First: Joshua (48), who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death (euthanasia by omission). This is not a case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause his death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition probably because he is unlikely to recover from his disability.Again, this is not a situation when someone is on life support, which the hospital wants to turn off. Here, the patient could survive without life support, but the hospital refuses to provide him with food and water, with the declared intention to cause his death. Could it be that they're running out of beds and wish to vacate his bed for someone else? Even if that is the case, that someone else too risks to become the one left to die without food and water simply because the hospital officials believe he's a goner.
Joshua has otherwise stabilized and would likely live for many years in this condition. Society cannot condone intentionally dehydrating a person to death because of their disability or the potential cost of long-term care.
Second: It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that persons willingness to agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person.
The Consent and Capacity Board was established to ensure that consent to treatment is based on the prior wishes or values of a person, before that person became incapacitated to make decisions for themselves. The fact that Joshua did not write down his personal wishes or assign a person to make legal and health care decisions on his behalf in these circumstances, does not negate the fact based on his religious convictions it is unlikely that he would have agreed to death by dehydration.
To pressure a person to agree to intentionally dehydrate a person to death, (euthanasia by omission) based on the cost of continuing the legal battle to defend the values of a person, is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Ontario law.
The court first rejected Joshua's sister, Mallika Arumugan, as his (SDM) because they did not consider her capable of making medical decisions for Joshua, but she also did not agree to the demands of the hospital.
Brampton Civic hospital on August 17 withdrew all life-sustaining treatment and care, including fluids and food, based on the forced agreement between the hospital and the SDM.
Act now to stop this savage murder of an innocent man whose only "crime" is - being disabled.