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:
nobody said they've declared open season but
Click to expand...

Nobody said it but . . . .that is what is being argued

Kimmio said:
the cracks already open in human rights for people with disabilities will impact how this proceeds.
Click to expand...

And those cracks are what? Doctors who think disabled people should be euthanized for the greater good of society? Family members who think that their loved ones are too much of a burden to care for any longer?

How would individuals under the care of just such a doctor fit the criteria for competency?
How would individuals in such a circumstance qualify as anything other than vulnerable?

Show me where, in the declaration by the Supreme Court of Canada those previously considered vulnerable have suddenly become other than vulnerable?
 
Kimmio said:
If there are no disability rights commissions and less access to human rights tribunals people with disabilities are already disadvantaged as this goes to the table. @Rita what you suggest is what I am doing right now - asking people to help me and others as this proceeds.
Click to expand...
Sorry Kimmo ..... that is not what I got from your posts......
Perhaps you need to clarify......
In principle ..... are you in agreement that there are persons that should be given the right to ending their life due to overwhelming suffering?
Is there anything in the supreme court decision or the benchmarks set that you disagree with on principle?
Please .... let us focus on solely on the issue dealt with by the supreme court.
That is not to say that there are also other important issues but for now let us focus on just this one.
What are you proposing for nuts and bolts for new legislation to be developed for this issue?
Maybe we could better start there......
 
Kimmio said:
What there should've been already is a disability rights commission to present findings and concerns at the hearing.
Click to expand...

The following organizations were intervenors in the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada:

Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of Quebec,
Council of Canadians with Disabilities,
Canadian Association for Community Living,
Christian Legal Fellowship,
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network,
HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario,
Association for Reformed Political Action Canada,
Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia,
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada,
Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies,
Dying With Dignity,
Canadian Medical Association,
Catholic Health Alliance of Canada,
Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario),
Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die,
Association québécoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignité,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
Catholic Civil Rights League,
Faith and Freedom Alliance,
Protection of Conscience Project,
Alliance of People With Disabilities Who are Supportive of
Legal Assisted Dying Society,
Canadian Unitarian Council,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition — British Columbia

It would appear that were several intervenors who participated who would have had a vested interest in protecting disabled individuals.
 
And yet, mental suffering made it through and will perhaps be the hardest thing to determine as this proceeds - not to mention what qualifies as irremediable suffering of any sort. Had there been a disability rights commission taking the disabilty rights point of view into consideration it would've made "official" - an official vehicle instead of a hodge podge of what the public seem to deem as illogical "special interest groups" the concerns of those rights groups might have been factored in differently.
 
Kimmio said:
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?
Click to expand...

No Kimmio. There will likely be an assessment to determine whether someone has the capacity to consent to such a decision. But that would be it. Physicians will not be advocating or suggesting suicide.
 
In the next 8 months can we get the government to appoint a Disability Rights Commission to put forward concerns in an official capacity and to request an extension on the decision as per the amount of time it took to appoint the commission to help close existing cracks in policy and then have it gather findings to present? I doubt it. Without a commission as per UN specifications to have one - whatever is decided for people with disabilities will not be a just decision and whatever remedies needed will be inadequate and unavailable too. But we'll have to do our best. Nothing new.
 
Good grief Pontifex ....... we are not going to encourage you to go off to eternal damnation...... LOL
 
Kimmio said:
And yet, mental suffering made it through
Click to expand...

With respect nothing has made it through. The Supreme Court has said that there is an element of the current absolute prohibition which fails the charter. They have said that element needs to be fixed. They have not said how. If the various governments have taken no action within a year then there will be a vaccuum where legislation once existed.

The Supreme Court has clearly signalled that they want individuals to be able to prove that they are fit to make an end of life decision. Those who cannot meet whatever criteria determined by their respective government will find themselves prohibited from engaging in activity which will deliberately end their lives. Not only that, physicians rendering assistance to individuals who do not meet the criteria establishing competency will most likely be found criminally culpable.

Disability rights advocates were intervenors in the case. There is no reason to insist that their perspective and position was not taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. Again, in the end the Supreme Court did not declare open season on people with disabilities, still recognizes that certain individuals and populations will be vulnerable to inducement and has asked for legislation which permits individuals in rare and limited instances to escape the current absolute prohibition.

Nobody argued that there were no persons who were not vulnerable. Nobody argued that protected individuals need to have those protections taken away.

What was argued was that some individuals should be allowed an exemption from the absolute prohibition and it was that argument which actually succeeded and is suspended for the next year.

Opposition needs to focus on the reality of the exemptions being sought rather than the doomsday scenario which is presently a figment of imagination and not an expression of reality.
 
DaisyJane said:
No Kimmio. There will likely be an assessment to determine whether someone has the capacity to consent to such a decision. But that would be it. Physicians will not be advocating or suggesting suicide.
Click to expand...
With all due respect I am not confident that the there will be no bureaucratic discrepancies to that get missed, to prevent people who could've been helped to avoid suicide and live better, falling through the cracks. I am sure numerous people have fallen through the cracks in Belgium and our criteria looks an awful lot similar at this point.
 
revjohn said:
With respect nothing has made it through. The Supreme Court has said that there is an element of the current absolute prohibition which fails the charter. They have said that element needs to be fixed. They have not said how. If the various governments have taken no action within a year then there will be a vaccuum where legislation once existed.

The Supreme Court has clearly signalled that they want individuals to be able to prove that they are fit to make an end of life decision. Those who cannot meet whatever criteria determined by their respective government will find themselves prohibited from engaging in activity which will deliberately end their lives. Not only that, physicians rendering assistance to individuals who do not meet the criteria establishing competency will most likely be found criminally culpable.

Disability rights advocates were intervenors in the case. There is no reason to insist that their perspective and position was not taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. Again, in the end the Supreme Court did not declare open season on people with disabilities, still recognizes that certain individuals and populations will be vulnerable to inducement and has asked for legislation which permits individuals in rare and limited instances to escape the current absolute prohibition.

Nobody argued that there were no persons who were not vulnerable. Nobody argued that protected individuals need to have those protections taken away.

What was argued was that some individuals should be allowed an exemption from the absolute prohibition and it was that argument which actually succeeded and is suspended for the next year.

Opposition needs to focus on the reality of the exemptions being sought rather than the doomsday scenario which is presently a figment of imagination and not an expression of reality.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a disability rights commission or else people with disabilities are not being justly represented.
 
Kimmio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

To me, the difference between playing God and being God is that those who are God also see God--and themselves--in everyone else, and act accordingly. This is the safeguard that prevents them from playing God irresponsibly.
 
Okay (preparing to be called "out of my gourde") for the purpose of debate. I have been suffering chronic depression on and off for decades. I am quite certain there is an interplay between this and my socioeconomic circumstances. Where one stops and the other begins has always been difficult to quantify. It can't be quantified medically - or can it? I hope not if i ever decide life is intolerable I hope there would be strong mechanisms to help me change my mind. If one is to accept the label of clinical depression that only looks at length of time and symptomology - perhaps it can be considered irremediable from a medical model point of view - as only individuals symptoms are considered . If, however, other experts were respected to weigh in on what influences the doctors determination to honour the patients' request - disability studies experts, social workers - perhaps more lives can be saved and helped from suicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top