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
17m7bll7tgbzxjpg.jpg

either+or+01.jpg
 
Inannawhimsey said:

Sam Sullivan founded 6 not-for-profit orgs that help out the disabled...yeah, definitely a total a**hole there...:eek:
Click to expand...
What he did do was raise the profile of PWDs on the world stage, promoted accessibility and ability - all good things - but he ignored poverty concerns of those on the margins that weren't benefitted by his initiatives. There's a whole lot more to disability rights than physical accessibility and not everyone wants to be a Sam Sullivan or a Rick Hansen. They just want to live normally and need better day to day supports.
 
Kimmio said:
People who think they are so progressive and compassionate for supporting this current decision are only thinking of themselves and their possible moment of decision over their life.
Click to expand...
I'm not just thinking of myself. I think this is going to help various people who are suffering.
 
Kimmio said:
Had it been worded not to include "disability" and been restricted to terminal illness, it could've helped people without putting a bunch of others at risk.
Click to expand...
I don't think it should just be restricted to terminal illness. You've still made a false accusation at quite a few of us. Your lack of reply to some things I have asked you, yet your large number of posts suggests to me that you don't even want to consider where some of us are coming from.
 
revjohn said:
Or perhaps we do get what the concern is but we don't agree that the concern is warranted.



Are you painting us all with the same brush or are you attempting to punish everyone for the comment of one?



I get that. What I don't get is why. From what I am hearing you are interpreting the declaration as open season on persons with disabilities. Your fear influences you. It does not shape me. The law that was appealed was an absolute prohibition the remedy is to put a door in that prohibition and that is what the Supreme Court has declared. You appear to interpret the declaration as a complete and utter reversal where everyone is granted access for whatever reason. That is not what the declaration says. Nowhere near what the declaration says.



If so then there will be an appeal to determine that.

I don't think that the inclusion is unconstitutional nor do I think that the inclusion means persons with disabilities are now more at risk. Competency will still need to be determined and I expect that without clear guidelines from any jurisdiction doctors are going to be reluctant about participating in such discussions because participation, without defined guidelines leaves physicians open to charges which would not have a legal framework for adequate defence.



Keep telling yourself that. We disagree. If you need us to be ignorant that is your need and not necessarily anything near reality. If you need us to be cold-hearted that too is your need and not necessarily anything to do with reality. Again, I am not governed by your fear.



Which may be true. Of course if comepetence needs to be determined to request a physician's assistance in dying they won't be testing my competence unless it is me making the request. If you don't think persons with disability can meet a threshold of competence then they won't be getting access to that kind of assistance. If you think persons with disability can meet the threshold of competence then you need to be discussing with those people why they shouldn't be seeking that kind of assistance.

And if you think that the able-bodies are just hanging around waiting for a chance to get rid of differently abled individuals that is really your prejudice and not ours.



A Disability Rights Commission would not be dictating the rulings of the Supreme Court to them. So such a commission would not be the safeguard you claim it to be.

Disability is not listed as a reason to die.

Disability is listed as a reason why to door may be opened to consider a request. It is by no means the guarantee for such a request being honoured.

You won't believe that to be the case which is fair.

You will simply insist that your fear and your prejudice should be allowed priority over any objection.

Believe it or not I am open to listen to concerns about the legislation. I haven't been given any that I feel are valid.

Nobody, for example, has quoted the ruling and said, based on the arguments this is what the Supreme Court means. Nobody.

What I have heard is fearful reaction and I don't respond to panic. It generally is not well informed.

I'm not putting anyone on ignore.

I'm not claiming anyone is out of their gourd.

I can't stop you for being angry at me because others have done that.

I can assure you that I don't find that compelling or convincing and if you really want me to "get it" then you are going to have to do a far better job of explaining it so that I can understand it because I don't find your fear or your interpretation of the ruling compelling one way or another.

If you want me on your side try respecting that I think differently than you do instead of trying to bully or shame me with your emotional response.
Click to expand...

A cognitively aware person with a disability is competent to request suicide. Medically/ cognitively competent. What is missing is looking at why they might feel that way other than symptoms. What external factors they need help with that could radically change their minds. I am worried very much about people who might choose suicide but wouldn't if their circumstances were different or given the opportunity to be different. That has nothing to do with incompetence it has to do with existing disadvantage.

If this ruling included "guys with bushy beards" maybe you'd be worried too - as a minority demographic. The disability community is not a bunch of sick people. It's a group of people with wide ranging impairments who identify with one another by nature of social disadvantage. It just refers to a protected minority group of persons. Who are now included as reasons - diagnoses instead of people - that one might choose suicide.
 
ChemGal said:
I don't think it should just be restricted to terminal illness. You've still made a false accusation at quite a few of us. Your lack of reply to some things I have asked you, yet your large number of posts suggests to me that you don't even want to consider where some of us are coming from.
Click to expand...

I asked you to consider the disability rights lens first - since that is what is at stake. Without that we are not speaking the same language. If you don't want to know the language of disability rights how could you understand my point of view?
 
Kimmio said:
I asked you to consider the disability rights lens first - since that is what is at stake. Without that we are not speaking the same language. If you don't want to know the language of disability rights how could you understand my point of view?
Click to expand...
I have, it's just not your disability rights lens.
 
ChemGal said:
I have, it's just not your disability rights lens.
Click to expand...

You have, what? There is a disability rights lens - model of disability - that is enshrined in the UN Convention now. There is disability studies. Bioethics is generally conflictual with those.

If you don't respect that, so be it, but that does nothing to address the real concerns many PWDs are having. It's not just me. Immediately after I heard of the ruling I was having exactly the same concerns as thousands of people. I wasn't reading up in anticipation. It's just a gut fear that comes from the fact that people with disabilities face a lot if discrimination and it wasn't all that long ago that we were shut away and abused, seen as a blight on society and noone gave a s**t about us. The government has lagged in other areas to make sure policies catch up with promises and this is just another example that kicks us to the curb.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
You have, what? There is a disability rights lens - model of disability - that is enshrined in the UN Convention now. There is disability studies. Bioethics is generally conflictual with those.

If you don't respect that, so be it, but that does nothing to address the real concerns many PWDs are having. It's not just me. Immediately after I heard of the ruling I was having exactly the same concerns as thousands of people. I wasn't reading up in anticipation. It's just a gut fear that comes from the fact that people with disabilities face a lot if discrimination and it wasn't all that long ago that we were shut away and abused, seen as a blight on society and noone gave a s**t about us. The government has lagged in other areas to make sure policies catch up with promises and this is just another example that kicks us to the curb.
Click to expand...
I've looked at it through a disability rights lens. I just haven't come to the same conclusions as you. I think this does address a few real concerns PWDs have.
 
Kimmio said:
Cheaper to choose death than things that support life for someone who feels like a burden on their family or the system.

Also cheaper than providing good palliative care.
Click to expand...
Or someone who is really suffering comes here, along with their family. Would that be so bad?
At first you made this sound as black and white, but now it sounds like you only see the black in this. Even things most people would see as a positive, you think are negative.
 
ChemGal said:
Or someone who is really suffering comes here, along with their family. Would that be so bad?
At first you made this sound as black and white, but now it sounds like you only see the black in this. Even things most people would see as a positive, you think are negative.
Click to expand...

If you don't see the bad - that's how risks get missed.
 
I know from my work enough to know how 'bad' the system can be in missing needs of people. How many whose health and well being already suffers in poverty - here in Canada. That have to beg and grovel and wade through complex red tape to get minimal supports. I'm not going to jump up now and trust that there are no cracks in this decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top