A woman in Toronto Canada has a diagnosis of Multiple Chemical…
Question Answered step-by-step A woman in Toronto Canada has a diagnosis of Multiple Chemical… A woman in Toronto Canada has a diagnosis of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) which leaves her with trigger rashes, difficulty breathing, and blinding headaches. In addition to this, she also suffered from a spinal cord injury from several years prior. Her conditions prevents her from working and she is on a disability program that gives her an allowance of $1,219 a month. Due to this, she cannot find a home suitable for both her conditions to allow her to live comfortably and so therefore she lives in an apartment that constantly triggers her MCS. With this, two doctors approved her for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). There is now an investigation going on demanded by her supporters regarding the MAID legislation and why it was improperly used when the solution was quite simple: Approve the patient for more disability allowance. This is not the first time a patient with MCS requested MAID and was approved due to similar reasons. Do you think the doctors are wrong for approving MAID for patients who ask for it only because they can’t afford non-medical interventions to make life more bearable? If so, what do you think should have happened instead? If not, why do you think it is justified?Is it right to approve a patient for MAID when a large/entire reason is non-medical? If so, how do you justify ending the life of an innocent and nonterminal patient? If not, how do you justify patient autonomy? Arts & Humanities Philosophy PHIL PHIL-320 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)
