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
Kimmio said:
Okay so people understand disability rights and studies perspective but disagree - so would rather remain prejudiced about them? At least I was suggesting it was a perspective she didn't have much experience with.
Click to expand...

People who disagree with the arguments put forth by some disability rights advocates are not doing to because they wish to hold on to some prejudice they carry. That statement really makes no sense.

Some people disagree with the arguments that are being offered by disability rights advocates because the arguments make significant leaps in judgment or logic, and/or are based on faulty assumptions and fear.

And, in terms of Pinga, I am fortunate to know her in real life and I can attest that she is a person who is well attuned to issues of social justice and disability. Once again, rather than engaging ideas with which you disagree, you are attacking the person. That does nothing for your argument.

Also, I must add, it is not helpful to simply post a link to an argument. I agree with a previous poster that it would be helpful for you to discuss why the article supports your idea or argument. And finally, just because some disability rights groups says something does not mean that all people who live with disabilities agree with their position. Disability is a huge descriptor and includes a diverse range of people, abilities, and ideas. One cannot reduce disability to a single soundbite or idea.
 
@DaisyJane If that's the case I do not pick that up at all from Pinga's comments so maybe that's something she needs to work on.

And no people don't want to hang on to prejudice lots of times we don't want to aknowledge that we have prejudice.


The disability rights groups are not making leaps in logic you are making naive assumptions - not as a person with a disability yourself - that the worst could not happen. It's unfathomable but I am fathoming it. They are fathoming it.

Our democracy and human rights are eroding all over the place. People with disabilities have been systemically and systematically harmed in recent history and are still exploited. The government doesn't mind this assisted suicide decision because from a pure business pov it costs less than keeping people alive.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
@DaisyJane If that's the case I do not pick that up at all from Pinga's comments so maybe that's something she needs to work on.

And no people don't want to hang on to prejudice lots of times we don't want to aknowledge that we have prejudice.


The disability rights groups are not making leaps in logic you are making naive assumptions - not as a person with a disability yourself - that the worst could not happen. It's unfathomable but I am fathoming it. They are fathoming it.

Our democracy and human rights are eroding all over the place. People with disabilities have been systemically and systematically harmed in recent history and are still exploited. The government doesn't mind this assisted suicide decision because from a pure business pov it costs less than keeping people alive.
Click to expand...


Oh dear Lord. I give up.

Nope. I am not naive. Just because you disagree with me does not make me uninformed. Just because I do not have a disability in an embodied form does not mean I cannot unpack the arguments. You're back to one of the classic logical fallacies. Just saying.

Are people with disabilities discriminated against. Yes they are. But I assure you this is not some conspiracy theory that will be used to cut costs in health care. That is sheer paranoia speaking.

This is a decision about suffering and trying to manage suffering in a humane way.
 
In terms of Pinga. Perhaps you need to start really listening to her comments rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions about Pinga and her comments.
 
DaisyJane said:
Oh dear Lord. I give up.

Nope. I am not naive. Just because you disagree with me does not make me uninformed. Just because I do not have a disability in an embodied form does not mean I cannot unpack the arguments. You're back to one of the classic logical fallacies. Just saying.

Are people with disabilities discriminated against. Yes they are. But I assure you this is not some conspiracy theory that will be used to cut costs in health care. That is sheer paranoia speaking.

This is a decision about suffering and trying to manage suffering in a humane way.
Click to expand...

Well all those disability rights people who've been fighting for all the other rights like independent living and accessibility and who worked to get the UN Convention signed and ratified...they are the same people. Yeah, they're just illogical. Don't know what they're talking about. They have no experience challenging injustice or grievous exploitation - they wouldn't know that it can happen again the more our rights erode with no oversight. Huh.

This decision is about more than you think it's about. It is about dying with dignity. It is also about rights of people with disabilities potentially being grievously exploited. Their lives losing value enough to provide them assistance to live....It is both.
 
Last edited:
You can't throw all the arguments of the disability rights group into one big mix and call them right or wrong universally. Disability rights groups are a broad mix of people and special interests groups that speak to an incredibly diverse mix of issues.

The disability rights groups do amazing work and I support much of what they do. Hell. I am often part of what they do. I am involved, and have been, involved in a number of advocacy efforts with a variety of disability rights initiatives. I was part of the founding group for two disability related groups locally.

At no point am I saying that the groups, as a whole, are illogical. I am saying that the fear-based message of SOME disability rights groups that you seem to be espousing does not speak to the issues that the right to die legislation will be addressing. You continue to make broad, sweeping, and unhelpful assumptions.

Dying with dignity and managing suffering has NOTHING to do with the social justice needs and rights of people with disability. These are two very important, but distinct issues.
 
@DaisyJane I was suggesting that you don't have quite the same visceral fear - and it's not as illogical as you think it is. You will never let anything happen to your son. I fear - for the homeless and mentally I'll and what becomes of their "suffering" which is an injustice not a choice. I fear for emotionally vulnerable people with disabilities who may be cognitively high functioning but who are seen as drains on the system. moreso, I fear the acceptance of easy death because life's hard seeping into consciousness and affecting the will of those who would otherwise choose to live through suffering.
 
And I agree with you. Those are all very real fears and important issues. But, and this is where we part ways, what I don't agree with is your statement that dying with dignity legislation for those who are suffering and competent will threaten the lives of people in those situations. What I do agree with is that we need to address those social justice issues - but making dying and very ill people suffer needlessly will not be part of that solution.

It is my understanding that one of the criteria for assisted suicide will be that that the person wishing to die needs to demonstrate that there is NO HOPE FOR REPRIEVE. The situations that you cite as the source of your fear do not meet the test criteria.
 
chansen ----your quote ---Oh, and unsafe, this is about Canadians, not Christians. Biblical references are useless here.

They may very well be useless but they are God's word and there are a lot of Canadian Christians ---you have made your choice not to be one -----The Bible in My view is very relative to this Issue ---dying the way the person wants maybe their choice but the truth of what they may face on the other side from God's word should be made available to them before they decide their fate --

We have free will to choose ---then we need a choice -----when one has no hope --one is lost ----God provides hope and healing for is people and tells us this ----so try the elders of the church and prayer as James 5 says --before one pulls the plug on oneself ------Try All--- before giving up --you just made a big statement about your son and medical progress ---that would not have happened if your son was not here --so give hope to those who have no hope -----

James 5:14 (CEB)|In Context|Whole Chapter

14 If any of you are sick, they should call for the elders of the church, and the elders should pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.
 
I have read articles from the disability groups and the fundamentalists as well.

What is so strange is that the Supreme Court has spoken. It is extremely unlikely this government or the next will use the not with standing clause to veto that ruling.

So stop worrying about the past and how wrong everyone is to not agree with you. Start thinking of rules and restrictions that are necessary.

The court has listed some

Age, terminal illness, extreme unrelenting pain, ......

What restrictions should be in place

A meeting with three doctors?
A writen living will?
Documented use of pain medication far in excess of normal use
A two day waiting period?
Agreement from next of kin?
Witness by a notary public?


Its easy to complain

Its harder to think of what rules should be in place

I do not see the danger for the disabled. This will not become a law of "lets weed out the ill people". Someone dying a day or four before they would naturally is not saving anyone much money. There wont be sooo many people doing this

I do see though mentally incompetent people to be denied this option. I cant see a way around it, although i suppose a hospital could have a panel, made up members of its ethics committee. They could meet to hear petitions from family, docs, ..... To assist in deciding

I think of a patient such as special son. As an adult he develops bone cancer say. Now we have a physically and mentally disabled person who is dying of a terminal painful disease. How does he qualify to be treated as equal under the law. I think that really needs to be addressed while at the same time protecting other people with mental disabilities

Otherwise we are discriminating based on mental disabilities are we not?
 
Great unsafe. So as a Canadian Christian who views the Bible as your guidebook you will make a very specific decision and our Canadian context will support your personal right to make those decision. There are many of Canadians who are not Christians, or who believe in a different sort of Christianity, who might make different decisions and we need to respect their views as well.
 
I agree with you LP. As I pointed out earlier, I am worried that specialson, aka Matthew, may suffer needlessly because he cannot consent.

Today there was a detailed obit in our newspaper. It shared the story of a woman like Matthew who died over the weekend. She lived her last few years in total pain because of her cerebral palsy and the deformities that had developed following years of spasticity. I read that article and my heart broke. That is my greatest fear. I am not afraid that some roving group of physicians will start overdosing people with disabilities because they are cheaper dead. I am afraid that I will have to watch Matthew suffer for a prolonged period of time with poorly managed pain because he does not have the abilities to tell us his wishes, or even to effectively communicate his pain. I am worried his death will be an agonizing journey through deterioration and I will be forced to watch with no ability to influence the situation.
 
Lastpointe said:
I have read articles from the disability groups and the fundamentalists as well.

What is so strange is that the Supreme Court has spoken. It is extremely unlikely this government or the next will use the not with standing clause to veto that ruling.

So stop worrying about the past and how wrong everyone is to not agree with you. Start thinking of rules and restrictions that are necessary.

The court has listed some

Age, terminal illness, extreme unrelenting pain, ......

What restrictions should be in place

A meeting with three doctors?
A writen living will?
Documented use of pain medication far in excess of normal use
A two day waiting period?
Agreement from next of kin?
Witness by a notary public?


Its easy to complain

Its harder to think of what rules should be in place

I do not see the danger for the disabled. This will not become a law of "lets weed out the ill people". Someone dying a day or four before they would naturally is not saving anyone much money. There wont be sooo many people doing this

I do see though mentally incompetent people to be denied this option. I cant see a way around it, although i suppose a hospital could have a panel, made up members of its ethics committee. They could meet to hear petitions from family, docs, ..... To assist in deciding

I think of a patient such as special son. As an adult he develops bone cancer say. Now we have a physically and mentally disabled person who is dying of a terminal painful disease. How does he qualify to be treated as equal under the law. I think that really needs to be addressed while at the same time protecting other people with mental disabilities

Otherwise we are discriminating based on mental disabilities are we not?
Click to expand...

?

Disabled are not ill people. That is one crucial point where the difference between the social and medical models of disability have potential to be harmful here.
 
No they are not, but you keep worrying that disabled will be killed off for some reason.

No one, not disabled or those who are ill will be killed off

I have been watching the changes that have occurred in holland and belgium around this issue. I have friends in both countries.

I do think that they have seen changes that i would not like to see.

That only means to me that strict rules and restrictions need to be in place.

While at the same time figuring out how to be supportive of everyone.

I doubt i would choose this option. I am a big proponent of pain support through medications. Luckily, for the most part we have moved away from fear of dependance and recognize the need for sometimes quite massive does of meds to alleviate pain.

That would be my choice i believe. But i support others to make their own choice

You dont seem to. Nor did you seem to offer your own list of rules, regulations, ideas.

Put your energy there.

The new law will be created. We want it to be just, fair, equal, compassionate
 
@DaisyJane I hear your worry for Matthew.

@DaisyJane @Lastpointe mental suffering qualifies so what about mentally ill - say severely depressed homeless people? Where does the medical profession recognize the socioeconomic element to the suffering when they understand mental health and illness by a disease model? That is why I suggested on the weekend that the doctors need to enquire about socioeconomic status and do a referral to a social worker. I think Carolla said it wasn't appropriate for doctors - but if it's in their hands and final I think they must understand the social model for the safety of those who could be exploited.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top