Anti-euthanasia organization wins
intervenor status in crucial court case

In a significant achievement for the organization, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's legal counsel, Hugh Scher, on Dec. 24 won intervenor status in the case of an 81-year-old Toronto woman with Alzheimer's disease. She is being denied life-sustaining medical care.

However, the Attorney-General of Ontario has also received intervenor status in the case, turning it into a "David and Goliath" situation.

EPC executive director Alex Schadenberg told The Interim that the victory of receiving intervenor status is dampened by the fact that the Attorney-General of Ontario's office doubled its work due to the massive amount of information it has included in its factum.

The case is about Margaret Holland, who has been deemed incompetent to make medical decisions for herself, but who had legally assigned power of attorney for personal care to her daughters.

She told her daughters that she wished to receive life-sustaining medical treatment until her natural death. Her daughters have defended her wishes, and have asked that all medical care be continued for their mother.

However, the medical team at the hospital "taking care" of Holland are convinced that due to the condition of their patient, providing life-sustaining medical care for her is futile and creates unnecessary suffering.

The hospital received a legal order in October 2003 allowing them to override the medical decisions of the family, who have power of attorney for personal care and who are seeking to fulfill the previously expressed wishes of their mother.

In a statement provided to The Interim, the EPC said it believes:

• The decision to withdraw or withhold medical care for Margaret Holland is based on negative attitudes and stereotypes concerning Alzheimer's disease.

• Healthcare practitioners and boards should not be permitted to withdraw or withhold medical care from a patient against the wishes of their legally appointed attorney for personal care, or against her previously expressed wishes, when it may result in the person's death.

• A presumption in favour of life should be recognized by the courts, in order to protect vulnerable people from decisions to withhold or withdraw medical care that will result in their deaths.

• The previously expressed wishes of a person to receive medical care until natural death should be respected.

Schadenberg said that the Holland case "teaches us that it is necessary not only to have a legal power of attorney for personal care document that names someone you trust to make decisions for you, but that the document also states in clear legal language how you want to be treated when you are unable to make decisions for yourself."

The EPC has produced the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care to protect individuals when they are unable to make medical decisions for themselves. The cost for this important, and possibly life-saving, document is $20.

The EPC has already incurred significant expenses in obtaining intervenor status. There are legal costs associated with research and the two days scheduled for the trial in Toronto, as well as consultations with experts across Canada. Schadenberg said, "We have mounted an excellent intervention, in spite of the fact that we are up against the Attorney-General of Ontario and a respected hospital in Toronto."