End of Life – mackaycartoons

Tuesday October 25, 2016

October 24, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 25, 2016

Steven Blaney kicks off Conservative leadership campaign with proposed niqab ban

October 8, 2016

Quebec MP Steven Blaney is running for leadership of the Conservative Party, and his first major policy position is a ban on the niqab and a promise to invoke the notwithstanding clause if courts strike down his new measures.

The former minister in the cabinet of Stephen Harper said he will introduce legislation that would forbid the Islamic face-covering while voting and taking the oath of citizenship. He also said that the prohibition would extend to people working in the federal public service.

October 10, 2014

“We are a country that is built on immigration, but we have to be sure that those new Canadians we welcome are understanding of how we live. We don’t want our country to become like the country they left,” Blaney told reporters Monday. “We fully welcome you, but we want you to respect who we are.”

The measures are necessary, Blaney said, to “ensure the sustainability of our integration model” and to protect women’s rights.

The proposal revives a controversial debate from the last campaign, when Harper himself suggested the niqab should be banned from the public service.

Friday December 8, 2006

Zunera Ishaq, a Muslim woman, went to court to challenge the government’s ban, and, in the middle of the campaign, the Federal Court of Appeal cleared the way for her to wear the head covering. (Source: CBC News)

Reversed order of pages so my cartoon appears in colour today! pic.twitter.com/yzPv6gcGhJ

— Graeme MacKay (@mackaycartoons) October 25, 2016

Tuesday June 7, 2016

June 6, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 7, 2016

Missed deadline on medically assisted dying leaves doctors divided

June 6 was the last day for Parliament to pass legislation governing medically assisted dying before a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court. It won’t happen.

On Friday, the Senate sent the bill to its legal affairs committee for study. The committee meets today but won’t be able to report on the bill until the full Senate resumes Tuesday. And it still could be weeks before any federal law is in place.

That means on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s original ruling becomes the law, which means doctors can’t be prosecuted under the Criminal Code if they help a patient suffering from a “grievous and irremediable” illness to die.

So, what does that mean?

The medical community is divided.

Dr. Gus Grant, with the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, believes doctors are better off without a new law.

“Many voices have created June 6 to be a deadline. It’s not a deadline. It’s simply the day (the Supreme Court’s Carter decision) becomes the law of the land,” Dr. Grant said on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics last week.

April 18, 2002

“And the language that said it’s a deadline creates the brinksmanship type mentality, a false sense of urgency, which is what is motivating people to pass legislation that is flawed,” he added.

Grant argued the condition in the government’s legislation that requires a patient’s death to be “reasonably foreseeable” is meaningless to physicians.

But Dr. Jeff Blackmer, Canadian Medical Association’s vice-president of medical professionalism, argues the exact opposite, saying the federal government’s language needs to be more precise than simply a “grievous and irremediable illness.”

“I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of physicians. We have done the work on this. We have gone out to our membership and said, ‘Does this make sense to you? Can you incorporate this at the bedside?’ And they have unequivocally told us ‘No.’

“So they are looking to the federal law for guidance on this.” (CBC News)

Published in the Regina Leader Post, June 8, 2016

Friday, October 17, 2014

October 16, 2014 by Graeme MacKay

Illustration by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday, October 17, 2014

Parliamentary delinquency on assisted suicide

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in a Charter challenge to our ban on assisted suicide. Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, the women afflicted with degenerative diseases at the case’s origin, have ended their suffering. Some groups press on in their names, while others defend the law. Whatever the outcome, the case testifies that the House of Commons has ceased to be the place where Canadians debate what matters most to them.

This wasn’t the Supreme Court’s first time considering the right to end one’s life or to receive help in doing so. In 1993, a bare majority of five judges rejected Sue Rodriguez’s claim and upheld the ban on assisted suicide. The only judge from that time still serving is Beverley McLachlin. Then a young judge, she was one of the dissenters.

Court watchers expect Chief Justice McLachlin to rally a majority around her view of autonomy and reverse the earlier decision. The case law under the Charter has evolved. Public opinion around assisted suicide has shifted. Legislative innovation in other jurisdictions offers examples of loosening the ban while establishing safeguards to protect the vulnerable.

But is this the kind of decision best left to the courts? By any standard, it’s an extraordinarily complex, delicate question.

Determining policy on assisted suicide involves our fundamental commitments to the autonomy of the individual and the sanctity of life and entails interpreting those commitments in a secular, multicultural society. It calls for weighing the right to assistance ending one’s life against the risk of abusing that right and exploiting the vulnerable. In our federation, it requires distinguishing the Parliament of Canada’s exclusive power to define the criminal law from the provinces’ power to regulate health. (Continued: Globe & Mail)

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

February 24, 2014 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Trudeau skips out as Liberal conventioneers vote to legalize assisted suicide

Federal Liberals have voted in favour of legalizing assisted suicide but whether Leader Justin Trudeau will run with the idea is a mystery.

Trudeau was not in the room Sunday when delegates to the party’s national convention passed a resolution urging that voluntary, medically assisted death be decriminalized — although moments earlier he had been just outside the convention hall, cheering as the Canadian men’s hockey team won Olympic gold.

He was in the room later when delegates gave him an overwhelming, after-the-fact endorsement of his decision to kick senators out of the Liberal caucus.

[slideshow_deploy id=’1982’]

Delegates also passed a raft of potentially costly resolutions that included supporting many big-ticket items:

— An $18-billion-a-year investment in infrastructure.
— Creation of a basic annual income.
— A national transportation strategy.
— Funding for aboriginal education on reserves equal to that spent on provincially operated schools.
— Increased funding for mental health services.
— Expansion and enhancement of the Canada Pension Plan.

None of the resolutions are binding on the leader and, since he gave no closing remarks and did not hold the traditional wrap-up news conference at the convention’s end, it was unclear which resolutions Trudeau believes should make their way into a 2015 election platform or how a Liberal government would pay for them.

He did give a number of one-on-one television interviews — which were taped before the resolutions were voted upon.

In an interview with Global’s Tom Clark, Trudeau, who has promised not to hike corporate or income taxes or the GST, said the debate to come will be over where to spend the surplus the Harper government has forecast for next year. (Source: Yahoo News Canada)

Thursday, September 26, 2013

September 26, 2013 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday, September 26, 2013

It’s time to talk about assisted suicide: Ontario health minister

It’s time for Canadians and their leaders to talk about the taboo of assisted suicide as part of end-of-life care, Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews said Wednesday.

But in the end, it’s up to the federal government to decide whether it should be legal, she said.

“I think it’s about the community having the conversation, I think it’s about people having the conversation,” Matthews said.

A prominent doctor’s impassioned, videotaped appeal to legalize assisted suicide just a few days before his death has re-opened the emotionally charged debate.

Dr. Donald Low, who shepherded Toronto through the 2003 SARS crisis, asked that Canada allow people to die with dignity, eight days before he died from a brain tumour last week at age 68.

Low put a human face on the controversial subject, Matthews said.
“Donald Low’s video was very powerful and many people have personally experienced it,” she said.

“There are strong opinions on this. I think it’s a conversation we need to have.”

Matthews said she’d be surprised if the topic doesn’t come up when provincial, federal and territorial health ministers meet in Toronto on Sept. 27.

But she wouldn’t divulge her own view about assisted suicide. (Source: Edmonton Journal)