Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Seeler]

Seeler I have a question for you. At what point in your Parkinsons would you want your family to agree to your request for euthanasia? I ask this because as I watch some progressive diseases, the bar is often moved because they do adapt to their new reality sometimes....not always but sometimes.

I've considered this for the last five or so years. Right now my life is still good. I am capable of doing a great deal - managing my home, walking, driving, eating (although I dribble food on my clothes more than I used to), talking (including leading worship or giving presentations), writing a book. My energy level is low; my tremor is annoying; my numbness and stiffness interfere with simple tasks like brushing my teeth and tying my shoes. But life is good.
At some point I will lose more and more functions of day to day living. My husband is getting older (80) and has some minor health problems.

As long as I am competent and able to communicate I would expect to be able to make life and death decisions about my health care.
So right now I would say that as long as I am able to see and hear, read, talk, give and receive love and affection, I will continue living with Parkinsons.
Parkinsons itself does not kill. It disables. If nothing else intervenes I will probably end up curled in a fetal position in a bed in a nursing home. I don't want that[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]. So I hope that before that happens I will have a heart attack or stroke (DNR); or develop cancer (no chemo or radiation); or I may choke on my food (no feeding tube). I might even at some point consider discontinuing my heart and blood pressure medication if that would hasten death. I haven't done much research into this yet - I keep putting it off. I'm not ready yet.[/FONT]
But I would like to have the possibility of doctor assisted death as an option. - not for now, but for some point in the future when I am ready.

 

[Carolla]

You being you Kimmio - I would think you would have already made certain about all the social options. Plus - it seems from your stance here that you would not be requesting physician assisted death.

It is not the place of doctor to determine a patient's income level. Nor do all health care facilities have social workers.

 

[Pinga]

I suggest that puts an unfair burden on the person who lives in poverty who has passed all the other hurdles , but now must pas additional hurdles as they don't have funding.

It presumes that the process is unsufficent to help make a decision based on their skills, within ethic boards, or other built in controls.

Shucks, I would be pretty ticked off if I was dying of ___________, and my doctor and I agreed, and had passed all tests, but, now, I can't die, because I have to prove my finances. sigh...yeah. that would tick me off

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

This is where we part ways. No respect for the poor or marginalized, or for equality or for the safety and well being of PWDs.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You being you Kimmio - I would think you would have already made certain about all the social options. Plus - it seems from your stance here that you would not be requesting physician assisted death.

It is not the place of doctor to determine a patient's income level. Nor do all health care facilities have social workers.

Yeah, it should be part of a comprehensive process.

Me being me what does that mean? I happen to know something about this and be living pretty close to it so I can identify - me and thousands.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Carolla a person depressed by socioeconomics and disability - a common scenario - easier to help them die than help them live?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But you're right I'd never ask for it.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But if you had terminal cancer, and were certain to die soon in an agonizing fashion, you also would never ask for it? That's good that you know yourself that well. But, given safeguards that ensured that informed consent truly were so, how could you make a decision to deny someone else a better death?

 

[BetteTheRed]

If I had a choice between a barbiturate overdose that would surely put me to sleep, then stop my heart, versus waiting a week for my kidneys to shut down, I know I'd pick the former. I don't think that a week of intense suffering is a small thing.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Jeez you're making it sound like options to die are so decadent when so many struggle to live - some have just wanted equality to live and spent their lives hoping, fighting for it. Boggles my mind right now.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But if you had terminal cancer, and were certain to die soon in an agonizing fashion, you also would never ask for it? That's good that you know yourself that well. But, given safeguards that ensured that informed consent truly were so, how could you make a decision to deny someone else a better death?

I already said terminal illness is a different matter. I made that clear.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I suggest that puts an unfair burden on the person who lives in poverty who has passed all the other hurdles , but now must pas additional hurdles as they don't have funding.

It presumes that the process is unsufficent to help make a decision based on their skills, within ethic boards, or other built in controls.

Shucks, I would be pretty ticked off if I was dying of ___________, and my doctor and I agreed, and had passed all tests, but, now, I can't die, because I have to prove my finances. sigh...yeah. that would tick me off

You think someone with a chronic condition such as clinical depression who was poor and depressed would ever be considering suicide if they weren't...poor and depressed? and so... You'd just suggest to kill them? I mean "help them die with 'dignity'"? What kind of dignity is that? Sick. So callous. Alas the new ruling allows for this callousness it would appear. Unless socioeconomics is factored in.

 

[Carolla]

Jeez you're making it sound like options to die are so decadent when so many struggle to live - some have just wanted equality to live and spent their lives hoping, fighting for it. Boggles my mind right now.

I think you are mixing the issues. The decision of the Supreme Court only addresses physician assisted death in very specific circumstances.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Iremediable could be any chronic and permanent condition - and suffering could be something like depression - physical or mental suffering. @Carolla it's not clear at all. Very scary. Very disturbing.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You think someone with a chronic condition such as clinical depression who was poor and depressed would ever be considering suicide if they weren't...poor and depressed? and so... You'd just suggest to kill them? I mean "help them die with 'dignity'"? What kind of dignity is that? Sick. So callous. Alas the new ruling allows for this callousness it would appear. Unless socioeconomics is factored in.

@ Pinga so someone whose health and reason for wanting to die let's say was directly impacted by poverty - let them? Or help them live?

 

[Lastpointe]

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.

I am aware that some groups who support people with disabilities have expressed the views of kimmio. The concern that people could become pressured into choosing death.

I think that is why there will be a long process to develop a new law. Definately this law will appear after the election, it is going to take time.

But , i want to point out that allowing a competent adult to choose death is not euthanasia. And when i see people refer to this as an euthanasia law it is wrong. Euthanasia is a person making a decision on their own to end soeone elses life.

Lets rememberr that this stemmed first from sue rodrigues. And i think that the ALS patients clearly shows why there is a need to offer this


An ALS patients loses motor control. Unfortunately by the time they may wish they were dead they will be unable to physically commit suicide. So They need help. And that was what the law prevented. The spouse or doctor would be charged with murder


In all honesty, the patient with terminal painful cancer can stock pile their morphine if they wished and choose to over dose and die. Not as pleasantly as an iv injection. BUt they could. It is the others who are imprisioned


I agree that there are issues. Safe guards need to be carefully set up so dear old dying dad isnt put to death by greedy kids. But the supreme court has certainly laid outsome stringent requirements. We need to see how it might be formed into law.

One of my concerns is the potential for less research and moneyput into paliative care and pain managementt after this. I dont expect a change but the potential issue could be that drugcompanies and researchers stop worrying about managing unrelenting pain because people will choose death


I think our elected officials along with our medical community have an opportunity tocraft a law thatwill protect people while offering them some hope

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I am aware that some groups who support people with disabilities have expressed the views of kimmio. The concern that people could become pressured into choosing death.

I think that is why there will be a long process to develop a new law. Definately this law will appear after the election, it is going to take time.

But , i want to point out that allowing a competent adult to choose death is not euthanasia. And when i see people refer to this as an euthanasia law it is wrong. Euthanasia is a person making a decision on their own to end soeone elses life.

Lets rememberr that this stemmed first from sue rodrigues. And i think that the ALS patients clearly shows why there is a need to offer this


An ALS patients loses motor control. Unfortunately by the time they may wish they were dead they will be unable to physically commit suicide. So They need help. And that was what the law prevented. The spouse or doctor would be charged with murder


In all honesty, the patient with terminal painful cancer can stock pile their morphine if they wished and choose to over dose and die. Not as pleasantly as an iv injection. BUt they could. It is the others who are imprisioned


I agree that there are issues. Safe guards need to be carefully set up so dear old dying dad isnt put to death by greedy kids. But the supreme court has certainly laid outsome stringent requirements. We need to see how it might be formed into law.

One of my concerns is the potential for less research and moneyput into paliative care and pain managementt after this. I dont expect a change but the potential issue could be that drugcompanies and researchers stop worrying about managing unrelenting pain because people will choose death


I think our elected officials along with our medical community have an opportunity tocraft a law thatwill protect people while offering them some hope

I think the disability groups' voices should be added to crafting that law. Their concerns are well researched and documented based on precedents in other places with similar laws. Otherwise, I agree and I hope this law is very carefully worded and crafted to avoid serious mistakes..

 

[Lastpointe]

I think there has to be clear boundaries around who can choose assisted death - terminally ill perhaps, elderly perhaps. And very high criteria must be met. I don't think someone should be allowed without counselling first.

And that is a valid positionto have

And you should send a letter to your MP giving your opinion and what rules you would like to have crafted into a new law

 

[revjohn]

And I imagine John you can do the same for UCCanada congregations.

I expect I can and for most UCCAN congregations this particular ruling will be of no impact one way or another.

There will be one or two families belonging to UCCAN congregations that now have an option to consider which was formally illegal and now is not. I am not aware of any family in my congregation which has been lamenting not having access to physician assisted suicide. I have ministered to individuals who, in the midst of suffering a great deal of pain wished for it to end.

Most of those individuals would eventually recover and a few would not. None actively sought to end their life and I don't know if any would have met the standards that the SCC lifted up. Since those who did recover were never looking at a terminal prognosis I expect that none of them would have qualified. Of those who did eventually succumb to their illness I suspect only those who also had terminal prognosis would have qualified for Dr.AS.

We, as a society, permit advanced health care directives which, in certain instances prohibit Doctors from taking life-saving action.
We, as a society, permit choices to terminal patients regarding the measures they will take to minimize pain even to the point where those individuals are refusing care which would prolong their lives. Dietary decisions typically.
Whether or not Doctor assisted suicide should or should not be a medical option for any is something that we as a society need to direct our politicians to determine.

Bear in mind we would be asking those politicians to craft legislation which would govern access to such an option rather than asking them to prescribe it for all individuals in boat X. The decision did not put any individual in jeopardy against their will nor did the decision put any individual in jeopardy with their will.

 

[ChemGal]

I think the disability groups' voices should be added to crafting that law. Their concerns are well researched and documented based on precedents in other places with similar laws. Otherwise, I agree and I hope this law is very carefully worded and crafted to avoid serious mistakes..

But they have to be groups for people who are disabled ENOUGH - right? How do you get only the REALLY disabled ones?