Information for Laurel Rousseau: As per your letter of Oct 12 to the Record: 1.) If you want access to MAID, make sure your next of kin know that, and then they can place you in a MAID facility 2.) If you want your lesbian partner to have rights, get to a lawyer now and put the legal documentation in place and then she will have rights. Even married couples can't always have the same room - even same facility. The system is overcrowded. 3.) "The Views...needing your hormone pills." Saying The Views would withhold doctor prescribed medications is a serious allegation. If true, a review would be in order. So I forwarded a copy of your letter to the Minister of Health. I imagine they will contact you directly for more information.
I am sorry I didn't respond to you earlier as I was not aware you were posting on this web site. re: your post 10/21...I will respond to your 3 comments. (1) Like you said, "the system is overcrowded." it is so overcrowded that when one is waiting for a bed, we get the first one available. Many, like my mother couldn't wait to choose her facility. So for someone who wants to be in a MAiD facility and is placed in The Views, this becomes a problem for that person. (2) I agree it is important to have a "Living Will" in place. I volunteered in Victoria at a extended care Facility and witnessed married couples being in the same room together and how wonderful that was for them. Unfortunately the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have been clear that they do not accept the legitimacy of same sex marriages. The Victoria Bishop owns The Views and the Board reports to him. (3) Unfortunately the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada Health Ethics Guide is not online and available to the public. One has to pay for a copy. Perhaps it would be wise for you to get one like Jenny did and read section 36. It states "Hormonal therapy is not permitted an Catholic Facilities." The same goes for MAiD. Like you, it was hard for me to believe this. We would be very pleased if they would retract their comments but until that happens, we have no choice but to believe what they say as fact.
I wrote Island Health a month ago and they have not responded to this issue. Thank you for your comments.
Laurel, this is from your letter: "The Views...needing your hormone pills." It says The Views would withhold doctor prescribed medications.
I asked you to name an instance. Many times. You have yet to do so. Why? Because the Views has never done that.
And I am sure that if you had let Jenny edit your letter - she is good at that - you would have never implied that it was ever the case. But you wrote it, the Record published it, and the fall out happened. Perhaps you should engage your brain before you start with your poison pen.
And now Jenny, ... I mean Laurel, who are you to say to me "it would be wise for you to get one". How do you know I don't have one? I probably could get one lent to you FOR FREE, if I wished.
You also say above: " Like you, it was hard for me to believe this." Now you are linking your feeling to me and assuming they are the same. My you are BOLD. Never do that again. I can express my own beliefs.
You called me on my home phone without my permission. You verbally attacked and harassed me. You have crossed the line. I refuse to talk to you anymore. After my phone call from you, I called the Police and they have advised me to keep a record of any further contact with you.
Add this to your record:
I am just BACK FROM THE POLICE STATION. So they know my name and they know what I look like in person. Hope you do not feel so threatened any more now. But they were not interested in talking with me. My name meant nothing to them. One phone call that someone does not like is "not a police complaint."
You were verbally abusive toward me. You had better look up the definition of harassment before you accuse me of it in writing. Seems you are really good at accusing people in writing without having any proof just your accusation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/children-assisted-dying-1.4372627 This should give you food for thought.
Thank you, I had not seen that particular article. The Council of Canadian Academies, on behalf of the Government of Canada Department of Health, is currently examining three complex types of requests that were identified by Parliament for further review and study. These cases are: requests by mature minors, advance requests, and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. I believe submissions to that commission are still being accepted. I can give you the link if you're interested in giving them your thoughts.
I enjoy as you say "food for thought" as long as the writer is not doing ad hominem attacks. Thank you for sharing this article. I have seen it before. It is good they are allowing many experts to be involved in the discussion. I guess this is why we have to wait until Dec 2018 for the paper to be delivered to Parliament.
Well Jenny - you are so smug I think that you would make a good Roman Catholic. You could kneel right at the front of the church to pray ...
In your comments in the Record today you made a statement that is someone wants their "lesbian partner to have rights" in residential care then they should get a lawyer and put it in writing. This would lead me to believe that you are unaware that same sex marriage was.legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005.
If you have arguments to present on whatever your position is then I invite you to articulate them for community discussion.
Yes, Canada has been very good in recognizing same sex marriage. But any lawyer will tell you that if you want to be sure your wishes are acted upon get all the legal paperwork done. You must be UNAWARE that things do not always progress the way we might wish..
And I am lead to believe, by the fact that you are very quick to offer to explain and refer but not listen, that you know everything and could not possibly learn from others.
Your saying: " This would lead me to believe that you are unaware that same sex marriage was.legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005" shows an arrogance beyond belief.
Now here is a fact. My comment that you quote above was not in "the Record today" It is old news. Here is another fact. My post here was 5 days old and yet in the Record you said, "however to date there is nothing posted." Wrong again.
This would lead me to believe that you are UNAWARE of date and time in the real world.
It would be helpful if you could present whatever legal or other arguments you have against secular publicly funded residential care.
I have nothing against secular publicly funded residential care. (Never said I did)
I have nothing against religious affiliate publicly funded residential care.
I have nothing against service groups/associations publicly funded residential care.
We need facilities to give good senior's care. I applaud them all.
I notice that you don't mention for-profit service providers or island health itself as a service provider -- are you against them? Island health has claimed it wants a variety of service providers however that policy was under the old board and government.
Jenny, you are silly to say the least. Why do you make everything a negative? Why does everything have to be "against" someone. I never said I was against secular publicly funded residential care. Yet you jumped to some conclusion of your own and challenged me with: "It would be helpful if you could present whatever legal or other arguments you have against secular publicly funded residential care." You imagined a negative that never existed and then credit it to me. I would TY not to do that.
I am opposed to people forming groups to stir up controversy and delay an additional 70 beds being built in the Comox Valley.
And I am opposed to undocumented "facts" that are engineered to keep the pot boiling. Example from your Home page: "There was an announcement at the Glacier View Lodge Annual General Meeting on September 22, 2017 that the amalgamation with St. Josephs and Providence was off the table. ... Unconfirmed report is that Providence and St. Joseph's will still go ahead with amalgamation."
You might be unaware that unconfirmed means not confirmed as to truth or validity. Gossip. Rumour. Fiction. Certainly not fact.
I completely understand that our community needs the 70 beds desperately. However, please do consider the following facts before attacking our group as the source of the delay. The contract for the 70 beds was scheduled to be awarded in April but EAC came together only at the end of May. The writ dropped in Parliament in April. Once that happened then large-dollar contracts (like the 70 beds) would, by statute, have to wait for review and approval by the new elected government. The NDP/Green coalition government was sworn in July 18 and Parliament did not resume until September 8. Island Health withdrew the RFP at the end of August before formally receiving the petition -- which we sent to them early September. The procurement officer told us at the end of August that they needed to re-assess the Valley’s requirements. In September a new Board chair and some members were appointed by the new government. Equal Access submitted the petition only in early September. The most likely cause of delay then is the change of government.
As for keeping the “pot boiling” – I assure you that we would like this issue resolved – we should not have to petition our government to respect our rights. We’ve presented our case and await their response.
We have no concrete corroboration that St. Joseph’s and Providence will indeed still amalgamate (without GVL) – we did have a verbal report from someone who would know and also a letter written to Island Health by St. Josephs in August announcing an intention that the two RC organizations would amalgamate – this is why it is stated as unconfirmed. According to Dr. K's letter this amalgamation has already happened – although the evidence that this is based upon is not clear. To date there’s nothing on the web site of St. Josephs or Providence nor any press announcement of which we are aware. I fail then to see how the potential amalgamation of St. Joseph’s and Providence – two Roman Catholic organizations is viewed as us engineering facts and stirring the pot.
This has so much gobbledygook that I would need a flow chart to follow it. Haven't time to sort what you are saying out.
Originally the MAID committee was one group that wanted the Palliative Care beds in a secular facility. But it grew and grew. And then the big split - hummm.. Now we have two groups operating. Equal Access Comox Valley and GVLPC.
Equal Access Comox Valley has on their website: "Clearly, allowing the land to be transferred to Providence Health Care and sold off to those 55+’ers with enough collateral to buy a strata lot with a view is in-congruent with the conditions under which the land was so generously given.
GVLPC in their business plan has: "Some of the excess land could be developed not only to raise funds but at the same time broaden out the services provided for seniors in the Comox Valley. One possibility would be Life-Lease"
I guess the original group no longer sees things from the same perception. Just my guess - not able to confirm as to truth or validity.
Please read here for Equal Access Committee’s initial press release from May 18. From the group’s foundation the issues have always been hospice and residential care. http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/news/new-maid-advocacy-group-emerges-in-the-comox-valley/
Nothing sinister in the “split” -- two EAC founding members continued under EACV and the third focused on Glacier View Lodge. See the press announcement here. http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/community/equal-access-comox-valley-addressing-maid-other-issues/
With respect to the Glacier View Lodge land – there is no inconsistency. Selling the land off for 55+ strata lots is inconsistent with the covenants under which it was gifted. Under Life-Lease, however, it seems that the land would return to Glacier View Lodge after the lease owner’s death and the covenant would still be in place and effective.
I read your press release. It was good humour. Do you think people cannot read between those lines. lol
Since I commented on FB a few minutes ago, I have posted a previous FB comment. I asked the question then and now I have reasked it.
"Debbie Baier · Chief Operator at Retired
Jenny Steel No, thank you. I didn't ask for any explaination. I commented on the content of your fellow Equal Access member, Laurel Rousseau’s letter to the Editor. And you deflected that issue by stating above that both myself and Dr. Keresztesi are "unaware". Rousseau's letter was clearly talking about The Views. So would you please tell me specifically when The Views withheld a patient's prescribed medication. Quoting - "The Roman Catholic Health Ethics Guide is clear that hormonal therapy for gender dysphoria is not permitted in RC facilities." just doesn't cut it.
I have never been called unaware before. I have been called a lot of things but now I can add that to the list. Since your opinion of my knowledge is not of any consequence to me in the least, I can only be amused.
Like · Reply · Oct 26, 2017 9:56pm
And I have intentionally left the date stamp on.
So I repeat, Rousseau's letter was clearly talking about The Views. So would you please tell me specifically when The Views withheld a patient's prescribed medication.
Would the answer happen to be never.
This has been answered Laurel's previous reply. I note that in the Record you complained that you'd been waiting for a month for a response to a question you only asked ,according to the above, on October 26.
if you'd like us to post on this website any letters that you've sent to the Minister or elsewhere re the urgency of the 70 beds then please let us know.
Awww, dear Jenny, I did write to the Minister. regarding the urgency of these beds. Surprize! Dated July 17, 2017. His response was to me. Are you asking to read my mail?
And on August 14, I wrote another one.
And I have saved both - documentation you know.
That's great debbie.....happy to hear that you too are campaigning for something that you believe in.
Hi Debbie, I've been tied up with personal affairs the last couple of weeks. Please be assured that I will respond to all your comments within the next week.
How about getting Laurel to respond. She can speak for herself, correct? She is the one who wrote that letter. She didn't have any trouble speaking then.
Both Laurel and I have provided answers to your questions and observations. I refuse to respond to your ad honimen attacks and conspiracy theories. To date the sole argument that you have presented is that you believe the efforts of our group has delayed the 70 new beds. You have chosen though to not take the time to understand an explanation of why this is not likely. As requested previously, please present whatever your arguments are against the goals of this campaign.
Well had to look that one up.. An ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument, but it is based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. That sounds very much like you! You love to attack the church. You know their canons better than they do. And conspiracy theory - you have been listening to Trump too much. A little bit paranoid are we? And arguments, that seems to be your main focus. I think you like to argue. And everyone needs a cause!!!
Equal Access Comox Valley Blog