Order requires seriously injured patient to ask for drink to live
- He was revived successfully, although the apparent brain damage from the attack left him in a coma for a time. He was placed in intensive care where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness has reported he has regained movement in his arms and legs and that he recognizes the family he is living with.
According to Bernard Stephenson, another local pastor and friend who visits Mayandy daily, the injured man can speak some words.
But staff with Brampton Civic Hospital, which is part of the William Osler Health Center, disagree. According to Stephenson, doctors asserted all along that there was no hope of recovery.
The disagreement over his condition and capacity triggered in Ontario the involvement of the region's "Consent and Capacity" board, which by law determines the proper medical treatment for patients unable to make decisions themselves.
However, Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the board's decision simply is euthanasia by omission.
He also claims the hospital put pressure on Mayandy's friend, whose name has been redacted from the decision letter, to support its decision.
"Joshua, who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death. This is not the case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability," Schadenberg said.
He also believes Mayandy's friend and strategic decision-maker, chosen by the board, was pressured into supporting the hospital's position before he appeared before the Consent and Capacity board.
Schadenberg said, "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 to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that person's willingness to a agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person."