Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Or that bureaucrats or politicians are counting pennies so closely they'll be offing people who are "too expensive" for the system.

It could lead to that on "compassionate grounds" (something like Latimer's argument) if it becomes common.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Or that bureaucrats or politicians are counting pennies so closely they'll be offing people who are "too expensive" for the system.

You don't think that in effect already happens? How many who live in abject poverty with no options that could say that? Maybe not directly but indirectly that happens.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But what if someone doesn't want to? What of Dr. Low above? What of those with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's? What of cancer patients? Do you know what it's like to die of cancer? It's often really, really, not nice, and it's not all about pain, as he says.

And I actually knew a woman with severe, profound, chronic depression. Had been hospitalized over and over again, tried every drug combo possible, ECT, etc. She was in her early 60s when I knew her; she had been chronically depressed since puberty. She did not think her life was worth living; she stated it often, in a wyrd, resigned dispassionate place behind her eyes. I wonder if she might have chosen this.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So I will put it the other way. If people have the right to die it must not infringe - ever at any point - on people's rights to live, as equals in our society, no matter what their impairment or ability to manage it independently.That is the danger I see.

 

[Jaebius]

Presently, if someone requests to be removed from life support - the medical community does not take immediate action. There is a long and thoughtful process to determine with as much clarity as possible whether this is a persistent informed wish, and consistent with the previously known values of the individual. It is NOT something the medical community takes lightly, nor does easily. I would imagine similar checks and balances of process will be part of forthcoming discussion relative to development of laws as directed by the court today.

I do find it offensive that some are implying that docs are just out there waiting for the go-ahead signal to start killing people. Docs find this situation difficult too ... that's one to give to some thought to.

Checks and balances can be put into the law. There's no real way to put a guarantee of "thought" into it. I do agree with you on your last paragraph.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But what if someone doesn't want to? What of Dr. Low above? What of those with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's? What of cancer patients? Do you know what it's like to die of cancer? It's often really, really, not nice, and it's not all about pain, as he says.

And I actually knew a woman with severe, profound, chronic depression. Had been hospitalized over and over again, tried every drug combo possible, ECT, etc. She was in her early 60s when I knew her; she had been chronically depressed since puberty. She did not think her life was worth living; she stated it often, in a wyrd, resigned dispassionate place behind her eyes. I wonder if she might have chosen this.

And you are speculating on her behalf. There's the seed of danger present in this.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@BetteTheRed what I see from your description of your friend was someone determined to live.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But I'm not speculating about how Dr. Low felt. He said so clearly.

What of the rights of the people who have brought this to the Supreme Court? You can protect people who need protecting while still giving people the freedom to die with dignity if they choose. I am not a young woman. I have seen my parents die, my in-laws die, of a variety of causes. Some deaths are kinder than others.

(And what I was trying to do with my description of the depressed woman was to describe somebody outside of the paradigm of terminal illness who might still be compassionately included in this circle if she wanted to be.)

 

[ChemGal]

So I will put it the other way. If people have the right to die it must not infringe - ever at any point - on people's rights to live, as equals in our society, no matter what their impairment or ability to manage it independently.That is the danger I see.

I don't see that's why there is support behind this ruling. Instead of fighting the option, why not fight the problems if any do come as a result of this? The ruling itself is not the problem.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't see that's why there is support behind this ruling. Instead of fighting the option, why not fight the problems if any do come as a result of this? The ruling itself is not the problem.

Wait and see if fatal problems come up before determining if it is necessary to make sure the right to live and be equal is also part of the law? That's kind of careless, IMO.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But I'm not speculating about how Dr. Low felt. He said so clearly.

What of the rights of the people who have brought this to the Supreme Court? You can protect people who need protecting while still giving people the freedom to die with dignity if they choose. I am not a young woman. I have seen my parents die, my in-laws die, of a variety of causes. Some deaths are kinder than others.

(And what I was trying to do with my description of the depressed woman was to describe somebody outside of the paradigm of terminal illness who might still be compassionately included in this circle if she wanted to be.)

The danger though is people in society making decisions about what impairments are worthy of death or not, such as depression in your example, based on assumptions without the person's own voice present.

Okay, nobody's seeing the slippery slope. I think we should consider what hasn't been considered - all speculation on the table. This is life and death policy.

Again - I am seeing hypocricy abound because of the push for suicide awareness and prevention - a worthwhile endeavor. There's always something to live for. It's really disconcerting to hear already how lenient people are.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Rosa sat at the back of the bus and in that action demanded equal rights. I worked in government contracted services and was the "token" person with a visible disability (although numerous people developed mental illness and went on stress leave at this place - highest turnover I've ever witnessed). And I see the merits of changing the system from the inside out as best we can - really believed in that - didn't work out for me. But not in adapting to the system if the system is unjust. That wasn't the same to me as sitting at the back of the bus.

Correction Rosa sat in the front - where she wasn't "supposed to". It was the back that was reserved for black people.

 

[Jaebius]

(Just watched the news coverage on CBC's The National. Disappointed in their poor journalism here. It was very biased.)

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So adapting to an unjust system is like staying at the back of the bus (not front).

 

[BetteTheRed]

So because of some imaginary slippery slope, you think that Dr. Low was justly denied his good death? You think that people do not have the right to control their own death? This is about individual's constitutional right to self-determination. If I'm diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I'll tell you what I'd pick while I was still able to.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So because of some imaginary slippery slope, you think that Dr. Low was justly denied his good death? You think that people do not have the right to control their own death? This is about individual's constitutional right to self-determination. If I'm diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I'll tell you what I'd pick while I was still able to.

Can you address the issue of people living with severe disabilities who are fighting to live, with equality - are not seen as equals as it is because of their impairments have less access to justice, less representation in politics, and less control over their medical care, and are poor - can you not see that this is not just an issue of "mainstream" people who acquire terminal illnesses dying with dignity?

Why can't people see this and respect that there is a whole other side that needs to be considered and codified into law before a new euthanasia law is passed?

If you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing I see no reason to stay at WC. I think people actually don't give a s**t about equality for people with disabilities. The status quo hasn't budged - it's just been sugar coated.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I bring up legitimate academic study, legitimate work from the rights movement and people are only interested in defending the status quo. Progressive, my foot.

 

[ChemGal]

I think people actually don't give a s**t about equality for people with disabilities.

Because people disagree with you?
I've brought up some issues and you are quick to bring them down. Not everything can be solved by changing society and you don't even want to try to see that viewpoint - at least not when I bring it up.

As I said already, this was brought up to the court because of some people with disabilities.

 

[Pinga]

The status quo would be defending that people don't have the right to choose death.

Kimmio, no one, not one, zerio, zilch people have said on this thread that people wiith disabilities are less worthy, or should die. Not one. zero zilch.

No one has said that any of our WonderCafe friends, with their myriad of challenges, or their children with their myriad of challenges are less worthy. Many have, in fact, articulated the opposite.

What has occurred, is individuals have spoken to their right to die. Ther own. Their right to make a decision on their own behalf. Not based on disability, but on when they feel the pain of living is too great for the benefit of life, or when they feel that they are a shell, not living.

What is interesting, is most people that I know fight for life, as long as living is an option.
The people that I know, who were dealing with death chose DNR.


So, you may think you understand what this bill is about....

But what I don't understand, while you will make people suffer, or take their own life, by refusing to allow them to get assistance when they and the medical profession agree, that it is appropriate and good.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Because people disagree with you?
I've brought up some issues and you are quick to bring them down. Not everything can be solved by changing society and you don't even want to try to see that viewpoint - at least not when I bring it up.

As I said already, this was brought up to the court because of some people with disabilities.

People who are mainstream who happen to have disabilities. Those who are poor struggling for equality - to live as they want to live continue to be oppressed and don't stand a chance if society doesn't change - and people only want to see it from their vantage point - not from the lowest strata where the majority of people with disabilities are at, or at risk of.