@UnDefinitive even if it were a matter of public record things wouldn't change much. PWD rights groups have been raising anti-poverty concerns - people's health in decline due to poverty - for decades.
Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning
- Thread starter blackbelt1961
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I am now convinced that the simplest solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income. A host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Being that ...
“Canada does not accept [the UN Human Rights Council’s] recommendation to develop a national strategy to eliminate
poverty...”GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, RESPONSE TO UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT ON CANADA’S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW, 2009
and Being that ...
"Canada does declare that Section 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of theCharter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person ... in this case the petitioner (Homeless Canadian) Who
(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and
(2) has a grievous and irremediable (according to Canada) poverty induced medical condition (illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.
“Canada does not accept [the UN Human Rights Council’s] recommendation to develop a national strategy to eliminate
poverty...”GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, RESPONSE TO UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT ON CANADA’S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW, 2009
and Being that ...
"Canada does declare that Section 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of theCharter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person ... in this case the petitioner (Homeless Canadian) Who
(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and
(2) has a grievous and irremediable (according to Canada) poverty induced medical condition (illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.
Respectfully, "grievous and irremediable...including disability" is NOT clear or there would be no cause for concern. Most people raising concern about this are not doing so because they'd rather see dying people suffer painful death. They are doing so to prevent living people from needless death and in the interest of protecting lives of PWDs. This is not about 90 year old Aunt Gertie with late stage cancer having to suffer or not that makes the decision worrying. It has to be clear that it is only for conditions whereby someone has been given a prognosis of imminent death for that to be assumed in the law. But the wording is not clear the fear is it is open to abuse - and that it is rightfully worrying - not an issue to be ignored.
Last edited:
PWD rights groups are worried. Show them the respect of being worried along with them.
I'm done. This place is something else. Progressive social justice? Not from my point of view. It's never been supportive for me, I don't know what I'm doing here. See you guys later.
I'm done. This place is something else. Progressive social justice? Not from my point of view. It's never been supportive for me, I don't know what I'm doing here. See you guys later.
Say such things about yourself. You don't speak for me. I don't find that funny.
I am merely trying to let people know that a decision just got made that makes me and other people with disabilities afraid that there won 't be enough in the law by the time it's passed to protect them from harm, i.e. being killed by assisted suicide when they could've been helped to live.
Last edited:
Some people with disabilities Cousin. Some.
Then join the disability rights groups and add your voice in support of those who support this decision with adequate reasons why and work with them. Or else you stand against disability rights, IMO. Because they are the unified voice of Canadians with disabilities - fighting for your workplace protection, for accessibility, for housing supports, for jobs, for income support should you need it. They are the reason that the UN ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Because together those groups took it to UN level. They are there to help you.
Last edited:
Canada at the UN ratified , that is.
What I feel like - in my words - is that those who stand against people with disabilities afraid of this decision actually undo years of work for equality. And here at this site it's being taken out on me. When in actuality the people taking it out on me the most don't even grasp why people are nervous about it, or grasp that people with disabilities are a distinct group protected by human rights laws, fighting for equality to just be people as they are with whatever support is needed for them to live equally, not relegated to lesser - and if there's anything they are most vulnerable to and always have been, it's systemic discrimination as dictated by mainstream able-bodied thought that goes into policy design. And this new decision represents more of the same, but with more lives at risk of falling through the cracks.
Last edited:
Void
Member
Okay. Brevity is out the window. Allow me to go back to beginning of this thread for a moment.
_what are the moral implications [of this law] if a Moral God exists?
AHH, a two-part question. Let's look at this morality thing for a moment. We could probably agree that morality is the distinction between right and wrong. Let's start with that. It is the determination of what should be done and what should not be done. Morals deal with behaviors as well as motives. There is a great deal of discussion on the source of morals and whether or not they are objective. As you might guess, morals have close relatives. They live in Ethics (which might be an island in Greece - but I digress). Here is the duality of the nature of morals. The word can be used `descriptively' or 'normatively'. `Descriptive' morality generally refers to codes of conduct put forward by a society or some other group of affiliates such as a religion or a group of umm, horticulturalists. `Normative' morality refers to codes of conduct put forward by all rational people. (Oh-oh, another tin of worms). Add to this, the controversy over whether etiquette, law, and religion are part of morality, merely influences, or else separate but related entities. What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. If you take “morality” to refer to an actual existing code of conduct put forward by a society or group, then there is a built in residual that results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. I guess it all depends on the kind of world you're working on...is it the one with all the artificial walls we have created? Is the morality based on society, church, country? Or it the one based in universality? That's the one that includes all groups, and actually, everyone. So for question 1, part 1: which morality do we mean? There could be a Pop quiz on the weekend. For Question 1, Part 2: I'll leave this one up to you. I include everybody in everybody. I can accept any number of gods including less than zero. I have to. It is my nature. Each of us is a part of everything, and everything is part of each of us. You don't have to join. You're already a member. I think I'm an elbow!
_do we have a right to this over our lives?
THIS is why I posted my challenge... It's not so much to achieve a succinct moral statement, although that would be wonderful times two. Please forgive the pun. I'm new here. I just want to illustrate the depth of thinking required to make something `universal'. Groups decide what they believe to be morally right. Usually `other' groups are then `not quite right'. This is how to build an invisible wall. We humans have never universally agreed on what is `moral'. We don't even have a clear definition. It is just like poverty. If our government can't define that, which is a somewhat more quantifiable concept than this one, then how much faith do you have on them hitting a home run on this one? I predict a foul out strike 3 on a failed bunt attempt.
Here endeth today's sports analogies.
So, tell me folks, how can any law that isn't based on a universal truth possibly satisfy every condition? How can it be universally fair? The laws of the land are not about fair. They're not about consensus. They're not even about what's right. What's right, is more likely in the hearts of the citizens. Let your elected reps know that. Do we have a RIGHT to THIS over our lives? For now, I guess it depends partly on who `we' is, and what `we' believe. THIS is also is a very individual and personal thing. I would say that's one of the reasons for the passionate responses on this topic. That's a good thing. If we are ever going to make something a little more worthwhile of this species of ours, it will need to start inside each of us. That's it for all the questions (for now). None of this was meant as an attack - it's just an invitation to think, and do a little problem solving. Talk amonsgst yourselves.
No single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900 - 1944)
And so if people don't understand why people with disabilities are nervous, their fears are not going to be taken properly into consideration with what new laws get crafted.
Interesting ideas to think over, but...Who appointed you our professor of morality to give pop quizzes?
Wait --- so a person who has a disability who chooses not to join a disability rights group is automatically guilty of standing against disability rights. Is that what you're saying Cousin? How many disability rights groups do you belong to?
An article about this from the Winnipeg Free Press:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...081.html?cx_navSource=d-tiles-2&device=mobile
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...081.html?cx_navSource=d-tiles-2&device=mobile
Joined in conscience. You could volunteer or show support for their initiatives to help people. I have done so for other issues. On this I am joined in conscience.
So you're not actually a member? Then you stand against disability rights IYO.