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
Could it be that ---Power and Greed is this the real reason for Euthanasia ????

Read all here ---
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/14/saving_money_one_reason_behind_quebecs_righttodie_bill_walkom.html


News / Canada

Saving money one reason behind Quebec’s right-to-die bill: Walkom

Euthanasia may allow death with dignity. But killing the frail elderly also saves governments money.
Hidden in the debate over Quebec’s new bill to legalize euthanasia is something few politicians want to talk about: Money.

Simply put, provincial governments find the growing number of sick, old people costly. Euthanasia, along the lines suggested by Quebec may allow terminally ill individuals to die with dignity. But it will also save governments, and the taxpayers who fund them, a significant chunk of cash.
 
I have to agree with Lastpointe that it is going to be much more difficult to craft adequate perimeters in the law around mental suffering (but I would add, personally I shudder to think that a medical definition alone is adequate to determine those permaneters because death is too final and life and death and suffering are more than medical - IMO) Again, depression itself -mental suffering itself -is a vulnerability - for reasons internal and external to an individual that can go hand in hand and the doctor doesn't look at socioeconomic factors - so I do see a danger.


Anyway I was supposed to be bowing out.
 
Last edited:
I've looked at it from both sides now and I can see why the herd needs to be culled ... relative with terminal pancreatic cancer collecting $800/mo disability ... relative with lung cancer collecting 1200.00/mo old age security ... and then you have people like kimmio ... discounts on the ferry indeed! Look at the numbers people ... we the tax payers can't afford to pay the life and death decision makers the big bucks and be expected to keep the bottom feeders alive as well now can we. But hey, I'm not complaining ... I have the option of moving to Switzerland and getting a Basic Annual Income there ... or do I? Well ... if life get's too unaffordable ... there is always the option of unassisted suicide ... and there is always the possibility of being granted the disability tax credits ... which reminds me time to fill out the taxes owed report again ... still no box to say that I do not wish to contribute to the war funding with my share of the debt load ... oh well, perhaps If I just keep my mouth shut and stay obedient ... take my vaccinations ... let the anti terror laws protect me from the 'real bad guys' ...
 
UnDefinitive said:
I've looked at it from both sides now and I can see why the herd needs to be culled ... relative with terminal pancreatic cancer collecting $800/mo disability ... relative with lung cancer collecting 1200.00/mo old age security ... and then you have people like kimmio ... discounts on the ferry indeed! Look at the numbers people ... we the tax payers can't afford to pay the life and death decision makers the big bucks and be expected to keep the bottom feeders alive as well now can we. But hey, I'm not complaining ... I have the option of moving to Switzerland and getting a Basic Annual Income there ... or do I? Well ... if life get's too unaffordable ... there is always the option of unassisted suicide ... and there is always the possibility of being granted the disability tax credits ... which reminds me time to fill out the taxes owed report again ... still no box to say that I do not wish to contribute to the war funding with my share of the debt load ... oh well, perhaps If I just keep my mouth shut and stay obedient ... take my vaccinations ... let the anti terror laws protect me from the 'real bad guys' ...
Click to expand...
We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone's arguing over where they're going to sit. - David Suzuki
 
P.S... for those of you who continually dismiss me as a 'conspiracy theorist' ... with all due respect ... please could you use my politically correct label of 'terrorist' ... going forward.
 
I am sure there are or will be enough safeguards in the doctor-assisted suicide legislation to protect the vulnerable. There will be no way for the heirs of Aunty Acid to have her bumped off because she owns a million dollars worth of real estate and is a nuisance anyway, or for severely depressed people to commit doctor assisted suicide merely because they are severely depressed. This kind of legislation has worked well in countries where it is in effect, and there is no reason to think that it should not work well in Canada.

There will, however, always be people who are opposed to what they regard as "death on demand." They abide strictly by the commandment "Thou shalt not kill!" To them, death on demand is a violation of this commandment.

I, personally, am in favour of doctor assisted suicide only in extreme emergencies. I think this is the intent of the legislation.
 
Hermann said:
I am sure there are or will be enough safeguards in the doctor-assisted suicide legislation to protect the vulnerable. There will be no way for the heirs of Aunty Acid to have her bumped off because she owns a million dollars worth of real estate and is a nuisance anyway, or for severely depressed people to commit doctor assisted suicide merely because they are severely depressed. This kind of legislation has worked well in countries where it is in effect, and there is no reason to think that it should not work well in Canada.

There will, however, always be people who are opposed to what they regard as "death on demand." They abide strictly by the commandment "Thou shalt not kill!" To them, death on demand is a violation of this commandment.

I, personally, am in favour of doctor assisted suicide only in extreme emergencies. I think this is the intent of the legislation.
Click to expand...
I am in agreement with you Hermann ... but if it is simply a matter of common sense ... do we really need to spend so much of the 'money' on the laws and politics around it and deny quality of life to the living because of it?
 
Hermann said:
I am sure there are or will be enough safeguards in the doctor-assisted suicide legislation to protect the vulnerable. There will be no way for the heirs of Aunty Acid to have her bumped off because she owns a million dollars worth of real estate and is a nuisance anyway, or for severely depressed people to commit doctor assisted suicide merely because they are severely depressed. This kind of legislation has worked well in countries where it is in effect, and there is no reason to think that it should not work well in Canada.

There will, however, always be people who are opposed to what they regard as "death on demand." They abide strictly by the commandment "Thou shalt not kill!" To them, death on demand is a violation of this commandment.

I, personally, am in favour of doctor assisted suicide only in extreme emergencies. I think this is the intent of the legislation.
Click to expand...
I would not be so sure Hermann, given what Belgium is doing. Anyone experiencing intolerable mental suffering can ask and just needs to sign a form. There is also the issue of family members not knowing a loved one has made this decision or was thinking of it - that happens anyway - but it would be devastating to families and doctors need to consider that. I hope Canada is far more stringent than Belgium.
 
It is said we are borne (ogre 'd out of darkness), we live and life is the chits for 85%-99% of the population (even the rich and celebrities aren't happy) and then we die ... is there another way out of this enigma?
 
There is an old song about fast horses, faster women and more whiskey .. does this speed things up?

In a capitalistic mode it could be bad for the market place tho' ...
 
UnDefinitive said:
I am in agreement with you Hermann ... but if it is simply a matter of common sense ... do we really need to spend so much of the 'money' on the laws and politics around it and deny quality of life to the living because of it?
Click to expand...

No.

Mercy killing, assisted death, assisted suicide, euthanasia--they have been practiced since time immemorial when it was the compassionate thing to do. I would not hesitate to prepare and administer a deathly cocktail or needle for my wife if she were writhing in pain, afflicted with a severe sickness or disability, with death imminent and no chance for a cure, no matter whether there was a law governing this or not.

I am confident that I can meditate myself over the threshold of death when the time comes to let go of this organism called Hermann. What helps me greatly in this is that my essential or immortal I is not this organism but eternally creative energy. The end of the lifespan of this individual named Hermann is just a phase-change of eternally creative energy. In other words, I (my immortal I) can regard the death of this individual named Hermann with objective detachment.

Rather than being excessively preoccupied with questions of life and death, I think it would be better for us to find out who and what we ultimately are. Of course we are these individuals we think we are. But also, and far more importantly and ultimately, we are (at-one-with) the eternal singularity of creative energy, a.k.a. God.

From this lofty viewpoint, easing the transition from life to death is not playing God but being God, in the full awareness of the awesome responsibilities this entails.


While alive, be a dead man
--Thoroughly dead--
And act as you will,
And all is well.

-ancient Zen proverb
 
Problem is people who think too highly of themselves deciding for themselves what it it to be 'God' for others who live with impairments, and not recognizing 'God' in those others just the same if those individuals are not in any position of authority or power. It happens far too much.

So whose definition of disability 'too severe' are doctors going to use as their assessment tool - the government's? The one on the tax credit forms for example? Permanent, severe, person can't do A,B, C all or mostly all of the time (without nuanced understanding built into this systemic definition of how environment can influence or change this day to day forcing a person to look at only their best days and get no help, or to think of themselves in terms of their worst days in order to receive help)? So then, those who get no help for thinking of their best days - struggle with no help - a depressing factor socioeconomically - making a person vulnerable socioeconomically and to attitudes about deserving or not deserving of help that can be systemically prejudicial. Those who think of their worst days get classified as severe and prolonged, making them more vulnerable systemically also to internalization of ableism. And who plays God, then?

I am sorry people think it's crazy to look at this but I do not think it's crazy to look at discrepancies in understanding of disability. These are the discrepancies in definitions that the rights groups understand and why they advocated for change all the way up to the UN level and deserve to be heard.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
So whose definition of disability 'too severe' are doctors going to use as their assessment tool - the government's? .
Click to expand...


It is the opinion of the person themself who is asking for assistance that is the measure of this - not the physician's call.
 
Carolla said:

It is the opinion of the person themself who is asking for assistance that is the measure of this - not the physician's call.
Click to expand...
So...you don't think doctors will be using any assessment tool when determining which options to suggest or go with - or that they should? And if they should - who will be creating this tool? Which experts have the authority to do so?
 
40 % of pregnancies end in abortion. Nobody asked the baby. Any body contemplating suicide is disabled in some way. I've had migraines where I thought I'd rather be dead. A doctor could dope up a patient so that his pain was tolerable, or withhold painkillers and get authorization to free up a bed.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
40 % of pregnancies end in abortion. Nobody asked the baby. Any body contemplating suicide is disabled in some way. I've had migraines where I thought I'd rather be dead. A doctor could dope up a patient so that his pain was tolerable, or withhold painkillers and get authorization to free up a bed.
Click to expand...

I agree that anybody contemplating suicide is disabled in some way. Severe mental suffering IS a disability.
 
Carolla said:
It is the opinion of the person themself who is asking for assistance that is the measure of this - not the physician's call.
Click to expand...


That is where the process is supposed to start. If it starts elsewhere then there is grounds to suspect that inducement is happening and that runs contrary to the ruling.

Ideally the Government (Federal and/or Provincial/Territorial) will introduce something like a checklist which will be used to determine whether individuals are vulnerable to inducement and the process will stop there or whether the individual is not vulnerable to inducement and the process may continue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top