Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Tabitha said:
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.
Click to expand...
So people with disabilities lives are worth less because the have pain - that is the message that comes through to me.

I recommend (plead with) people to read this from the point of view of the majority of people with disabilities who do not support this decision but now fear for the lives of people with disabilities. Including me. This becomes popular I am afraid of how the value of my life will be seen by others if I get more pain and remain poor. Will people plant in my head that I am better off dead because my impairment is not worth the struggle? Why should I be a nuisance requiring care or effort when there's a simple solution? It scares me. A lot. People with disabilities aren't getting an equal seat on the bus - they might just be getting thrown under it.

http://www.cacl.ca/news-stories/blog/assistedsuicidedecision
 
Tabitha said:
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.
Click to expand...
I remember my wife's grandmother, at the end of her life, asked us if we could take her up to Cyprus Mountain and leave her there to die. It was a nice thought but it would've left us in jail..

Edit to add: and even with this Supreme Court ruling, such an act should still result with us committing a crime (for leaving grandma up the mountain). Doctor assisted suicide is not to be taken lightly and would have to follow a very strict set of guidelines. It's not meant as an open season on those suffering in pain.
 
Last edited:
A few things to add.

My son, like Tracy, has a dislocated hip. He has lived with it for years. He is fortunate that his does not seem to cause him pain. He has a dislocated shoulder to add to the mix. The hip joint is not fully formed at birth and requires weight bearing to completely develop. In kids who never weight bear the hip joint is deformed. Add to that the fact that kids with CP have very abnormal muscle tone and hip problems are often significant. Spasticity and muscle spasms add to the experience of pain. We are fortunate that Matthew tends to be hypotonic, or low tone, which means he tends to be more "floppy". Tracy, as I understand, was much more spastic, or high-tone, which likely explains why Matthew has, fortunately, had limited hip pain compared to kids with spasticity. I am grateful and I honestly don't know what we would do if it were different.

We worked with a chronic pain team for over a year and maintained Matthew on regular doses of morphine at points. It took assertive advocacy to get adequate pain control. In kids like Matthew and Tracy it tends to be very difficult to understand their pain. They cannot tell us. And, physicians are reluctant to treat pain they do not understand. I finally had to tell a physician that his inability to understand and localize Matthew's pain should not be be the reason my son suffers.

Ultimately, I do not condone Robert Latimer's decision. There are choices he made that I do not understand. For example, he and his wife, as I understand, fought a feeding tube. In our case I have found a feeding tube radically improved our son's quality of life. The same can be said for GI surgery. However, most parents of kids with special needs learn quickly that our respective journeys are very different, and since we understand how overwhelming our lives can be, we tend to avoid judgement. I don't agree with his decision to end Tracy's life, but I can totally get how he ended up in a place where it seemed to be in Tracy's best interest. During that chronic pain year I truly wondered if we were offering Matthew any quality of life at all.

For me the question is not, "did Robert Latimer do the right thing?" - ultimately we will never know. For me the question is,
"how can we as a caring society committed to our most vulnerable members do things to make the lives of the Tracy's and Robert's better?"
 
Kimmio.

As I said in my original post. The right to die legislation does not effect anybody who cannot consent. In people with disabilities who can consent then the decisions is theirs, and theirs alone. To suggest they should be treated differently than an able bodied personal is offensive.

This legislation does not give physicians the right to end the lives of people with cognitive disabilities who are suffering. It is not euthanasia legislation, but assisted suicide legislation. There is a huge difference and the arguments you are offering are all red-herring type arguments.
 
Kimmio said:
So people with disabilities lives are worth less because the have pain - that is the message that comes through to me.
Click to expand...
I'm not viewing it as what someone's life is worth. It's about what they can tolerate.
That isn't to say that someone is stronger, or more tolerant of all situations either. Person A might tolerate aching pain better than Person B. Person B might tolerate intense itching better than person A. Person C might have a lower tolerance for both, but is able to deal with the death of their spouse better.

Maybe one person is blind from birth, and lives a full life.
Another person become blind later in life, and they find it horrible, almost unbearable to not be able to see what they used to. For them, it's mental anguish. It's not about supports, as they go through all the various options.
Another person also becomes blind later in life, they also lead a full life and their memories of sight gives them comfort.

I don't think it's my place to state how bad their experience is. It's ok that they all experience it differently.
 
DaisyJane said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe elderly and people with terminal illness should have the choice. I understand you have a child with a severe disability - but I do not think you quite understand the full scope of the potential to imperil the lives of adults with disabilities.
 
ChemGal said:
I'm not viewing it as what someone's life is worth. It's about what they can tolerate.
That isn't to say that someone is stronger, or more tolerant of all situations either. Person A might tolerate aching pain better than Person B. Person B might tolerate intense itching better than person A. Person C might have a lower tolerance for both, but is able to deal with the death of their spouse better.

Maybe one person is blind from birth, and lives a full life.
Another person become blind later in life, and they find it horrible, almost unbearable to not be able to see what they used to. For them, it's mental anguish. It's not about supports, as they go through all the various options.
Another person also becomes blind later in life, they also lead a full life and their memories of sight gives them comfort.

I don't think it's my place to state how bad their experience is. It's ok that they all experience it differently.
Click to expand...

So instead of helping them to tolerate pain and live better you'd say no problem? See, that astounds me. It really angers me. I know a lot of people are applauding this decision - but with no regard for what the rights groups are saying about how it imperils and devalues them. And that is selfish. But they don't matter. They never did in most peoples' minds.
 
DaisyJane said:
Kimmio.

As I said in my original post. The right to die legislation does not effect anybody who cannot consent. In people with disabilities who can consent then the decisions is theirs, and theirs alone. To suggest they should be treated differently than an able bodied personal is offensive.

This legislation does not give physicians the right to end the lives of people with cognitive disabilities who are suffering. It is not euthanasia legislation, but assisted suicide legislation. There is a huge difference and the arguments you are offering are all red-herring type arguments.
Click to expand...
Daisy Jane the potential is there that we will be just as we are treated unfairly in many areas of society. That you don't think we are, and the facts, are a different matter.
 
Kimmio said:
I believe elderly and people with terminal illness should have the choice. I understand you have a child with a severe disability - but I do not think you quite understand the full scope of the potential to imperil the lives of adults with disabilities.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I think I understand the situation and arguments quite well. I simply don't agree with the arguments you are offering and feel they lack logic to support their views.

It seems you are enjoying working your way through the logical fallacies. First red herrings, now attack the dissenter. What next?
 
Ok -here's another real life example- a mother cancer has come back-in the form of a brain tumor-she is choosing not to have further treatment-If-as she needs the end-she wishes a pill to end it all-I think she should be allowed one.
Her son has profound disabilities. No one is talking about his right to life. It is a given.
 
The fear is about public perception of disability leading more people with disabilities to choose death over life. It's a real fear. With the lack of awareness about fears on the other side of this debate or an unwillingness to hear them - it's frightening.
 
Kimmio said:
Daisy Jane the potential is there that we will be just as we are treated unfairly in many areas of society. That you don't think we are, and the facts, are a different matter.
Click to expand...


Do I think people with disabilities are treated unfairly by society. Yes I do.

But in various contexts so are women, children, minorities, GLBT members, and so on.

In the end the situation always comes back to consent and suffering. If a personal is capable of consent then the decision is theirs alone do decide the level of suffering they are prepared to live with.
 
@Kimmio if someone is determined to kill themselves, would you prefer to see them do it in a manner in which there's less suffering involved?
If it comes down to one choosing to die in a comfortable way, or wishing they would die, while suffering horribly for 10 years before they die of a heart attack, which would you rather see?
 
Kimmio. I have read the arguments by the disability advocates and, as a rule, I do not agree with them. I believe they are making significant leaps in judgement that lack support, and in the end, are using disability to engage in a form of fear-mongering.

What I do agree with is that we as a society need better palliative care strategies, and that by doing so we will reduce the need, or desire, for people to hasten the end of their lives. However, there will always be illnesses that cause people to live their final days in unbearable suffering. I believe that people, while competent, ought to have the right to decide the level of suffering that they are prepared to bear.

This is NOT about disability. The disability advocates want to make it about disability. It is about suffering and how individuals personally define suffering.
 
You know - maybe you will be able to care for your son into adulthood. I understand it is hard for you and takes a lot of love and work. And hurts you to see him in pain. I have CP - not very severe comparibly but more spasticity and pain as I age - more prone to arthritis younger. I feel very vulnerable to this decision as do many people.

But what if you could not provide for your son - or someone like him living indepebdebtlywith a disability fighting to be seen as an equal in an ableist world. what if like most of his peers he was poor, unemployed? But the only life he ever knew was with a disability and the only dream he ever really had was to be valued equally as himself. But he sees people around him with impairments like his choosing to die? And people starting to refer to disabilities by their impairments - and sanitizing their pain and their deaths because they can. But he wants to live and be equal? How much value would that person's life have to those who would choose death if they were him, to the same doctors who assist them to die?
 
DaisyJane said:
I disagree. I think I understand the situation and arguments quite well. I simply don't agree with the arguments you are offering and feel they lack logic to support their views.

It seems you are enjoying working your way through the logical fallacies. First red herrings, now attack the dissenter. What next?
Click to expand...

Given your real life circumstances which have included exposure and awareness of multiple depths and options regarding severely disabled
Given your professional background (OT)
Given your doctorate work

Hah, I don't think anyone's information can be respected by Kimmio, other than her own and those who agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top