MP re-introducing Right To Die legislation

leggo

I hope it passes Parliament this time. His words were profound. "Regardless of where they stand on the issue, I hope they look at it with respect, empathy, compassion, love, hope and mercy". 

leggo

Big news today. SCC allows doctor-assisted death.

LindaE54

Leggo - Yes big news.  Quite happy with the decision.  I watching an interview with a Quebec doctor who is against the decision but he brought up some very good points.  He said that we need to have more specialized palliative care centers available (at least in Quebec don't know about the rest of Canada), more access to existing treatments (gov recently reduced money for certain tx to patients with mets) and to new treatments not yet approved here.  Too many false diagnosis and prognosis were also an issue for him.  I am repeating myself because I posted this on another thread, but it does get my blood boiling.  It's about Femara.  The FDA approved it in 1998 with conditions and at large in 2001.  Health Canada approved it only in 2006.  This is a perfect example of not having access to treatments.  (Viagra was approved by the FDA in 98 and in 99 in Canada about 3-4 months later).  I worry that Canadian women will not have access to Ibrance in a timely fashion.

The decision to put an end to our lives when all else fails is very personal and I respect every one's opinion, but for me, it is reassuring to know that it's there.

Linda

DiveCat

I was thrilled with this decision yesterday...I kept checking from work to see if it had been released and was not only pleased with the decision, but that it was unanimous. I am a firm believer, and in part influenced by many personal experiences with family and friends, in the right to this option.

Anyone interested in some documentaries about the subject, and how such decisions can happen and be carried out, I recommend checking out Choosing to Die (BBC), and How to Die in Oregon (on Netflix last time I checked),

leggo

I was anxiously awaiting the decision as well. About time. Linda, I didn't see your other post about Femara. I didn't know anything about when it was approved. I have discussed these things with several doctors though, and it seems Health Canada has a certain threshold that has to be met when it comes to approval. Avastin, for instance, was granted approval after the US. It didn't help many people, killed a few. We pulled it almost immediately, the US followed suit later. I think Canada is more cautious doling out outrageously priced drugs for free....they'd better be worth it. I'm good with that, and really only the way our socialized medicine can survive.  Also, it's not all Health Canada's fault for the availability issue. Pharmaceutical companies have a very heavy hand when it comes to who will get what drug. They want certain conditions to be met so their results aren't skewed. They try very hard to keep that illusion going that their drugs are WORTH the cost. Such as, if you've taken drug A, you can't have drug B, if you have metastatic disease of A, you can't have this or that. Lot of hoops to jump through, for our oncologists to get us the drugs we need, and usually next to impossible. Heaven forbid a drug company is called out on the uselessness of one of their new $10k drugs. They're swine, in my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for commenting ladies. I'm very interested to see how the majority feel on the right to die issue. It's an important one to me.

208sandy

Delighted with SCC decision - it's about time and may be timely for me. As for the drug companies being swine - I have to disagree because twice now (once in U.S. and now in Canada) the drug companies have approved me for "compassionate" which means they are picking up the tab on very pricey tx's - there of course is a whole argument to be made for the fact that the prices are unnecessarily exorbitant but that is an argument for another day and time, for right now happy with the SCC and good to see that we're now talking about palliative care as well.

GG27

So happy with the decision. We treat our pets better than we treat ourselves. When our pets are at life's end & in pain, we are compassionate & put them out of their misery. I read today that a lot of folks are very unhappy about this & think that all the Dr's will be playing God, isn't that what keeping dying people alive is by feeding them intravenously etc?

When my time was nearer I was going to be one of those women that you see on the news fighting for the right to not live in pain anymore, but I guess I will have to find another battle for fight.... maybe some new drugs for Stage IV cancer that Health Canada drags it's feet on. I do hope that I don't have to fight that fight for a few more years. Can't believe the Viagra/Femara story. GG

LindaE54

Sandy - glad to hear you were approved for "compassionate" in Canada.  I emailed Health Canada asking about Ibrance.  The only response so far was "received and will be directed to appropriate person".

I hope Ibrance or any other new Stage 4 meds in the works be available to all stage 4 patients worldwide.

Linda

leggo

Sandy, I just have to ask, are you sure those "compassionate" drugs weren't approved for your type of cancer and treatment history and just not covered by Health Canada? I've been at this a looong time and the one thing I do know, is that if you don't "fit" the parameters, you're not going to get that drug no matter what. There are situations where you fit the mold , the drug is not covered by Health Canada, but you can have it prescribed and pay for it out of pocket, and under that circumstance, the pharmaceutical company may pay for it under their compassionate use allowance. Two totally different situations and something I'd like to get clarified. If you're getting compassionate use drugs that you don't meet the specs for in the east and I'm not getting them in the west, someone's going to have some 'splaining to do.

leggo

Just as an example, so we're all on the same page, my onc was able to provide Avastin, if I was willing to pay for it, because Health Canada decided not to fund it any further. Can't remember which pharma company supplied it but, as it was developed for another type of cancer, colon I believe, and they decided to open it up to breast cancer patients, I was eligible. That pharma company was willing to go halves-ies with me under their compassionate use program. Pharma company's call to ALLOW it to be used for breast cancer, not oncs.

leggo

Linda, I also have no knowledge about Ibrance because I'm a Her2 girl, but the little bit I have read implies that if you have had hormonal therapy in the past, you're ineligible to have it prescribed. I'd say that cuts out the majority of the Stage IV's right of the bat. Hopefully, they'll expand that, but as it stands now, oncs will have their hands tied. These kinds of situations are what makes me look upon pharmaceutical companies with disgust. It shouldn't be up to them. They're done, they R&D'd the drug....they'll make their millions back plus a few billion for good measure...so move on instead of dictating THEIR terms. Ugh, they bug me.

208sandy

Leggo - I am sorry but I really don't understand your question - my onc wanted me on the drug, she got me to sign the request to the drug company and within days the drug was shipped to my onc at the cancer clinic - that's all the info I can give you - I don't want to get into a huge discussion about this because from province to province the rules are all different. I urge any of you having problems to get in touch with Health Canada - and also to get in touch with the laziest people in the country - your MPP or your MP - they get huge salaries and work very few days a year and get full pensions to boot so I'd say if you're having problems that's who I'd go to - they have staff that handle these things and sometimes they actually answer emails! As for Health Canada the only time I had to contact them they sent me an email within 48 hours and followed it up with a letter - no complaints from me on that score either. Like I said in my earlier post there is a huge discussion to be had about drug company profits but I am not going to take that on any time soon.

GG27

My onco was telling me about a drug that I could take but it wasn't funded by BC Pharmacare, but if I wanted to, she would write me a prescription for it & I could pay for it myself. I'm not sure but I think this is maybe what Sandy is saying, every province has different parameters of what they fund & what they don't. If I'm misunderstanding, sorry to have waded in here.

I was happy to take the drug that was funded, it's working for me & is paid for. Glad you were able to get some financial relief from the drug co.

leggo

Yes GG, that is what I was referring to and yes, Sandy, that is what I was asking. The drug being paid for, not whether or not it can even be prescribed. I think most of us, if not all, have seen the stipulations for certain cancer drugs....you know those things that read "indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer who have previously received at least ___chemotherapeutic regimens in the past that have included ___ or ____. Prior treatment must not have included _____ or _____. Not indicated for patients with ____ or ____, who have previously received treatment for____ or ____. Time between adjuvent and metastatic usage may not exceed ____ months. (and your eyes are blue and you're at least 6 feet tall). The first part is real....pulled it off a pdf on Halaven. The stuff in parenthesis is me making fun of it:).

What I was asking Sandy (and doing a bad job of it) was if your situation is like GG's where your onc was able to prescribe the drug, you meet the requirements and it simply wasn't covered by Health Canada? That's understandable to me and I don't have an issue with it. I'm pleased that a drug company will kick in in those situations. If on the other hand, you were prescribed a particular cancer drug outside the parameters of its use, that would upset me, because there were several chemotherapy drugs I didn't qualify for because of my pathology and prior treatment history. Onc believed I would benefit, but short of fudging some of my information, he could not prescribe it. For all, I know, perhaps there are oncs out there willing to do that, so I don't want you to have to spill that info, if that's the case. 

Yes, all provinces have guidelines of what they will and will not pay for...I know that, but what they can't do, specific to a province or not, is prescribe a CANCER drug that falls outside of the parameters of the stipulations laid out by the drug company. If that's what happened in your case, I'd like to hear about it, if you choose to share. If I knew your pathology and situation, I could probably guess, but I don't....and I don't want to be nosy and come right out and ask what drugs they were or the stats of your disease. None of my business.

I am also very much aware that any doctor in Canada can prescribe any non-cancer drug regardless of it's indications. Whether they choose to or not is up to individual doctors. In this case I'm talking about drugs that have shown a benefit in controlling the disease such as metformin, statins, etc. I'm aware they can do this as long as they are not an ONCOLOGICAL specified drug.

To be clear, I'm talking about CANCER drugs only, in which drug companies have total control and a ridiculously tight reign on who gets it and who doesn't, not other pharmaceuticals. Do they provide "compassionate use" (meaning they'll financially contribute)? Yes, I know that they do that. Will they provide a CANCER specific drug you don't meet their requirements for (which I also consider "compassionate use")? No. 

Anyhoo, getting way off track, and I suspect your situation was much like GG's so I think I've answered my own question. 

208sandy

Like I said (and this is the last time I am going to say it especially on this thread) the drug was specifically for bc and I was not insured for it so the drug company is GIVING IT TO ME FOR FREE at the request of my onc.

leggo

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/where-canada-s-poli...