I don't want to be controversial here, but if someone is forcibly destroying the internal organs of someone else without their knowledge or consent then maybe we should, and again I don't wanna overstep my bounds on this nuanced and multifaceted issue here but my instinct is that maybe we should, I don't know, maybe make them stop doing that. If that makes me a "no secretly wrecking someone else's innards" extremist then I guess I'll have to live with that.
woah dude, as a centrist this is why I vote far right, you woke leftists are taking things too far.
I mean, what's the context here? I doubt doctors are sterilizing people because of some evil agenda. If she was already undergoing explorative abdominal surgery, I'd wager they found a pathology that requires her reproductive organs to be removed.
If they didn't get her consent during the preoperative information, then that's malpractice and a part I don't understand. However, I'd assume the surgeons wanted to spare her from having to undergo sedation and surgery again at a later point in time, just to get her consent.
The obstetrician-gynecologist, Dr. Andrew Kotaska, did not have the woman’s consent to sterilize her, and he did so over the objections of other medical personnel in the operating room.
So, no. There wasn't consent and the other doctors said it was a bad idea, but he did it anyway.
Among its findings, the board noted that it was likely the patient did say she did not intend to have more children, however, there was no written evidence that she had consented to sterilization.
The board also heard testimony from an anesthesiologist who was present during the surgery, and who reported Kotaska making the comment: "Let's see if I can find a reason to take the left tube."
Kotaska admitted to making the comment, describing it as part of his clinical reasoning. The board found the comment was not made "maliciously" and did not represent unprofessional conduct.
The complaint also alleged that Kotaska ignored comments from colleagues present during the surgery. The board found inconsistent evidence on this point, and found that this, too, was not unprofessional conduct.
And I appreciate your optimism about doctors but this isn't an isolated incident.
I’d assume the surgeons wanted to spare her from having to undergo sedation and surgery again at a later point in time, just to get her consent.
That is still performing the procedure without her consent. Are you really that dense? Or are you one of those types who believes that "no" doesn't always mean "no" or that if someone doesn't say "no" that means they automatically consent?
I'm assuming the above person, like me, had one of those "come on, no WAY" moments. It just seems to insanely wrong.
Did you even read the post? The context is he didn't have consent and other medical professionals in the room told him not to do it.
I doubt
I'd wager
I'd assume
You have a news article linked here which clearly spells out an example of this happening yet you still lean on assumptions that it couldn't possibly happen
Afaik some countries treat female urinary infections with what they call female circumcision. here it’s called genital mutilation (at least when the victim is female)
This is why I don’t assume they had an actual medical reason to sterilize her.
Trying to end forced sterilization? Why has it not ended already?
But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said they would not be investigating Kotaska, because the woman hasn't filed a criminal complaint.
As if there aren't ample reasons for an indigenous woman to not trust the RCMP to protect her.
Exactly my thoughts! WTF?!
Because the Canadian federal government is just three resource companies in a trench coat.
Canada go one day without being racist to indigenous people challenge.
Over 400 years and still never managed to unlock this achievement.
Canada WTF
I know the word nazi gets thrown around a lot these days but this is some actual nazi type shit trying to stamp out an entire race. WTF indeed.
There's a long history of the RCMP not caring (at best) about Indigenous people
The primary reason for our horsey police is to detain and control the indigenous population. They fill the rest of their working hours writing speeding tickets, arresting addicts, and pretending to fulfill the social contract.
Police declined to investigate the forced sterilization of a native? Color me surprised
The police are 100% useless in Canada they exist just to harrass the public . Any real crimes they dont bother showing up .
Between this and the euthanasia laws being deliberately abused by doctors pushing it onto patients, can we declare Canada genocidal yet?
Can you provide an example of MAID being abused?
I absolutely can. Lemme give you an article about it, and not Fox News either.
https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
It's actually a giant problem where doctors and hopsitals are actively pushing this onto the poor in order to "Free up a few beds", even going far as to shame people who refuse for being "selfish"
Nothing wrong with offering end of life care, I'm all for it, but when you're actively pushing it onto patients and even making commercials talking about "How glamorous suicide is!" (which they did, and it aired on Youtube, but it got pulled due to massive dislikes and violating Youtube's policies which forbid advocating self-harm).... It leaves me with the impression that you've got a problem you're looking for a "Final Solution" to.
Honestly more people need to know about this and just how.... well... blatantly genocidal Canada is acting.
While I agree that assistance in dying should not be used to offset a lack of other necessary care, like mental health, addictions (which I believe are disqualifiers for MAID), or disability, the article provided only examples of health care professionals offering the service to people who had severly diminished quality of life as an option of part of their care. I think it's a stretch to say these were examples of coersion. The decision is left solely to the patient, and I think their family's account can often cloud any reporting of what the patient's wishes actually are.
Anecdotally, the health professionals I know say there are far too many families, and ocassionally doctors who think they're superheros, who wish to prolong their relative's/patient's life for the sole purpose of delaying death. People, like Mr. Nichols' family, will say he's got a great quality of life, but picture yourself in his shoes. Deaf for most of your life, now vision loss, seizures, your body essentially withering away. He was suffering, and clearly, he wanted to end it. Several inquiries noted he fully qualified for and received MAID as he wished, even though it may not have been the wish of his family.
I do think it would be useful to have a review panel for more complex cases, like Dr Marmoreo suggests. But, I think the majority of cases where the family might raise concerns are cases where they are prioretizing their wishes above those of the patient actually seeking the care, rather than a professional wantonly pushing MAID for no particular reason.
I dunno, it's a little sus that they had that one guy who claimed someone was sent to talk to him about "Seeing if he wanted to kill himself", when he hadn't said anything to staff about wanting it.
i'm not seeing the part of that article where there's any evidence at all of health care workers pushing anybody to take MAiD.
So you missed this part then?
"In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”
Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.
Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg.
“It’s difficult to quantify it, because there is no easy way to track these cases, but I and other advocates are hearing regularly from disabled people every week who are considering (euthanasia),” she said.
Frazee cited the case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman who has cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Lewis’ mother, Sheila Elson, took her to an emergency room in Newfoundland five years ago. During her hospital stay, a doctor said Lewis was a candidate for euthanasia and that if her mother chose not to pursue it, that would be “selfish,” Elson told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "
MAID being pushed on poor people, MAID being pushed on veterans asking for mental health
many Canadians will know examples of it being abused
Honestly everything the Nazi's did, the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom did first the Nazis just scaled it up big time. Modern concentration camps, British. The idea of The Final Solution, Canadian. Forced sterilization and eugenics, born in Europe but expanded upon by the United States. At least Canada is trying to find justice for the victims of it's past. Even if it's obviously failing. Is Canada genocidal now, no. We're they, absolutely. Are they do enough to reconcile, not even close.
Newsflash: Canada doesn't give 2 flying fucks about its Indigenous population. We tried to kill them all off in the 20th century remember?
And Trudeau had the neck to say that Canada isn’t institutionally racist.
The only reason people favourably view Canada is because USA's social and political climate is a dumpster fire in comparison. It's legit depressing to live there.
Oof, and with Truth and Reconciliation Day tomorrow.
Wearing an orange shirt is the type of change we need
"...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said they would not be investigating Kotaska, because the woman hasn't filed a criminal complaint"
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/