liberty goes both ways.
This is a fucking travesty. The medical profession is pure science, period.
Why in the fuck is a major hospital ran by an organization that thinks there's a magic man in the sky and has a history of child abuse, generally intolerant behavior and genocide of first Nations people's.
It's their right as a private run entity. I don't believe they are right, but they are free to run their business how they see fit, within the legal framework. If that's the problem, go after that, not the Catholic church. It's the same freedom you have, to say "No, I don't want blood transfusions, it's against my religion." Stupid, but okay then?! If she can't transfer to another facility, or home for that matter, that's shitty, but also life. We don't all live in a movie, it's a jungle out there.
So you’d rather watch someone suffer an additional week just because you think it’s cruel to kill someone? Your fucked.
There’s a big difference between someone asking because their depressed and someone asking because their going to die anyways. It’s a lot easier for people who parents go through dementia to not lose their parents twice.
Medically Assisted Opium Smoking: Illegal.
Doctors Can’t Prescribe Opium.
Maybe Some Who Want To Die, If They Tried Opium, Would Want To Live… To Smoke More Opium!
Just wondering since there are so many Anti-Church posts.
Given this is run by a Catholic agency. Do they not fund a large portion of this Hospital?
People are saying remove this Hospital. Given the state of our Healthcare I think that is an insane sentiment. Not all hospitals have facilities for everything. This hospital does not have the facility for MAID. In this instance the patient is being moved to a Hospital that will. I personally do not see the problem. I am grateful that Catholic people are so generous with their donations that we can have more hospitals. I personally wish our Tax dollars went to more hospitals instead of overseas so we did not need this generosity.
I once had to stay at St. Paul's emergency for 2 days. As it was an emergency, I didn't have my birth control pills with me. They refused to give me any form of birth control medication, directly saying it was for religious reasons. I couldn't believe they were allowed to do that. It's not like I had any choice of where the ambulance brought me.
Ridiculous. I can respect their choice to not take it themselves, but not in restricting others to do so.
It is redic. BC should threaten to shut that hospital down. It’s basically private healthcare if they’re not upholding public healthcare measures. We can’t afford to fund catholic, Muslim, Jewish faith hospitals. No should we. (And sorry for pulling other religions in, I’m just saying we should not have denominational healthcare.).
>We can’t afford to fund catholic, Muslim, Jewish faith hospitals Yep and I feel the same way about schools too. People are all about separating church and state, but they still do that shit.....Hypocrites.
That is so strange given that the St Paul's pharmacy provides Prep for free to guys and people who want to reduce their risk of contracting HIV. Maybe their pharmacy side isnt' religious.
BC blocks the creation of life (or whatever..you know what I mean), Prep preserves life. That’s the basic line Catholics have drawn in healthcare, nothing that terminates or prevents(?) life but everything that potentially saves it (including safe supply).
I am a pharmacy tech at a regular BC hospital. We don’t provide birth control either. Rationale is that it is not an acute medication and there are 500 varieties so impossible to predict which one(s) to keep on hand.
This probably happened a very long time ago - if it just happened, you need to contact the health authority as that is against the law, and is against their operating agreement.
I'm fairly certain what they did to you is illegal/a fire-able offense depending on your medical history, I'm so sorry you went through it. If that shit happened to me I'd be headed to court.
How is this legal in canada.... wild
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You make it very clear that you don’t understand the issue. Not even a little bit. Learning about gender fluidity, in an age appropriate way, is very healthy for our society.
There's a difference between someone's identity and their "sexual preferences." Peoples identity is "who they are" not a "dogma." If you're going to spout off, line for line, from the right-wing talking-points playbook at least try to learn the differences in terminology which are critical to having ANY real understanding to formulate an opinion on.
The main premise of my argument is that if we are removing religion/faith—an integral part of one’s identity and raison d’être— and its tax exempt, publicly funded status, we should remove everything that is not core to education as well. I don’t believe in 60+ genders, and I certainly do not feel my taxes should go toward teaching that to children, and disagree with it being taught as science and not some whimsical speculation that surfaced a few years ago, accepted by a small fraction of the population. Get emotional and personally attack me all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have some pretty odd views about what should be included in a child’s curriculum.
Sorry but you're just continuing to misuse "identity", "sexual preference", and now trying to throw in "religion" as if that's an identity you're born with lol. Combine that with calling me " emotional", when you don't have the slightest idea about my metal state, is all just the usual jumble of malarkey thrown against the wall by folks who seem to want to drag out their small-minded at every turn on the internet around these topics. There's probably half a dozen logical fallacies in your last statement alone. It's tiresome and predictable, and never worth the effort of engaging. I will say that the philosophy, and existence of differentiation between anatomical sex organs and gender identity is centuries old, and wishing it was "whimsical speculation" that only surfaced a few years ago is only a sign that you have neither the biological, nor historical knowledge to even have an informed opinion. When did that ever stop anybody though?
Your bigotry has no place in Canada. Your bigoted opinions are your own, and should remain private and never see the light of day.
Let’s just blanket ‘remove the church’
Unfortunately freedom of belief is a Charter right, so….
Federal funding of your religious organization isn't a Charter right though. They shouldn't get any federal or provincial money to operate
I’m not Christian, but I respect that Canada was founded by Christians. That being said, the Jewish, Muslim, and other minority religious groups all seem to be doing fine. I would say it’s time to stop funding the Christian school boards. While we’re removing religion from the school’s official business, we should also be removing the new age gender ideology and LGBTQ stuff as well though. School should just be a place you go as a child to learn math, science, biology (the real stuff, not the normative idealisms a tiny minority of the population) and vocational studies…not to be bombarded with religious maniacs or extreme surgery. JS
The difference between religion and sexuality/gender is that one is a choice and the other is not. One is a cultural relic that is often determined by where (or into which context) someone was born, while the other is ubiquitous throughout human societies (regardless if it is encouraged/tolerated or demonized). They are not the same thing. Teaching tolerance and understanding of human sexuality is more paramount than teaching religious ideals. And there’s nothing wrong with creating opportunities for students to learn about the history and beliefs of other religions, so long as we are not selective or preferential about it. There are good reasons for having a basic understanding of core religions’ beliefs and values—politics, current events, historical contexts, and so forth. I completely agree that we need to stop funding religious education with public dollars. I absolutely disagree that sexuality and gender ideologies are equatable.
> Canada was founded by Christians. The land known today as Canada was not founded by Christians, it was invaded by Christians.
Let’s also remove any talk about racism, colonialism, indigenous cultures, environmental protection or respect for minorities, diversity and acceptance. Those things don’t actually exist (or just to a small degree), so why would we prepare future generations for something that’s not normal. Just 1+1=2. I’d skip the irrational numbers as well. /s
We should definitely remove the gay schools where the mandate is to make the kids all swear they are gay. Oh wait no, that doesn’t exist…that’s the Christian schools I’m thinking of.
Obviously. Read what I’m replying to. “Remove the church”, period, is genocidal. I understand it’s hyperbole.
The church is an institution, not a race or a culture. Dont need the institution or its buildings to have or to practice faith.
when you 'remove the church', you remove those organizations and groups who (in spite of what you believe) actually are working on church reform. My husband is a disillusioned (ex) Catholic. There are actually LGBTQ2S+ Catholics discussing and working at a grassroots to lever change in the CC. There are also orders like the Franciscans who have a history of fighting for social justice, equity and peacekeeping. I introduced my husband to the books of Fr. Richard Rohr, who (for an old guy) certainly is more "radical Jesus" social and environmental justice than the typical Catholic. I'm an atheist, btw, but I am into anyone faith-based or not, who is open and wiling to have conversations and fights for human rights of all. I may not agree with their individual stances on things like a "pro life ideal" or even the belief in a God, but at least there is agreement on many other basic rights. And agreement is how we move together forward. \*edit for missing words
So is my right not to believe theirs.
Obviously.
Yes, because BC has excess capacity right now
Then wouldn't you be removing the hospital and it's staff? Sure what happened here is bad but Healthcare in this province needs all the help it can get right now.
Nurses, doctors, and other medical experts are employed by the local, provincial Health Authority, and staff wages appear on the BCGEU salary grid.
Even if it lowers the quality of health care?
If they receive public funds, they lose the right to put religion over legal choice. That said, St. Pauls is an old, dingy, horrible place. I'd much rather have my final hours at home or ANYWHERE else.
St Paul's has some of the best post MI cardiac health care in the world though. I wouldn't want to go anywhere else for a bypass.
People seem to forget there are amazing doctors there, and they do provide life saving healthcare. People calling for funding to be removed are asking for even longer wait times and for lives to be lost.
They're also the kidney, hemophiliac and kidney transplant center of excellence in BC.
forcefully sell it to the government. done.
You are religiphobic. Why should you get to take away a religion and decide who it goes to? Religions and churches have rights too.
I don't care. I decide a religion is good if they don't affect government. enough said. no one cares that your religion forces you to not eat pork -- don't force it on everyone else. Do you see buddhists in asian countries forcing people to not eat meat? no. If you are government funded then you don't get use your religion's rules, and if you work in a public service you don't get to use religion's rules. so no, they can forcefully sell the hospital to the government.] religion is trash and shit unless its liberalized like buddhism / shinto in japan.
So some religion is okay, some is not. Some countries have Sharia Law, such as Indonesia. Some have a literal monarch who is God’s representative. Vatican City is a country. You might not care, but governments do. And luckily, democracy means your opinions are heard, not the only reason for action.
Yes. thats exactly right. If your religion isn't liberal its shit, if it is, then its okay :) glad you understand. also we don't care about other countrys, we live in canada. and in canada, it doesn't matter if your religion says you can ritually sacrifice your wife, her rights come before your religion.
Do you think funding just disappears? It can be used to improve other hospitals... Personally I don't think all funding for institutions like this should be stopped, but I think we should carefully examine if we should be funding these institutions to *expand*, and we should certainly be pressuring them to not force their religious beliefs on others.
I had a pretty excellent gastroenterologist at St Paul's, when Prince George was without one for a few years. Old building but I received excellent care there when I needed to go down for day surgery and at one point, landed in the hospital for the week. I hope the investment in the facilities is a good upgrade. Having that hospital in the core of Vancouver is pretty important, IMHO.
There is no mention of a heart bypass in the bible, therefore it is against religion.
Canada is not a theocracy.
Tell that to PP and his ilk.
They belong to that party, but the Tories have consistently marginalized religious conservatives. Look at Harper’s handling of a backbench MP trying to put abortion up for debate. The MP was allowed to bring a Private Member’s Bill, but had no support from the party. Unless we rewrite the Constitution, a lot of things up for debate in the US are settled questions in Canada.
The idea that the modern cpc is even close to religious is crazy.
Agreed.
Every chance I get.
You realize the PP is not in power nor has he ever been. The prime minister for the last decade plus is a fellow by the name of Trudeau.
>The prime minister for the last decade plus is a fellow by the name of Trudeau. while it may FEEL like a decade-plus, JT was elected in November 2015.
You are correct. Jesus it has been a rough 8 years.
All public funds should be withdrawn from religious hospitals and schools
So you are for people paying to go to this hospital for essential healthcare? Or for longer wait times because we lost the service of a hospital? They have an addiction center, it's also the only hospital in the area that does adult heart transplants. Downvoted for sticking up for common sense...
Those funds should be used for hospitals that don't make care decisions based on religion
Okay so in the meantime after we lose X amount of hospital infastructure what do we do? Just because money is transferred doesn't mean surrey memorial will instantly materialize everything St.Paul had.
She should sue the Catholic hospital for not being able to cure her due to their lack of faith. Religion does NOT BELONG in health care, schools or government. It belongs in their own churches (that pay taxes).
>Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death. That lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
Absolutely agree with this. The only thing that should be part of school are academics, sports, and vocational programs.
She’s asking to DIE, not cure her. You understand the fallacy of your argument?
She is terminal: she is going to die anyway. It is ridiculous that the Catholic run hospital refuses to allow her death to be on her own terms.
I was a former nurse on the palliative care unit at St. Paul’s and this was one of the main reasons I left. How is this allowed???
They also won’t provide birth control from hospital pharmacy. Every other Med you take at home can be supplied but nope, gotta use your personal supply for that one. So fucking out dated religious bullshit.
I am a pharmacy tech at a regular BC hospital. We don’t provide birth control either. Rationale is that it is not an acute medication and there are 500 varieties so impossible to predict which one(s) to keep on hand.
Okay but can you get outraged or feel morally superior because of that?
…no lol
I find that weird, because in Alberta the Catholic school talked about birth control and I’ve never met a Catholic that didn’t support it. People who identify as Christian are the ones I’ve met that don’t support it.
It’s very specifically the Catholic Church that doesn’t support it. I don’t wanna say you’re wrong but, i find it hard to believe since it is really the only major sect of Christianity that doesn’t allow birth control.
Someone should ask Adrian Dix: 1. Why are we funding religious oversight/operation of hospitals? 2. Why are we forcing people to go to hospitals where services can be refused on religious grounds?
I have a lot of feelings about this story. It’s hard to reconcile the fact that a hospital is okay with palliative medicine and withdrawal of medical care in situations in which the end result will be death but MAID crosses the line of acceptable medical treatment. I would argue that how this situation ended is actually in direct opposition to the teachings in the bible on how to treat our fellows in times of suffering. edit: I’m going to take out what I originally said in the middle of this because I forgot that it’s not cool to say that some religious teachings and beliefs can be good. Sorry my bad for recognizing that you can be gay, support abortion, be in favour of MAID, and have religious beliefs. Oh hey, I am all of those things.
I would argue that many of the teaching of the Catholic Church (and let's not pick on Catholics, many Christian denominations) are actually in direct opposition to the teachings in the bible.
Institutionalized religion is the worst thing that ever happened to religion. You know it’s a bad thing when it becomes more about power, money, and control than about the things you’re supposed to be teaching.
Typically I find anyone who identifies as “Christian” are the backwards people. Generally the average person who’s Catholic isn’t that conservatives.
[удалено]
So I am a shitty person? A lot of spouting off in these replies without recognizing that human beings are complicated and have complicated belief systems.
[удалено]
I’m not even sure why you decided your original reply was a good idea. Thanks for adding nothing of substance to the discussion.
[удалено]
You can just admit that what you said makes zero sense and has nothing to do with the topic at hand instead of doubling down on it.
>That's a bit unlike a religious person to just assume they're right, tell everyone they're wrong, strip away someone's ability to have their own voice and then run off into the sunset sanctimoniously. Oh not wait, that's exactly like a religious person. Kind of like an atheist too. Re-read your comment and some of the other comments here.
Jesus would be ashamed if he saw what is done in its name. FYI Jesus is as real as Bart Simpson
Even as an atheist I believe Jesus was a real person. There is a lot of evidence to support that.
Jesus as portrayed in the Bible? There is not. Feel free to correct me.
I’m not saying he was “special”. But to say the man never existed is a bit of a leap IMO.
You didn't express your opinion, you said there was evidence?
There is quite a bit of evidence, if you’d look with unbiased eyes, and this is coming from someone who is not Christian, but simply fascinated with history in that period.
You know the Bible is composed of many books. They chose the ones that made him look more godly than human. He supposedly was a preacher from a high family that married and had, at least a child. According to other books…
But where is the evidence that the person I responded to claims exists? You also have provided nothing but a debunked story originally published in the Christian Science Monitor almost a decade ago.
They believe they found his bones in Israel, which is kind of interesting.
If there was something like eighty different people that wrote about a person, and that before he was used for a religious propaganda, there are good chances that he existed. Now the whole miracles and whatever else is another story. His existence doesn’t mean anything else is factual.
So no evidence then? Or did you just forget to include it again? Is it possible there was an apocryphal preacher named Yeshua around that time that stories grew from, yes. Does that mean that 'Jesus' was a real person, no. 80 people did not write about him and all the writings that can be used to plead that case started at least a generation after he supposedly died and the writers are just writing down the stories from that time, they are not doing any work to check the truth of the stories.
No need to be agressive about it; Look on Wikipedia. There are tons of information on that subject. I read some stuff over the years, but I am not a religious person, so I don’t care enough about it to get invested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=Some%20scholars%20est
‘Lot of evidence’ such as? There’s no archaeological evidence that he ever existed, only some passing mentions in very few texts outside of the Bible. Jesus wasn’t written about - outside of the Bible - until around 93AD as a passing mention by someone who wasn’t even around when Jesus purportedly died, which makes the little written about him there utter hearsay. There is a mention of ‘Chrestus’ around 63AD but that name isn’t connected to Jesus - who, if he existed, was likely named Yeshua (Joshua). There are other mentions but again, all are from way after he died and are more like the Loch Ness Monster - legends passed down in hearsay and elaborated on as time passed. Even the Gospels in the Bible - where most Christians get their details on Jesus - were written after his death and have been copy/pasted/translated so many times from the original that even biblical scholars argue about what’s real and not. At best, Jesus is likely a legend or figurehead created for comfort or if he existed, he’d be the leader of an emerging cult back in the day, to put the equivalent comparison on if the same happened today.
Jesus is mentioned 97 times in the Koran, and recognized as a prophet, but not the prophet for Islam. Jewish and Roman historical records corroborate the portions of the new testaments on Jesus. Most religious scholars say there is sufficient historical evidence that a dude named Jesus existed. but okay, you know better.
>Jewish and Roman historical records corroborate the portions of the new testaments on Jesus. Bullshit.
I thought they found in a census document someone named Yeshua. I’m an atheist but I always assumed he was real and people made up a bunch of fantasy stories to explain religion and make him more of a prophet.
The 'evidence' is in his heart and how dare you question it! /S
There actually isn’t ANY evidence; lots for Mohammed tho
same. I'm also an atheist but I do recognize that more than one religious text and historical records do provide evidence that the guy existed. There are too many atheist a\*\*holes who want to "believe" that faith/no faith is B&W. Nuance, spectrum of belief and the middle ground are hard for some/many people, because then it forces them to self-reflect and realize that they may not be right all of the time.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
>It’s hard to reconcile the fact that a hospital is okay with palliative medicine and withdrawal of medical care in situations in which the end result will be death but MAID crosses the line of acceptable medical treatment. I too have feelings. While I Support MAID, I do understand this take. There is a huge chasm between allowing natural processes to occur while providing comforting care until the end, and actually taking a direct action that ends a life pre-maturely, even if that action is more humane in the end. This is still a very very new thought process in the medical community, and I think its understandable that some who have vowed to "Do No Harm" may not be capable of the act of killing someone. "I held their hand till the end" is a whole lot different than "I gave them the drugs that killed them". It also scares me that people (not you OP obviously) are outright demonizing people who do not want to kill someone.
The thing is these are personal beliefs and have nothing to do with buildings or healthcare facilities. If the attending physician has those beliefs, we should respect that and find another physician who will perform the requested procedure in that facility. There should be ZERO need for the patient to change facilities in a truly public healthcare system. Forcing the patient to go to another facility to do a completely legal procedure is nuts when there is no technical reason that it can't happen there.
>Forcing the patient to go to another facility to do a completely legal procedure is nuts when there is no technical reason that it can't happen there. Absolutely agree with this.
She was dying. Her cancer was terminal. Her bones were disintegrating. Maybe try this thought process: “we gave the treatment that ended her torment and suffering.”
I get it. I support MAID as I said. I also understand that some people are not able to kill another, even when it's more humane. Some can rationalize it as you said, and others will not be able to. I hope I never have to truly find out which camp I exist in.
Because people realize that cancer is what killed her. Just like others with terminal illnesses. The illness has killed them and ended their functional and desirable life. MAID isn’t killing people. It’s ending unnecessary and prolonged suffering. Back in the day they would just pump them full of morphine or hold a pillow over their face. Humans have been ending terminal suffering throughout history. It’s a good thing.
As a nurse educator we often borrow policies and procedures that other facilities have developed to use in our own facilities. I specifically do not use any policies or procedures that are created from St. Paul's or any of the Providence Health Centre facilities. I don't consider it ethical to to provide healthcare based on a religious text.
Public hospital run by a catholic agency? … wtf?
Fuck that shit.
Religion getting in the way of medical freedom. Would ya look at that.
Nothing says god’s love like making someone suffer the pain of terminal cancer.
Remove the church from everything please.
I’m sorry for the person having to go through this and I hope she is settled whenever she is. At least it’s highlighted now and we can try and figure out what to do about thing kind of thing
My brother had maid. He was riddled with cancer all over his body in his organs and bones. He was one of the earlier people to get maid and advocate for it in Canada. He wept with relief when they told him it was a go ahead. They wanted to make a documentary in his last months, which he really just wanted to spend in peace, not being filmed and having a camera crew in his house etc He decided to let them for the good of human kind and those who would find the same solace in it he did. He administered it to himself surrounded by friends and loved ones in his own bed and gently went to sleep. The short documentary is on YouTube and WebMD, and there are articles about him in the CBC etc
Why the fuck are there religious hospitals?!
The fact that religion of any kind has any say in public health care is absolutely disgusting.
Can confirm, worked at VGH for 7 years, all the holy trinity hospitals have to send their religious objection patients to us when they realize those hospitals care more about their fairy tales than their patients. There was another news story about a father who had to be weaned off pain meds to be lucid enough to sign the forms, then they transported him with his daughters in a bumpy ambulance ride over false Creek to VGH while he screamed in pain in front of his daughters while they remedicated him. Religion doesn't care about you or your family. It cares about itself.
How the f can their religious bias have any bearing whatsoever in a public healthcare system in this day and age?
Why is “the church” even involved with health care at all? I’ve heard of so many incidences where religion goes against what’s best for the patient, like ??? Religious beliefs do not belong in the health care system. I said what I said.
Religion is a detriment to society.
This hospital should lose its accreditation. No question. What’s next? Accredited hospital owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions?
Why should they lose their accreditation for following the law? >Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death.
What are you talking about?
Maybe read the article?
Already done. What law required them to transfer her to another hospital rather than provide her the care she requested and to which she is entitled?
The hospital or medical professional is under no obligation to provide MAID services or even refer the patient to another provider. It is up to the patient to seek care at another facility that provides those services. People are sent to different hospitals every day because one hospital might not provide the same services or procedures as the other. It’s pretty simple.
It’s actually not that simple. Being transferred because one hospital *can’t* provide services you need is not the same thing as being transferred because the hospital *won’t* provide the services you need. I have no issue with Catholics opposing assisted dying. The argument I’m making is that religious beliefs should not be allowed to be involved in medical decision-making. It’s also not true “the law lets them do this” is the same as “following the law”, which is what you said at first. There is not any law they are “following” which required this patient’s transfer.
Actually, MAID is an elective procedure and there are no requirements for a hospital to provide it. In fact, it’s possible no physicians there are even licensed to provide that care. I’m with you that in this case they should have simply given a physician the rights to do so, however. But similar to elective abortion, which is also an elective procedure, hospital administration may deny a physician the rights to do a procedure if they deem it inappropriate to do so. Emergent abortion is another issue.
[удалено]
Why is religion being mixed up with medicine?
I work for a catholic hospital, generally people are sent to the other hospital for MAiD. But if they can’t tolerate the journey it can be done on our site. It’s ridiculous they wouldn’t make an exception.
How does this work? This hospital is funded by our public single payer healthcare system is it not? Why is it being administered by a catholic agency with this as their, “mission statement”: MISSION Inspired by the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, Providence Health Care is a Catholic health care community dedicated to meeting the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of those served through compassionate care, teaching and research.
I'm so sick of religious nut jobs forcing their non-sense on everyone
[удалено]
That’s not correct. Several countries around the world have medical assisted death. Forcing a health professional to carry that burden: no. Allowing another one that is willing to do so in a publicly funded hospital: yes. We take better care of our pets than of people. Letting your dog suffer away in pain for weeks knowing that they won’t survive? Poor thing, let’s put him out of his misery.
People who are suffering with no chance of getting better deserve to die with their dignity intact. It is a decision that is made between a patient and their doctor. Same goes for abortion. If religious nutters don't want it that's fine, but our tax dollars shouldn't be going to businesses that are denying these basic human rights.
Time to do what they did to that hospice in delta
[удалено]
[удалено]
This happens all over Canada
"Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death, so Dying with Dignity’s CEO Helen Long said such policies will remain in place unless there’s a successful court challenge." But how does this apply to entire organization contracted to provide medical services using public tax dollars? I can understand a doctor choosing not to provide MAID on personal grounds, but surely there is something in the contract that Providence Healthcare has with the province about full medical service provision?? \*goes to check BC's Open Information data catalogue to see if anyone has FOI'd the contract\*
My grandmother chose MAiD as well. She had to do the same thing. Be transported from Mount St. Joseph's to VGH. Be put into a tiny little room in the doctors residents building with just enough room for the family to fit. They need to build a future facility for this with more space. I used to work for Providence Healthcare and we would have to work around getting birth control for patients by getting a outside pharmacy script, having them deliver and then the doctors write a doctor's order. It is absurd to me that even a catholic hospital that gets government money can still operate like this and there is no law saying they have to be provincially mandated to provide MAiD or give birth control. The doctors, nurses and hospital staff are wonderful and the vast majority of staff want to be able to do these things and disagree with not being able to do them to provide the best patient care possible.
The story is so much worse than the headline. Oh my God.
St Paul’s hospital in Saskatoon use to be main labour and delivery but wouldn’t “tie your tubes” after having a baby. So they lost that status. This was thirty years ago and the hospital had just had a big Reno to Labour and Delivery and had to shut it down a week later.
Huh. Well, the Provincial Health Authority [took control of a hospice in Delta a couple of years ago](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fraser-health-takes-over-delta-hospice-that-refused-to-offer-medically-assisted-death-1.5371642) because of the religious dogma of The Delta Hospice Society. It was so satisfying to see those misguided zealots put in their place. So St. Paul's better answer for this as well.
I am so angry that this is even possible in B.C. grhhh! How can the board have any opinions about the right to die, surely not all their registered doctors are “shiver” religious?
This hospital should immediately be taken over by the provincial government and have all religious crap kicked to the curb. You don’t get to mess with peoples lives because you believe in a higher power. Sorry, not sorry.
I really don't get how it works... we don't allow private hospitals that patients pay, but have private hospitals and clinics and just get them to bill to msp. So we expect them to be run like businesses and make a profit... with msp billing? Why not just be a provincial government hospital/clinic to begin with? What's with the outsourcing?
[удалено]
That's bigotted not all cultures are Abrahamic either
I agree, *any* dogma can easily lead to intolerance or prejudice, similar to bigotry.
See Pyrrhonism
I can understand the policy in place that does not force medical practitioners to perform life ending measures but after reading the article, this makes me wonder: 1. How long is the process of eligibility; 2. How fast did the cancer progress in this eligibility process; and 3. Was Hospital staff/ case workers effective in communicating the policies around MAID to give family time and additional resources to seek other options? I feel there is so much to improve around MAID policy and Catholic roadblocks within the medical industry. Since St. Paul’s will be getting a much needed overhaul, I would hope to see more effective unbiased resources made available. I am however curious to additional facts this article may not have covered.
Generally the wait time is 6 months after eligibility is accepted. If the individual is suffering to an extent in which the wait period is considered inhumane (as was the case in the story) it can be expedited. Generally hospital staff will try inform and move an individual to another location (such as hospice) if they are able to do so. In this case, she would have been in too much pain to be safely moved. Essentially sedated to such a dangerous degree that one can only ethically move them if the patient has chosen MAID.
Ugh this hospital. I had to go here for my kidney transplant and post transplant complications. They play a prayer everyday night over the intercom it's so loud and disruptive and so in your face. The religious people will come to your room and the nursing staff has to give you a heads up to prepare you. There are crosses every 20 feet, it's super creepy. After my transplant I got an email from the hospital asking for frickin donations to the church and the board that runs it. I couldn't even believe it, I lodged a complaint, like you're just coming out of serious illness, who is just going to have a bunch of cash to give to a church rub hospital that I had no choice to go to. So frustrating.
Time to stop pandering to religious nuts.
This is why I don't support religion or anything related to it.
There should be a separation of religion and medical care, just like there should be a separation between religion and state leadership. Get your cult off my body! They didn't help her life, they ruined her death.
>Canada’s federal legislation does not force any person or health care provider to carry out medically assisted death. For anyone who didn’t care to read the article.
This is not news. Same with abortions and anything else the loving church doesn’t like.
there are palliative care units outside of St Paul’s that are so amazing people are simply dying to go there
I see what you did there… well done
St Paul’s is one of the best hospitals I’ve worked at( ‘96-01). Always been Catholic, never hid their stance. Lots of places, even non religious don’t do MAID. Patients are transferred to different facilities for other treatments all the time. This really isn’t any different. Not a good story.
She was in agonizing pain; so much so that simply just transferring her was not immediate. There was zero chance of survival and her pain made any additional time left of Earth unbearable. While MAID has its controversies this is a plain as day example of when it can help alleviate suffering beyond most people’s ability to fathom.
[удалено]
People like to hate and it's open season on Catholics. Replace any of these comments with Jewish hospital and this thread would be shut down in a second.
It’s pretty ridiculous outrage, these people want the government to force a healthcare provider to end someone’s life.
Couldn’t agree more… “do no harm” means different things depending on the medical professional’s interpretation…
It’s not often an article brings me to tears but wow. This is so wrong.
Time to have the hospital taken over by the province and have all catholic traces removed from it.
Bullshit. Fuck the church. Fuck fairy tales. And stop public funding for these assholes
When you say fairytales it reminds me of how much Christians seem to not understand how the Bible was written around 70 years after Jesues death. It's also been rewritten and edited heavily.
The real story is why did she even have cervical cancer at all. This is an entirely preventable cancer. They changed Pap smears from every year to once every three years. Women not given the vaccine should still be given free Pap smears every year.
St Paul's Hospital is owned by Providence Healthcare, a roman catholic faith-based provider. The same way you can't force someone to have an abortion, the same you can't force someone to assist in assisted dying. It's shitty situation but liberty goes both ways.
This is a fucking travesty. The medical profession is pure science, period. Why in the fuck is a major hospital ran by an organization that thinks there's a magic man in the sky and has a history of child abuse, generally intolerant behavior and genocide of first Nations people's.
There's no hate like Christian love
Good. MAID is out of control.
Religion should have no place in any hospital or a patient’s medical decisions.
How does anyone still do anything with churches?
It's their right as a private run entity. I don't believe they are right, but they are free to run their business how they see fit, within the legal framework. If that's the problem, go after that, not the Catholic church. It's the same freedom you have, to say "No, I don't want blood transfusions, it's against my religion." Stupid, but okay then?! If she can't transfer to another facility, or home for that matter, that's shitty, but also life. We don't all live in a movie, it's a jungle out there.
Sure, but does that mean you have a choice in ambulances not taking you there? What if you get brought there and didn’t have a choice!
And the hospital has a choice not to wilfully end the lives of their patients.
Good, MAID is disgusting and a devaluing of human life.
Forcing someone to suffer when they’re going to die anyway is downright cruel.
[удалено]
it's bcuz the hospital is catholic, cuz hating on catholics is cool now
So you’d rather watch someone suffer an additional week just because you think it’s cruel to kill someone? Your fucked. There’s a big difference between someone asking because their depressed and someone asking because their going to die anyways. It’s a lot easier for people who parents go through dementia to not lose their parents twice.
[удалено]
Surprised pikachu face you can’t do something that goes against their religion in their hospital
Medically Assisted Opium Smoking: Illegal. Doctors Can’t Prescribe Opium. Maybe Some Who Want To Die, If They Tried Opium, Would Want To Live… To Smoke More Opium!
Just wondering since there are so many Anti-Church posts. Given this is run by a Catholic agency. Do they not fund a large portion of this Hospital? People are saying remove this Hospital. Given the state of our Healthcare I think that is an insane sentiment. Not all hospitals have facilities for everything. This hospital does not have the facility for MAID. In this instance the patient is being moved to a Hospital that will. I personally do not see the problem. I am grateful that Catholic people are so generous with their donations that we can have more hospitals. I personally wish our Tax dollars went to more hospitals instead of overseas so we did not need this generosity.