The risk I see is in attaching a life/ death value to certain impairments creating a consciousness about that impairment in clinical settings and general thought, negating the desire to live in others with the same impairments. Especially socioeconomically disadvantaged who are seen by many as a blight and a burden.
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!
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Well, what about if the proposed law made it a lot harder for a PWD to 'get' assisted suicide than someone who was 'plain old terminal'? Would that achieve the protection you think necessary? Or would that be discrimination?
I see that the poorer people are, the poorer the prospects they are seen as having the more vulnerable they are to having their 'choice' exploited. And I would hate for anyone no matter their status to just lose hope and die because of something permanent but not terminal. That shows a failure of our society to care.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
So, here, Kimmio, you and I both get a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. I've never had a documented illness of any sort. I get my peaceful death, you have to wait a few extra weeks of excruciating pain. How is this working for us?
I already said I thought socioeconomics was a factor in health and therefore income level should be be screened for by doctors and assessment and living support provided for socioeconomic 'health' to those who are poor and asking for the 'service' - by a registered social worker prior to engaging in any end of life decisions involving non-terminal illness. That would be equalizing not discriminating because PWDs are more socioeconomically vulnerable - a fact - and very much impacts mental and physical wellbeing. Whereas,that particular risk to health is not already actively present in the middle class. People said that it's not a doctors job to ask about income. Ironically anyone receiving provincial government assistance living in poverty always has to have an income means test for government services of any kind anyway. For everything, repeatedly - very invasive and discriminatory at times. But a decision to die that's just too much to ask? I don't think so. It is a factor in health and the doctor should know. Also - the suggestion of a social worker was seen as excessive or inappropriate. Again, I disagree. A necessary safeguard.
Last edited:
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Also, Kimmio, outside of extreme poverty, socio-economic status and 'happiness' don't particularly correlate. I could win a billion and be back here in a year, bitchy as ever.
Well I won't disagree with you there pertaining to yourself.
But lower socioeconomic status is a determinant of higher incidencesvof depression, and suicide rates. And poorer general health. As is other disability itself - but that could be because of socioeconomic depression. Unless you are in a poor tropical country. The warm sunshine all year seems to help rates of depression in the general population.
Last edited:
Given that a majority of PWDs are unemployed or underemployed and living quite below poverty line - often without adequate access to what they need (basic needs) - they would fit your description anyway - and mine.
Last edited:
If there is a terminal illness on top of Pre-existing condition that's different. That should have no different consideration. I am concerned that the primary chronic disability without being anything terminal (yes life here is terminal but I am talking about people needlessly dying) might be carelessly seen as a reason to die in people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Well I won't disagree with you there pertaining to yourself.
But lower socioeconomic status is a determinant of higher incidencesvof depression, and suicide rates. And poorer general health. As is other disability itself - but that could be because of socioeconomic depression. Unless you are in a poor tropical country. The warm sunshine all year seems to help rates of depression in the general population.
I believe we actually don't know what comes first - kind of a chicken and egg thing - are socioeconomically disadvantage people more depressed or is it that people who are mentally ill often become disadvantaged - I think there are a lot of factors at play and I think resilience is a big one.
I'm of the view that the depressed conditions and difficult situations over time can wear down resiliency and then depression is triggered. The potential may run in families - my mom, my uncle both dealt with significant depression (not actually sure my mom's diagnosis if she has a solid one but she had issues and took meds) That is how it happened for me. Several times - there were situational triggers. It is nearly impossible to beat all depression when struggling with finances for basics. It affects relationships, routines (I mean when you have to choose between one basic necessity or another just to squeeeze enough to pay rent - it is distressing and exhausting!). And so if that potential is there for it to be triggered it is higher in poor populations and with people with other existing disabilities lacking supports. I have read stats on this. If it exists on it's own as a potential genetic predisposition in most cases there's a lived/ experiential trigger at some point anyway so it is all one in the same.
As you know... It helps me to think of it as a setback I'll get through again rather than a disease. I don't like the disease model. It (the label) in itself does unfair things to people's self concept, and once the label sticks it's hard to forget, IMO.
As you know... It helps me to think of it as a setback I'll get through again rather than a disease. I don't like the disease model. It (the label) in itself does unfair things to people's self concept, and once the label sticks it's hard to forget, IMO.
Last edited:
I actually came to post this from the Community Living Association. It's new:
"Assisted Suicide Decision Changes Landscape: Makes Disability a Defining Issue"
http://www.cacl.ca/news-stories/blog/assistedsuicidedecision
"Assisted Suicide Decision Changes Landscape: Makes Disability a Defining Issue"
http://www.cacl.ca/news-stories/blog/assistedsuicidedecision
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Hi Neo your quote ----this ruling by the Supreme Court is about specific cases with people with insufferable pain with no hope for cure.
Are we sure there is no hope for cure ----did we try all to see -----this is the question -----in this physical world there may be no cure but there are 2 worlds ----Physical and Spiritual ----if the physical isn't working shouldn't we try the other just to make sure all angles have been covered before we terminate ourselves ----what is on the other side of suicide may be worse than what we are experiencing in the present ---Suicide is self murder is it not ?--- Just maybe all doctors need to be schooled on the Spiritual as well as the physical so they can suggest trying the other when one fails -----just saying -
My God says this ----VERSE 1:
I am the God that healeth thee
I am the Lord your Healer
Are we sure there is no hope for cure ----did we try all to see -----this is the question -----in this physical world there may be no cure but there are 2 worlds ----Physical and Spiritual ----if the physical isn't working shouldn't we try the other just to make sure all angles have been covered before we terminate ourselves ----what is on the other side of suicide may be worse than what we are experiencing in the present ---Suicide is self murder is it not ?--- Just maybe all doctors need to be schooled on the Spiritual as well as the physical so they can suggest trying the other when one fails -----just saying -
My God says this ----VERSE 1:
I am the God that healeth thee
I am the Lord your Healer
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
It seems I am, once again, late to the party. However, I am very interested in the response to this decision and will go back and read the thread in its entirety. Those who know me on FB know I posted my reaction as the mother of a child with profound disabilities. For the sake of adding another perspective here it is:
Words from the mother of a child with profound disabilities and complex medical issues:
I applaud this decision for many reasons. And while I could write a post on the subject long enough to rival my last comprehensive paper of 47 pages, I will try to keep this brief.
1) This decision only effects adults who are competent. It does not include children or people unable to consent. This decision does not threaten my child's life or quality of life in any way. As I understand it does not threaten the life of anyone living with a disability. People living with disabilities who are competent to make decisions about their life/death should not be treated any differently than able bodied people competent to make decisions about their life/death.
2) Disability is not the same as suffering. Certainly disability can be linked to suffering and to ignore this fact dishonours those who suffer. But, this decision is about suffering NOT disability. Some people equate disability and loss of independence as a form of suffering and as long as they are competent, we need to respect their opinions, and allow them the right to decide how to live, and die. As the courts declared, we cannot require a "duty to live" when that life is seen as unbearable by the person living it. Many people with disabilities live full, rich, lives and this decision does not, in any way, threaten their lives or well-being. In fact, I hope this decision opens the floodgates for conversations that allow us to better parse the distinction between suffering and disability. It could be a very good thing.
3) As I understand, the slippery slope argument has not been demonstrated in existing countries with right-to-die legislation.
4) The medical community already allows infants born with significant disabilities, illnesses, and so on, to die. This is not new. We were asked on two occasions whether we wished to allow Matthew to die. This decision might place such conversations in a more open and transparent light, and allow death to be addressed in a more humane fashion in those rare situations where it is seen as inevitable, or appropriate.
5) Death is a fact of life. Conversations that encourage us to think about life, death, and dying, while difficult, threatening, and frightening, can actually encourage us to think more about quality of life, and how we define such a thing. This decision has the power to shift our communal focus from death and fear, to life and living. Again, a good thing.
Words from the mother of a child with profound disabilities and complex medical issues:
I applaud this decision for many reasons. And while I could write a post on the subject long enough to rival my last comprehensive paper of 47 pages, I will try to keep this brief.
1) This decision only effects adults who are competent. It does not include children or people unable to consent. This decision does not threaten my child's life or quality of life in any way. As I understand it does not threaten the life of anyone living with a disability. People living with disabilities who are competent to make decisions about their life/death should not be treated any differently than able bodied people competent to make decisions about their life/death.
2) Disability is not the same as suffering. Certainly disability can be linked to suffering and to ignore this fact dishonours those who suffer. But, this decision is about suffering NOT disability. Some people equate disability and loss of independence as a form of suffering and as long as they are competent, we need to respect their opinions, and allow them the right to decide how to live, and die. As the courts declared, we cannot require a "duty to live" when that life is seen as unbearable by the person living it. Many people with disabilities live full, rich, lives and this decision does not, in any way, threaten their lives or well-being. In fact, I hope this decision opens the floodgates for conversations that allow us to better parse the distinction between suffering and disability. It could be a very good thing.
3) As I understand, the slippery slope argument has not been demonstrated in existing countries with right-to-die legislation.
4) The medical community already allows infants born with significant disabilities, illnesses, and so on, to die. This is not new. We were asked on two occasions whether we wished to allow Matthew to die. This decision might place such conversations in a more open and transparent light, and allow death to be addressed in a more humane fashion in those rare situations where it is seen as inevitable, or appropriate.
5) Death is a fact of life. Conversations that encourage us to think about life, death, and dying, while difficult, threatening, and frightening, can actually encourage us to think more about quality of life, and how we define such a thing. This decision has the power to shift our communal focus from death and fear, to life and living. Again, a good thing.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
I take exception to this post. I have done extensive reading on the Latimer case and Robert Latimer's decision had nothing to do with having an extra mouth to feed, or changing diapers - and to suggest such is both unfair to Latimer, and muddies the water. If you have read the details of the case you would know that Latimer's decision was based on the belief that his daughter was in intractable, untreated pain which she did not have the cognitive ability to understand or effectively express. There is an abundance of research that demonstrates that children with cognitive disabilities and communication challenges are among the most likely to have their pain NOT managed. As the parent of a child like Tracy I know my personal experience affirms this.
You state that we cannot ask her now. Well, we couldn't ask her then either. She could not have answered since she was non-verbal. In the cases of children with profound disabilities their parents are considered the best judge of their situation and we need to trust them.
The Latimer situation is a very complex case and one that you cannot reduce to a parent that wanted to simply take it easy and avoid responsibility. These were parents that had utterly devoted their lives to their daughter and adored her. Your post is insensitive and inflammatory.
Last edited:
Tabitha
journeying
I agree with Daisy Jane. Robert Latimer say the pain Tracy was in-from hips being dislocated due to the increased muscle tone she had-spastic CP.
I heard the MP who now must use a wheelchair due to an accident. He talked about wanting to die when he was going through a lot of pain BUT he said he just wondered-he did not ask anyone about ending his life. He is FULLY in support of people's right to have a doctor assist them when/if they make the decision to die.
Historically the Inuit allowed the elderly to wander off-or stay behind as the family group moved n.
I heard the MP who now must use a wheelchair due to an accident. He talked about wanting to die when he was going through a lot of pain BUT he said he just wondered-he did not ask anyone about ending his life. He is FULLY in support of people's right to have a doctor assist them when/if they make the decision to die.
Historically the Inuit allowed the elderly to wander off-or stay behind as the family group moved n.
I am sorry I used those words. They were the wrong words.
I still find what Latimer did an awful thing to do. I am as opposed as when it happened. It was her life, not his to take.
Neo
Well-Known Member
I would like to point out firstly Unsafe that your Christian only videos do absolutely nothing for me, they seem so biased and oh so very much emotionally based. You do know that spiritual healing has occurred all through history, right? But that's just me, I can't say what others think of your vids.
With that said, however, I do agree with what you're trying to say here, there is physical healing and there is mental healing and there is spiritual healing. We are taking about physical healing only here.
When I had my bout with cancer two years ago I quickly came to realize that the quality of life is directly related to amount of physical pain one is in. If you are in pain, and especially the inescapable excruciating and chronic pain, then life totally sucks. I personally never thought about taking my own life because there was hope that it would get better. But I could only imagine what it would've been like if that pain persisted for years and years, with no hope of a physical cure.
There are many in this world who may not be in physical pain but suffer with mental problems. I would venture to guess that most of the suicides in our society are the result of these mental disturbances. Those who see the world through the jaded lenses of psychological afflictions are also in need of curing. For these people a trust needs to be placed in our modern day psychologists, who will hopefully will show them the source of their subjective conditions. I also understand that many mental afflictions are the result of chemical imbalances, which hopefully can be treated with drugs or perhaps light and/or sound therapy (which are sciences that hold much promise today). Mediation is another form mental purification, though in todays western world I would be surprised to find a psychologist who would subscribe such a healing.
In the future, I believe an esoteric psychology will replace the exoteric psychology of the mind that we have today. Esoteric psychology will deal with the soul energies that precede the manifestation of the physical energies. "The true and the future healing is brought about when the life of the soul can flow without any impediment and hindrance throughout every aspect of the form nature. It can then vitalise it with its potency, and can also eliminate those congestions and obstructions, which are such a fruitful source of disease." - quote from the book Esoteric Healing by AAB.