Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Waterfall]

PLEASE READ!!!

http://www.cacl.ca/news-stories/blog/assistedsuicidedecision

Some good questions in this article that hopefully will be addressed.

 

[Waterfall]

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.

Agree

 

[Hermann]

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.

In hunter/gatherer societies, people unable to walk had to stay behind and die when the group needed to move on. But in today's society and with today's technology, it is possible to keep deathly ill people deathly ill for long periods of time, with much suffering for the sick individual and at great expense to society. Also, because all wealth ultimately originates from our natural environment, at great expense to nature. We have moved far away from what might be considered a natural lifestyle and natural death. Nature no longer draws the line between life and death for us, so we have to do it for her. I think we have the duty to die when nature calls us to be gone rather than demand that we be kept alive under any circumstances at any cost for as long as technologically possible.

 

[DaisyJane]

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?

Kimmio. I get the fact that you find the decision very threatening. But I really don't follow your argument at all. The arguments you are offering suggest that we need to do more work about creating an inclusive society that values the lives and contribution of people with disabilities - and I agree with you.

However, I fail to see how the above scenario, in any way, fits the description of suffering that would justify doctor assisted suicide.

I am not sure where your feeling of vulnerability comes from. Perhaps unpack that a bit. Right now you are able to consent and you would not consent to ending your life. Done. Your disability does not enter the picture at all. It is all about your ability to consent which your disability does not influence.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

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.

I do too think she should have that choice. I do not think it is a replacement or cost cutting measure for good palliative care. Another concern that comes to mind.

And - yes people with disabilities lives are at risk. People may begin questioning their right to life. And not just sustainance, but the value of their lives. This decision does not stop at terminal illness. It is open to anyone who is suffering what they feel is intolerable physical and mental pain and that line in the sand is not clear. People with disabilities feel undervalued as it is - because truthfully we are and always have been by society at large. We have human rights that are often exploited. And there are increased chances that a person with a disability if they had pain and were suicidal would not get suicide counselling but might counselling to assist a suicide instead.

In WW2 people with disabilities were the first to the ovens. In North America we were abused in institutions, and experimented on. Eugenics was practiced on us. The institutional abuse went on until the early 80s. Don't dare pretend the discrimination has gone away and nobody questions our right to life. That's a dangerous assumption that puts us at risk by not scrutinizing this decision.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I unpacked it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You trust this government to pass a safe and reasonable bill about this with everyone's best interest and human rights respected? Now there's a point.

 

[Waterfall]

There are a few scenarios which I'm wondering how they will be addressed:

A young person who is in a car accident that never wrote down or stated his wishes should he ever be left with permanent brain damage. Who makes the decision to pull the plug?

A woman on a feeding tube for 10 years and has the mental capacity of a newborn caused by a drug overdose in her twenties? Who decides if the feeding tube should be discontinued? I actually had this happen. The young woman had a boyfriend that stuck by her for the entire 10 years, read to her everyday, took her for walks in her special chair, took her to activities, and occasionally was blessed with a smile. Her family visited once a month, (sometimes) and disliked the young man immensely, but they were the decision makers and one day decided that it was time to stop the feeding tube after much consultation with caregivers and such. The young man tried to fight the decision, but lost. She died almost 3 weeks after her tube was discontinued and it was a terrible thing to watch. Of course you know who was there at the exact moment of death.....the young man who was so in love with her. How would anyone know what this young woman wanted?

 

[DaisyJane]

Kimmio. I think we agree on key topics. I agree with you that disability remains an unfortunate source of discrimination. I agree with you that the value of the "disabled life" is questioned by able-bodied people. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic anomalies supports that view. Discontinuing life support in the NICU supports that view. In fact the fear around the MMR supports that view. People would rather their child potentially get a disease that could kill them rather than risk a cognitive disability (autism) - even though research has proven that the MMR and autism are not linked. There are certainly lots of examples that suggest that a life with disability can be viewed as "less than" a life that is abled-bodied. No argument.

What I don't agree with is that the right of a cognitively intact adult who has the capacity to consent and has chosen to limit suffering, usually at the end of their life, in any way threatens people living with disability.

It seems that people are getting their knickers twisted because disability has been listed as a potential source of suffering. For Sue Rodrigues she had decided that when could no longer hold her child then life was not worth living. That was her right to decide. For others that would not constitute suffering. Others may set the bar at personal toileting, eating, talking, and so on. Some may find being in need of constant care unbearable. Again, their choice. This is about personal autonomy and each person's definition of what would be unbearable.

Do I agree that it is unfortunate that some will equate disability with suffering. Yes, I do. But, it seems that you and I do not, and this legislation actually protects our right to decide what constitutes suffering and to declare that disability does not equal suffering. So in an interesting way this legislation potentially gives us the power to challenge the perception that disability and suffering are not always the same thing.

 

[Carolla]

There are a few scenarios which I'm wondering how they will be addressed:

A young person who is in a car accident that never wrote down or stated his wishes should he ever be left with permanent brain damage. Who makes the decision to pull the plug?

A woman on a feeding tube for 10 years and has the mental capacity of a newborn caused by a drug overdose in her twenties? Who decides if the feeding tube should be discontinued? I actually had this happen. The young woman had a boyfriend that stuck by her for the entire 10 years, read to her everyday, took her for walks in her special chair, took her to activities, and occasionally was blessed with a smile. Her family visited once a month, (sometimes) and disliked the young man immensely, but they were the decision makers and one day decided that it was time to stop the feeding tube after much consultation with caregivers and such. The young man tried to fight the decision, but lost. She died almost 3 weeks after her tube was discontinued and it was a terrible thing to watch. Of course you know who was there at the exact moment of death.....the young man who was so in love with her. How would anyone know what this young woman wanted?

I don't think either one of these scenarios would be impacted by the Supreme Court Decision - these people do not have the capacity to ask for assisted death. Such situations would continue to be managed as they are now.

 

[DaisyJane]

Waterfall. As I understand this legislation does not impact your proposed scenarios. In those cases the person involved is no longer able to consent so the manner in which they are currently addressed is how they will continue to be addressed. In that case the next of kin makes end of life decisions. In both cases since the individual was unmarried it would be the parents.

 

[DaisyJane]

....oops...posting at the same time as Carolla!!

 

[DaisyJane]

I think, therein, lies the problem. People are reading way too much in to this legislation, and imagining all sorts of scenarios that don't and won't apply, including the disability rights advocates.

This decision is about the right of a competent adult to decide the extent of suffering they wish to endure. It will likely be tightly regulated to ensure that it cannot be abused.

 

[Neo]

I do too think she should have that choice. I do not think it is a replacement or cost cutting measure for good palliative care.

Yes, for sure, and I don't see anyone suggesting that.

People may begin questioning their right to life. And not just sustainance, but the value of their lives. This decision does not stop at terminal illness. It is open to anyone who is suffering what they feel is intolerable physical and mental pain and that line in the sand is not clear.

Well said, I totally agree, this is a huge risk and one that has to be worked out.

..people with disabilities lives are at risk..
People with disabilities feel undervalued as it is - because truthfully we are and always have been by society at large. We have human rights that are often exploited.
And there are increased chances that a person with a disability if they had pain and were suicidal would not get suicide counselling but might counselling to assist a suicide instead.

"And there are increased chances ... "?

Why? Because you don't trust the government? That's the very reason we need this legislation. People are beginning to take over their lives. And just as the government didn't belong in our bedrooms during the Pierre Trudeau years, neither should they have the final say on this subject. Our society has to take control of our society, and take these kind of decisions out of the hand of the government. We need the choice.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

 

[Waterfall]

Waterfall. As I understand this legislation does not impact your proposed scenarios. In those cases the person involved is no longer able to consent so the manner in which they are currently addressed is how they will continue to be addressed. In that case the next of kin makes end of life decisions. In both cases since the individual was unmarried it would be the parents.

I'm wondering if her death would have been faster with "more assistance"? And I'm also wondering if there would be a tendency to keep the status quo because it doesn't feel as much like "killing someone" when a feeding tube is removed, even though I find it a more gruesome way to die.

 

[DaisyJane]

Absolutely Waterfall. Overdosing on morphine would have been a more humane way to end a life that was going to end regardless.

These scenarios actually worry me more than the current legislation. I want my son to live long, and live well. But, I am not afraid of his death. As the parent of a medically fragile child I have lived with that constant possibility and fear for years (thought right now he is blissfully stable!!). I am far more afraid of a system that will allow him to suffer, possibly because he has an intellectual disability and cannot consent.

I am very aware of situations where people with significant disabilities endured prolonged, painful, horrible deaths. This is what truly terrifies me. I owe my son quality of life and dignity to the end and I am aware that our system may not necessarily support that. That breaks my heart. Not this legislation that will NEVER apply to my son with disabilities.

 

[Jaebius]

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

unsafe - As you are - I am opposed to suicide - and I believe we share the same stance - we would never choose assisted suicide for ourselves. That being said - the next question becomes - since our position is based upon the religious faith systems we have chosen to adopt - do we have the right or responsibility to make that choice for others. I perceive that is where you and I part ways.

 

[Neo]

unsafe - As you are - I am opposed to suicide - and I believe we share the same stance - we would never choose assisted suicide for ourselves. That being said - the next question becomes - since our position is based upon the religious faith systems we have chosen to adopt - do we have the right or responsibility to make that choice for others. I perceive that is where you and I part ways.

And this is why they call it a "choice". I believe the same argument can be made with blood transfusions where a Jehovah Witness should be able to refuse a transfusion but not be able to outlaw them based on their own specific religious grounds.

Hermann made a good point above where he said that we now have the ability to keep people alive way beyond their expiry date (though he didn't use that word per-say). So where do we draw the line? We may all end up like the Lady Cassandra, the last living human in Dr Who!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio. I think we agree on key topics. I agree with you that disability remains an unfortunate source of discrimination. I agree with you that the value of the "disabled life" is questioned by able-bodied people. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic anomalies supports that view. Discontinuing life support in the NICU supports that view. In fact the fear around the MMR supports that view. People would rather their child potentially get a disease that could kill them rather than risk a cognitive disability (autism) - even though research has proven that the MMR and autism are not linked. There are certainly lots of examples that suggest that a life with disability can be viewed as "less than" a life that is abled-bodied. No argument.

What I don't agree with is that the right of a cognitively intact adult who has the capacity to consent and has chosen to limit suffering, usually at the end of their life, in any way threatens people living with disability.

It seems that people are getting their knickers twisted because disability has been listed as a potential source of suffering. For Sue Rodrigues she had decided that when could no longer hold her child then life was not worth living. That was her right to decide. For others that would not constitute suffering. Others may set the bar at personal toileting, eating, talking, and so on. Some may find being in need of constant care unbearable. Again, their choice. This is about personal autonomy and each person's definition of what would be unbearable.

Do I agree that it is unfortunate that some will equate disability with suffering. Yes, I do. But, it seems that you and I do not, and this legislation actually protects our right to decide what constitutes suffering and to declare that disability does not equal suffering. So in an interesting way this legislation potentially gives us the power to challenge the perception that disability and suffering are not always the same thing.

Person A has CP with arthritis and intact cognitive ability, lives independently in an adapted housing with income allowance from family and a care aide once a week, weekly outings to go shopping, etc. Doesn't need to work for pay but enjoys volunteering at various things as much as she is able.

Person B has the same impairments, struggles to pay for his apartment in a run down area of town and buy groceries on his disability cheque. He finished a bachelor degree on a scholarship and now can't get a job in his field. Has been working with an employment agency for a year. The counsellors want him to consider being a Walmart greeter because they have a quick connection with the manager there - it pays minimum wage - but he's determined to be a teacher. He wants equality.

So, person A starts having more severe arthritis pain and spasms as she ages and loses pleasure in her activities. She can't stand it. She asks for assisted suicide.

Person B is getting discouraged because he can't get a job, feeling depressed and suicidal - unbenounced to them both their doctors were at the same assisted suicide workshop last week. He tells his doctor he's feeling suicidal.

Do you see the risks?