I just think it's wrong to end life young. There may be something good that can come from suffering (I expect backlash from that statement) - something learned and overcome - even if not the pain itself. I really think suicide is not our right - in the big picture. My spiritual view.
Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning
- Thread starter blackbelt1961
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Someone who was a good friend of mine has Huntington's Disease. Her Mom had it and she watched as it ravaged her Mom's body and mind. She has decided that she does not want to live that way so she has an agreement with her sister that on her 60th birthday they will go to Switzerland (I think it's Switzerland) and check her in to have a doctor-assisted death. This is her choice and while I will be sad for her, I respect it and it is made from a sound place. This is her decision - no one has the moral grounds to make that decision for her other than her.
I'm pretty sure that Susan Rodriguez (sp) felt that way and did not feel pressured to leave this planet on her own terms before her body stopped working.
The last few weeks of my Father's life were pretty horrible for him - it was a real bonding time for us as a family but I'm not sure that he needed to go through that pain and confusion when the end was near and inevitable.
I'm pretty sure that Susan Rodriguez (sp) felt that way and did not feel pressured to leave this planet on her own terms before her body stopped working.
The last few weeks of my Father's life were pretty horrible for him - it was a real bonding time for us as a family but I'm not sure that he needed to go through that pain and confusion when the end was near and inevitable.
And you are surmising what she (and he felt). No one actually knows. Her pain was uncontrollable. It doesn't look like any new law would actually make his actions legal but I think it is unfair to cast aspersions as to what his motives were. I h ave no problem with you saying I don't believe he should have done what he did because she had her own life and he shouldn't have taken it, no matter the reason but to suggest a nefarious or selfish reason is unfair.
It does. We cannot go back and determine if she was mentally competent or not. She may have been uncommincative - she trusted her dad to look after her - incredibly sad. And the disability rights community was highly involved in protesting against Robert Latimer and the effect that would've had if he were acquitted, on the movement. I didn't just come up with it now because I have a disability.
Did he try everything he could? Incuding giving her up to someone (and there may have been many) with better ability to care for her? It was NOT his life to decide on, pain or not. If she didn't know life without pain - how dare he decide anyway?
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Good things can come out of suffering. I have no issue with your spiritual view, when you apply it to yourself.
Who is to say whether or not that suffering is worth going through, other than the person having to face it?
Again the use of the word "wrong" bothers me - it is just so black and white - you don't believe in/can't support it/are uncomfortable with it but you are not the decider as to what is wrong or right.
The doctor is actually not getting much power here - in fact s/he gets a lot of responsibility with very little power imo. The patient and the people s/he wishes to consult/not consult make the decision and the doctor facilitates it to ensure that it is as painfree and peaceful as possible. It's really not much different than a doctor telling you that your leg is broken and list the choices available to you (although with way more final outcomes).
I will also say that as someone who has attempted to take her own life - I also believe that someone with a well-documented case of mental illness who has tried all means possible to get more comfortable and is not in a depressive state at the time should be able to make the decision to take her own life. I'm doing ok right now - struggling but safe - but I would not have been disappointed had someone been able to facilitate the process. Alas, I do not think we will ever be there as a society. I also think that it is too bad that someone who is suffering from Alzheimers and is unhappy (some people with dementia are happy but some people are scared and suffering) probably won't meet the criteria for making this decision.
The doctor is actually not getting much power here - in fact s/he gets a lot of responsibility with very little power imo. The patient and the people s/he wishes to consult/not consult make the decision and the doctor facilitates it to ensure that it is as painfree and peaceful as possible. It's really not much different than a doctor telling you that your leg is broken and list the choices available to you (although with way more final outcomes).
I will also say that as someone who has attempted to take her own life - I also believe that someone with a well-documented case of mental illness who has tried all means possible to get more comfortable and is not in a depressive state at the time should be able to make the decision to take her own life. I'm doing ok right now - struggling but safe - but I would not have been disappointed had someone been able to facilitate the process. Alas, I do not think we will ever be there as a society. I also think that it is too bad that someone who is suffering from Alzheimers and is unhappy (some people with dementia are happy but some people are scared and suffering) probably won't meet the criteria for making this decision.
It's not my decision to make regarding anyone else but if we start opening doors to making suicide more acceptable we're on a slippery slope. We have a responsibility to care for each other - but accepting killing each other? No. I have to draw a line somewhere - morally, before it goes to far and begins to creep too suspisciously close to eugenics (I believe not everything is an individual concern alone) - and where I draw it is elderly and terminally ill who can consent.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
what bill?????? the Supreme Court has ruled physician assisted suicide is not illegal and has directed the governments of the country to create legislation around the issue. no bill has been passed federally (and I would be surprised one is passed before the election this fall)
Again, I don't think taking the law into his own hands was the correct thing to do. I just looked it up on Wikipedia to verify my memory but her treating physician said she would be in incredible pain with the next surgery and that she might have to have a feeding tube to administer powerful pain killers. She lived in a group home and loved visits from her family. No one close to the family has suggested neglect. Just as you can say "who am I to decide that she should die|" Who are you to decide that she should have to suffer?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer
Don't let facts get in the way of a passionate argument or in forming conclusions based on personal convictions that one asserts as being wrong or morally reprehensible.....
Suppose you were born into the world with physical pain and never knew no physical pain? In Latimer's case he made the decision vicariously assuming he knew that she was suffering too much to live - because he was not born with the same pain. She was smiling in every photo I ever saw. Maybe that is enough of a reason to live? But nobody gets to ask her, or make her smile, anymore.
Here is a good article from someone who is facing this as an indvidual and as a law-maker. It fully explains that it is an assisted death - taking care of the inevitable. It also explains how the process will work.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/assisted-death-is-the-compassionate-merciful-and-right-thing
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/assisted-death-is-the-compassionate-merciful-and-right-thing
I don't think you are getting what my objection is - you can disagree with his decision and explain why(like you did above) but to vehemently assert that he did it because he was selfish was unfair and unkind - in my opinion - there is no evidence to support this from people who knew HIM, his daughter (who was 13, not 11) and his family. I believe that the doctor was in a position to judge that she was suffering based on her facial reactions, etc but that doesn't mean she couldn't also smile. (You are less inclined to take a photo of someone suffering than of someone smiling)
From the Council of Canadians with Disabilities:
http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/endoflife/latimer/2000/05g
About personhood (esp. girls in this paper) of people with disabilities and the law.
http://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/101/157
I don't think you are understanding me - I have no problem with your BELIEFs. I may not agree with them, but that's what makes the world go around and why we live in a democracy where our elected officials make legislation ostensibly based on what their constituents - the people who elected them - want.
What I do have a problem with is when you DEFAME someone by saying what his reason was for doing what he did. Not only do I think (my opinion which you are free to disagree with) that it is morally wrong to do so it is also illegal.
(I'm waiting for you to respond saying that society is ableist and not willing to take the rights of people with disabilities into consideration so therefore lawmakers are not in the right position to make laws)
(Regardless this is not about Latimer - it's about being able to make one's own decision to end one's life on their own terms when there is proof that it will end)
What I do have a problem with is when you DEFAME someone by saying what his reason was for doing what he did. Not only do I think (my opinion which you are free to disagree with) that it is morally wrong to do so it is also illegal.
(I'm waiting for you to respond saying that society is ableist and not willing to take the rights of people with disabilities into consideration so therefore lawmakers are not in the right position to make laws)
(Regardless this is not about Latimer - it's about being able to make one's own decision to end one's life on their own terms when there is proof that it will end)
Are you an ally in human rights for people with disabilities? If you identify as one do you not care to read about the issues affecting the real grassroots movement? It disappoints me that you don't seem to. End of life issues are important because if we start to see impairment as a determinant of quality of life across the board then we are already diminishing the value of life of people with disabilities.
You know that people with disabilities are politically under-represented, right? Speaking of elected officials and what constituents want?
If the "voiceless" don't get to decide who kills them or not because they are deemed worthless and powerless, how are they going to affect change with the political process?