Editor:
In the early 1990s, several people I loved died in the busyness of the acute care hospital, a place dedicated to the restoration of health and to cure.
This was not the goal for my friends and family but rather, with the realization of impending death, they needed a place where relief of pain and a renewed sense of hope could be found; not hope for cure and prolongation of life but hope for forgiveness and thanksgiving, for reconciliation with loved ones and for a time to say good-bye.
It was evident to me there needed to be an option to hospital and home as a place to spend the final days of life. This option was a freestanding, community-based hospice.
And so I began to speak about dying in the community, a topic met with discomfort by many. We asked people about the care of their loved ones, what mattered, what was missing, what would have made it easier for them and their loved ones.
After several years, we brokered a partnership between two organizations; we purchased land and began to build our dream. On opening day we thanked all who helped to make the dream of hospice come true.
We believed that here was the possibility of a renewed meaning of hope, fostered through human relationship in which each would be reminded of the human condition, the human spirit and the human journey; it is this which brings meaning to both the giver and receiver of care and reaffirms the meaning and value of our lives.
And so it is with great dismay that I read of dissension within the Delta Hospice Society. Yes, the law has changed and each individual has the right to choose Medical Assistance in Dying and many embrace this choice. I also understand that hospice, as part of the health care system, relies on government funds to fulfill its mission in the community.
It is, of course, that this political decision to allow MAiD is something that we pioneers of free standing hospice did not consider and our present concern is that the essence of hospice, the vision of those who paved the way to ensure that families and their loved ones had an option to hospital and home to spend their final days, is in the spotlight and has become controversial.
Could it be that with this public discussion of hospice that some may regard it as a place to end life by being assisted to die? Might guests of the hospice feel pressure to seek assistance so as to decrease the burden to their family?
Each will choose but my hope is that the vision of hospice as a sanctuary for those at end of life will continue to exemplify the spirit of a community that cares, where we recognize the common experience and vulnerability we share as humans.
N. Yurkovich
