Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Jaebius]

I would expect that their spiritual life would be reflected by their emotional state and as such I think that a psychiatrist provides a more objective measurement.

You may be comfortable having a psychiatrist make decisions for you when it comes to your spiritual life Rev. John (actually that surprises me). However - I and thousands of others - would not be. Thus - the patient needs a choice on exactly who is going on such an important panel - and should be able to include a religious leader from their own faith group.

 

[Mendalla]

I didn't write the above quote. ?

Okay, that is bizarro. Just hit quote on Jae's post so I'm not sure why it attributed it to you. Fixed but we'll have to watch that one.

 

[Jaebius]

This would be within the realm and expertise of the medical community.
Were it my loved one making such a decision I would certainly want a medically approved method.
To me this is just common sense ...... use the right experts for the right thing.

There might (I say "might" because I do not know) be cultures in which accepted means of suicide are outside of what is possible via conventional Canadian medical practices. If that is the case - should we allow individuals from such cultures to request one of those traditional, unconventional means? I would say yes. Your take?

 

[revjohn]

We have had judges decide what are the reasonable and sober limits on the freedom to choose assisted suicide. Who is to decide on what is reasonable and sober when it comes to the method?

Fair question. If not ridiculous.

What is being sought is the right to have a physician assist with death. Once that permission has been given it becomes the responsibility of the Physician providing the assistance and in that case I would expect that the physician would use tools with which they are most familiar.

When we ask a surgeon to remove an appendix we typically leave it up to the physician to determine how best to accomplish that we do not claim the right to demand that the physician do it blind-folded, left-handed and with a Poulan 34 cc Gas Chain Saw.

Some of the methods you are sharing actually do not mitigate against physical pain so if the goal is to eliminate unneccessary pain and suffering it seems contrary to that goal to promote mechanisms for ending life which will actually guarantee physical pain even if it is only briefly.

 

[Jaebius]

Okay, that is bizarro. Just hit quote on Jae's post so I'm not sure why it attributed it to you. Fixed but we'll have to watch that one.

It's an honor to have been called Kimmio. A genuine compliment - even though it was by technical glitch.

 

[RitaTG]

Jae .... yes the patient should have the right to have spiritual counsel and involvement on the panel at their request.
However I would strongly disagree with it being a mandatory requirement.
My understanding was the Rev John's list was solely focused on the mandatory panel members ....
Optional panel members is another consideration and discussion of course.

 

[Jaebius]

Jae .... yes the patient should have the right to have spiritual counsel and involvement on the panel at their request.
However I would strongly disagree with it being a mandatory requirement.
My understanding was the Rev John's list was solely focused on the mandatory panel members ....
Optional panel members is another consideration and discussion of course.

Of course I agree that it should not be mandatory for every patient to have a religious leader there. There are many people in our nation who have not chosen to adopt a belief system. At the same time - I feel that if the patient requests for a religious leader to be included - that request should always be honored.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I just have to respond to this post....... too important to let slip by.....
This is analogous to a strongly held argument against same sex marriage.....
I will agree that it is a human rights issue....
I will further state once again that in my opinion the supreme court got it right.

No. In this case it analogous to stating that LGBT people who think they themselves shouldn't be allowed to be married devalue the rights of those who want to be married. I know it's difficult for people to see it this way, but this is how it is a rights issue. Or, hypothetically it's like saying wanting to die because one can't bear to be LGBT because it's not seen by others around them as 'normal' and having the mainstream okay with that affects negatively the perception of the value of the lives of LGBT who want equality. In other words PWDs who want to die because of their disabilities are doing disability equality rights a disservice. If one looks at people with disabilities as a 'group' who believes they have a natural biological right to be people with disabilities not 'biotypical'.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But then, Jae, we wouldn't be talking about physician-assisted suicide. Suicide is quite legal in Canada.

 

[RitaTG]

I am perplexed ..... first ... the patient has initiated and put forth a request for assisted suicide (this is a requirement already determined by the supreme court) .
If that patient is requesting that a spiritual counsel be on the panel does it not then follow that the spiritual leader would be supportive?? If not .... then there would be quite a question as to why the patient would want someone opposing their request.

 

[Mendalla]

There might (I say "might" because I do not know) be cultures in which accepted means of suicide are outside of what is possible via conventional Canadian medical practices. If that is the case - should we allow individuals from such cultures to request one of those traditional, unconventional means? I would say yes. Your take?

Should a Japanese person be allowed to choose seppuku? Really, I don't see why not but I can also see some cringing at the idea. Mercifully, I don't think anyone in modern Japanese society actually practices the samurai way this literally. The most recent case cited in Wiki is Yukio Mishima, a renowned Japanese author, in 1970.

Seppuku

I do think there should be some regulation around the method but with a view to cultural sensitivities (e.g. if a particular form of death is taboo in a culture, there should be other options available).

However, I think the legislation's main focus needs to be defining what is "grievous and irremediable" and putting due protections in to ensure it is only applied to competent, willing patients. @revjohn 's proposal seems to address this well.

 

[Mendalla]

I am perplexed ..... first ... the patient has initiated and put forth a request for assisted suicide (this is a requirement already determined by the supreme court) .
If that patient is requesting that a spiritual counsel be on the panel does it not then follow that the spiritual leader would be supportive?? If not .... then there would be quite a question as to why the patient would want someone opposing their request.

However, the spiritual leader may be able to better address concerns raised by other panel members than the patient him or herself, esp. if it's a rather patronizing medical panel that tends to treat patients as ignorant clods rather than informed partners in their own care. Unfortunately, I do still encounter this attitude in the medical profession all too often.

 

[revjohn]

You may be comfortable having a psychiatrist make decisions for you when it comes to your spiritual life Rev. John (actually that surprises me).

I am comfortable having a psychiatrist assess me and my mental health. I don't think that should be all that surprising to anyone. As for my spiritual life I'm not aware that it is in any particular disarray at the moment. Nor do I think that if I chose, in the face of a terminal illness, to seek the help of a physician to end my life that it would reflect any actual spiritual crisis.

However - I and thousands of others - would not be.

Then I suspect that you and the thousands of others would have already had a discussion with your spiritual advisor and that discussion would take place prior to you arriving at the point where you feel that you needed a Doctor's assistance in dying. Is that an unfair assumption on my part?

Thus - the patient needs a choice on exactly who is going on such an important panel - and should be able to include a religious leader from their own faith group.

Would you give that religious leader veto power? If all of the medical professionals agreed that the patient requesting a physician assisted death was competent to do so would you permit the religious leader to forbid it?

I think that people of faith should be talking with their religious leaders long before they turn to their GP's with such a request.

 

[RitaTG]

No. In this case it analogous to stating that LGBT people who think they themselves shouldn't be allowed to be married devalue the rights of those who want to be married. I know it's difficult for people to see it this way, but this is how it is a rights issue. Or, hypothetically it's like saying wanting to die because one can't bear to be LGBT because it's not seen by others around them as 'normal' and having the mainstream okay with that affects negatively the perception of lives of LGBT who want equality. If one looks at people with disabilities as a 'group' who believes they have a natural biological right to be people with disabilities not 'biotypical'.

Sorry Kimmo ..... no....
Whether a person feels it is right for them to marry in no way affects how I feel about my marriage.
Were that the case then heterosexual marriage should be almost non existant...
Now as for how trans persons negatively view themselves wanting to die....
43%
That is the suicide rate......
And yes it affects us ... and personally it affects me .....
Within the last year I lost a good friend to suicide.....
For me it has made me more careful of the precious gift I have been given.
Now as for a person suffering from the illnesses and conditions covered in the supreme court ruling.
I would imagine that most other disabled persons would wish them well on the their journey and would be gratified that if and when they should happen to reach a stage that the suffering is unbearable that they would have an option for relief.
I have a family member going down that path and their response to the supreme court ruling was "thank God".
They have a long ways to go yet before it ever gets to a point this would be on the table.
But the path is set ...... I too thank God along with them for the humane option that will soon be available.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Nope. I think you're wrong. I psychiatrist looks at different factors than a social worker. A psychiatrist assesses symptoms does and medication management. A social worker looks at socoeconomics and lifestyle factors and is therefore extremely important.

 

[RitaTG]

However, the spiritual leader may be able to better address concerns raised by other panel members than the patient him or herself, esp. if it's a rather patronizing medical panel that tends to treat patients as ignorant clods rather than informed partners in their own care. Unfortunately, I do still encounter this attitude in the medical profession all too often.

Good point .... but to be effective the mandatory spiritual leader would have to know the patient well.
What about a patient that is an atheist and does not want the involvement of a spiritual leader?
That is and should be their right to not have that person involved hence my position that the involvement of a spiritual leader be optional.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Sorry Kimmo ..... no....
Whether a person feels it is right for them to marry in no way affects how I feel about my marriage.
Were that the case then heterosexual marriage should be almost non existant...
Now as for how trans persons negatively view themselves wanting to die....
43%
That is the suicide rate......
And yes it affects us ... and personally it affects me .....
Within the last year I lost a good friend to suicide.....
For me it has made me more careful of the precious gift I have been given.
Now as for a person suffering from the illnesses and conditions covered in the supreme court ruling.
I would imagine that most other disabled persons would wish them well on the their journey and would be gratified that if and when they should happen to reach a stage that the suffering is unbearable that they would have an option for relief.
I have a family member going down that path and their response to the supreme court ruling was "thank God".
They have a long ways to go yet before it ever gets to a point this would be on the table.
But the path is set ...... I too thank God along with them for the humane option that will soon be available.

Okay. So since trans is about being as you are in your own body without being expected to meet narrow perceptions of 'normal' - it is more analogous to trans persons requesting to die because they are trans (which is very sad), let's say, and how that affects how those wanting to live and be equal are seen, and how they are influenced to see themselves.

 

[RitaTG]

Nope. I think you're wrong. I psychiatrist looks at different factors than a social worker. A psychiatrist assesses symptoms does and medication management. A social worker looks at socoeconomics and lifestyle factors and is therefore extremely important.

Fair point........

 

[Mendalla]

Nope. I think you're wrong. I psychiatrist looks at different factors than a social worker. A psychiatrist assesses symptoms does and medication management. A social worker looks at socoeconomics and lifestyle factors and is therefore extremely important.

Fair enough but we need to avoid stacking this panel with too many voices or we'll have patients suffering for months while the panel debates. Adding one more to John's proposal also makes it an even number, raising the possibility of a patient being denied a right not because the panel rejected their claim but because of a "hung jury". Though I would hope that panel decisions would be based on consensus, not a simple vote.

 

[Mendalla]

Good point .... but to be effective the mandatory spiritual leader would have to know the patient well.
What about a patient that is an atheist and does not want the involvement of a spiritual leader?
That is and should be their right to not have that person involved hence my position that the involvement of a spiritual leader be optional.

Oh, I agree that the spiritual leader should be optional, not mandatory. I assumed that was a given since even Jae had conceded that point.