Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Void]

"You can bring a horticulture, but you can't make her think." - Dorothy Parker

Cleaver and clever all-in-one, but perhaps a little too close to the edge? A lawyer might advise you to include `Without Prejudice'...

 

[Luce NDs]

There we go again on that damned ethereal thinking ... a way out concept to those institutionalized not to ...

Does anyone but me see non-thinking personalities as funny, gae, odd, differing and just not well integrated into the supporting environment ... this could be the Hobbit's residence ... a well rounded hole in something or other as an incarnation of an ethereal organ ... manifesting itself as psyche?

I possible gets well rounded from rolling about because of the odd things real people do and call compassion ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

They're not sitting around scheming John. But the economy could dictate what becomes a commonplace option.

Most people with disabilities are no stranger to cuts in programs.

In the early 2000's there was a restructuring of BC's welfare system. People with severe disabilities requiring extra health supports were cut off assistance altogether and had to reapply. Many who were suddenly cut off were turned down under the new system. I heard stories that there were suicides. I can't remember what the program was called and I can't find anything about it right now. It was in the press a lot back then. There are constant changes and cuts to existing programs all the time and people struggle. I don't discount the fear that assisted suicide will be a cheaper option than having enough social supports available to choose to live.
It may not be a scheme but if this is an option maybe they'll skimp on others. So I'd recommend, if you insist that this decision is a good idea, that people be aware and help make sure there are other options for people.

 

[Luce NDs]

What me ... without prejudice?

Is not every natural action of passion ... to suffer a reaction of sorts? It is considered natural ... to all those that love natural things. Then there are those that would like to conquer nature ... so there would never be any supernatural responses to how mankind has cherry picked the tree of wisdom to death --- possibly Ben Franklin ... but how would I know as a person commanded to not know ... by latter day Christians?

Just as a tangent ... the Polynesians had a word ... manna ... it may have related to breadfruit of the mind as imaginary crumbs, bits and bites as fell below the tableaux of well-whetted vegetables that are po' lyre as metaphor than what you'd thing educated folk would be.

Then there is the matter of they don't teach script at school as cursive writ ... so are we losing natural intelligence with the ability to script IT?

Alas we are not to give critical thinking to authorities ... they don't believe they need it ... all they need is found in the law ... a roués? Did some famous enlightened Levite strike into lower regions because of that fallibility of the Judeo-Roman Laws for peace as struck down by brute 4's?

In short I could repeat a famous character of the mid 1900's who said we are our own worst enemies ... because we don't believe the Rule of Golden Cheekiness ... a well-sunned rye lass?

Dying Nycis, Bacchus, and satyr all come from the same breed of light whine ... squeakers in the PEW? Whistle blowers?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

As soon as I saw you call me a fear mongerer - I stopped reading. @Void

 

[Luce NDs]

In nature ... is it the peak of nature that collapses industriously ... or the cause of the foundation stones slipping out from under the geological plates ... always the base cause of failure is missed by high flying ... blindly in a hairy fog ... sometimes and Eire Mist!

Don't even injure industry and business ... it's just not capital thing to do ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I have to ask again. No one answered before. Given two scenarios - Dr. Low in too much pain for 8 days, or someone without terminal illness who died decades too soon because no one provided help for a better outlook or alternative - which of those is less 'moral'?

They should never have included non-terminal illness.

 

[chansen]

They should never have included non-terminal illness.

Lots of people disagree. Far more than those who agree. 78% of Canadians disagree with you. 7% had no opinion. You are part of ~16% who oppose it:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...support-assisted-death-ruling-poll-shows.html

I don't know what the numbers would be among people with disabilities. I don't expect a big difference. I think people are people, and I know you'll tell me that those with disabilities have a better perspective than I do. I think my perspective is more well-rounded than you give me or anyone else credit for, and that's why this thread is past the point of usefulness.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Right so cut it off already. You don't want to believe there are dangers. I'm just a raving lunatic with a disability. The system works hunky dory. It was a great decision. This thread is tragic. Shut er down. Nothing left to see here.

 

[ChemGal]

I have to ask again. No one answered before. Given two scenarios - Dr. Low in too much pain for 8 days, or someone without terminal illness who died decades too soon because no one provided help for a better outlook or alternative - which of those is less 'moral'?

They should never have included non-terminal illness.

If someone is suffering greatly with a non-terminal illness, why should they have to choose between living with that suffering for a long time, or killing themselves in a manner that isn't as comfortable as it could be (assuming that it's even possible for them to do so)?

 

[revjohn]

They're not sitting around scheming John.

Who is they? It seems pretty clear that you think it of me and others who just don't get it and don't care about others.

But the economy could dictate what becomes a commonplace option.

As in, "OMG Bank of Canada just raised its prime lending rate. Time to snuff out some disabled folk yo!"

Most people with disabilities are no stranger to cuts in programs.

I get that. This current Federal Government is good at cutting programs to vulnerable sectors. I really like how they stand behind the troops. It makes it easier to club them when they start talking about PTSD or veteran's benefits. Makes me wonder how those guys escaped being put on the death list you portray the Supreme Court Decision to be.

And to be candid. If there was an economic problem the Government wouldn't look to kill some PWD's to balance the nation's books they'd just cut your services and eliminate your benefits.

Many who were suddenly cut off were turned down under the new system. I heard stories that there were suicides.

Not physician assisted obviously. And I would think that demonstrates vulnerability to inducement which defeats competency. Suicides may still happen. It wouldn't be because physicians were happy to help out either. In fact I think all who killed themselves before without a physicians help would have had to do so because physicians would not honour their request had the legislation been changed then.

The legislation only makes PWD's more at risk if you believe doctors will not actually ask why any patient wants their help dying. If that is what you believe then you think that there is scheming going on.

It may not be a scheme but if this is an option maybe they'll skimp on others.

How would that not be a scheme? That is you stating that governments are choosing to terminate people rather than help them in some way.

So I'd recommend, if you insist that this decision is a good idea, that people be aware and help make sure there are other options for people.

Have I said I thought this was a good decision? I'm not aware that I have. I have argued what the decision means and how the Justices arrived at the decision. I haven't weighed in on whether I like or do not like the decision. Your belief that I am in favour of this decision is based on what you think of me.

But what I think of the decision doesn't really matter. A decision has been made and governments need to respond in a year's time with new legislation or there will be trouble. Not in the form of PWD's being herded into slaughterhouses but in people who are suffering from tremendous pain who cannot find a doctor to help them. They could talk with any doctor about committing suicide without fear of retribution but doctors won't put their practice at risk to help knowing that without legislation guiding how they move forward. That is a reality and that means the people who sought redress to the blanket prohibition because of their suffering can suffer some more.

Who should care about them right? And really, isn't their pain a little thing compared to your imagined fears? If their condition is degenerative then they probably won't have long to dwell on the fact that to save yourself from some imaginary nightmare they get to live through a real one.

That's what victory should have looked like right?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Who is they? It seems pretty clear that you think it of me and others who just don't get it and don't care about others.



As in, "OMG Bank of Canada just raised its prime lending rate. Time to snuff out some disabled folk yo!"



I get that. This current Federal Government is good at cutting programs to vulnerable sectors. I really like how they stand behind the troops. It makes it easier to club them when they start talking about PTSD or veteran's benefits. Makes me wonder how those guys escaped being put on the death list you portray the Supreme Court Decision to be.

And to be candid. If there was an economic problem the Government wouldn't look to kill some PWD's to balance the nation's books they'd just cut your services and eliminate your benefits.



Not physician assisted obviously. And I would think that demonstrates vulnerability to inducement which defeats competency. Suicides may still happen. It wouldn't be because physicians were happy to help out either. In fact I think all who killed themselves before without a physicians help would have had to do so because physicians would not honour their request had the legislation been changed then.

The legislation only makes PWD's more at risk if you believe doctors will not actually ask why any patient wants their help dying. If that is what you believe then you think that there is scheming going on.



How would that not be a scheme? That is you stating that governments are choosing to terminate people rather than help them in some way.



Have I said I thought this was a good decision? I'm not aware that I have. I have argued what the decision means and how the Justices arrived at the decision. I haven't weighed in on whether I like or do not like the decision. Your belief that I am in favour of this decision is based on what you think of me.

But what I think of the decision doesn't really matter. A decision has been made and governments need to respond in a year's time with new legislation or there will be trouble. Not in the form of PWD's being herded into slaughterhouses but in people who are suffering from tremendous pain who cannot find a doctor to help them. They could talk with any doctor about committing suicide without fear of retribution but doctors won't put their practice at risk to help knowing that without legislation guiding how they move forward. That is a reality and that means the people who sought redress to the blanket prohibition because of their suffering can suffer some more.

Who should care about them right? And really, isn't their pain a little thing compared to your imagined fears? If their condition is degenerative then they probably won't have long to dwell on the fact that to save yourself from some imaginary nightmare they get to live through a real one.

That's what victory should have looked like right?

You're a mean talker John. It appears you're in a tizzy that I pointed out feeling misunderstood and scared about this - couldn't just see that through my words -and instead you go on a relentless counter attack.

I'm not on any disability benefits right now. I might need to be someday. But, y'know - there's always suicide if I can't work or afford a place to live, right?

 

[revjohn]

I have to ask again. No one answered before. Given two scenarios - Dr. Low in too much pain for 8 days, or someone without terminal illness who died decades too soon because no one provided help for a better outlook or alternative - which of those is less 'moral'?

They should never have included non-terminal illness.

I can't help but think this is a false choice. That there is no way to address both cases based on their own individual merits.

Why, if I agree that Dr. Low should have had assistance am I suddenly obligated to give assistance to someone else who isn't suffering as Dr. Low was?

If somebody comes to me in pain and I know they will have that pain until they die do I tell them to suck it up and look on the bright side (that they can expect to suffer for x number of days, weeks, months, decades)?

If someone comes to me and cannot demonstrate pain am I forced to give them what they want for pain?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I can't help but think this is a false choice. That there is no way to address both cases based on their own individual merits.

Why, if I agree that Dr. Low should have had assistance am I suddenly obligated to give assistance to someone else who isn't suffering as Dr. Low was?

If somebody comes to me in pain and I know they will have that pain until they die do I tell them to suck it up and look on the bright side (that they can expect to suffer for x number of days, weeks, months, decades)?

If someone comes to me and cannot demonstrate pain am I forced to give them what they want for pain?

Okay, suppose the subject who had non-terminal illness in my second scenario was Eva from Belgium? The depressed woman in the PBS video I know some help was missing in her case. Some 'void' that wasn't being addressed. She was young, physically healthy. She could've been saved. I refuse to believe her suffering was irremediable, that her life had to be considered so expendable, and that everything to help was offered. That was tragic and I don't want to see that happen here. That, to me, is more tragic than someone terminally ill in too much pain for a week, as difficult as it was. I think people like Dr. Low should be given as much comfort as they can and a humane death, but I see no reason why someone like Eva should die voluntarily at the hands of our healthcare system tasked with saving her life.

 

[revjohn]

You're a mean talker John.

No meaner than you are.

It appears you're in a tizzy that I pointed out feeling misunderstood and scared about this and you go on a relentless counter attack.

No tizzy here. The problem is not with what you feel. The problem is what you think your fear entitles you to say about others who disagree with you.

I was flippant certainly with the Prime rate crack. That isn't representative of how you think. It is reflective of how you are painting the thoughts of others who disagree with you.

I'm not on any disability benefits right now. I might need to be someday. But, y'know - there's always suicide if I can't work or afford a place to live, right?

Now whose being flip?

My son is on disability pension. My wife and I took out a significant loan to renovate a self-contained apartment for him to live in. We've fought with the feds and the province not just to get this benefit but to have it reinstated when some pencil-pusher thought you could cure a bi-polar disorder with a ledger sheet.

So what the hell would I know about how people with disability are treated?

I advocate for children on the Autism Spectrum of Disorders when the get the gears by school administrators so again, what the hell would I know about how people with special needs are treated?

I left NL because it looked like they treated mental health issues with the local constabulary rather than anything remotely medical. So yeah, I don't care, never gave a damn and know absolutely nothing about what people with disability go through.

Now suppose my son toddles off to see his doctor and asks about the suicide option. Does the doctor say, well you get ODSP so let me do it right now or does the doctor ask why? What does my son have to do to convinces the doctor death is a legitimate option? Does he have to produce the Ontario Disability drug benefit card or does he have to prove that he is in some kind of pain? Would a hangnail do?

My son can start the discussion but not legally for another 12 months. Is the doctor going to be sold?

No. The doctor won't be. Why not? My son has a disability? Because that is all he has the rest of the criteria like irremediable pain does not exist. So my son with a disability is actually no closer to death today because of the Supreme Court than he was the day before the ruling. Even if he wanted to die he is not going to find a physician willing to help him in Canada. Somewhere else if it is a fee for use service maybe but given what he gets through ODSP it would likely take years to save up for a one way ticket and the expenses associated.

Of course my son isn't with any disability rights group so he probably has some self-hate going on or political aspirations. Could be both.

 

[revjohn]

Okay, suppose the subject who had non-terminal illness in my second scenario was Eva from Belgium?

Yeah no false choice here either. I don't think if Belgium jumped off a bridge Canada would do the same.

I think people like Dr. Low should be given as much comfort as they can and a humane death,

And yet you are opposed to the decision which in a year could lead to that outcome simply because you are convinced that to be so merciful to him we must be so cruel to Eva.

it was the lack of nuance which led to the decision.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Okay so imagine somebody else, who is depressed, and who hasn't got a close relationship with a doctor. Maybe they have another disability as well. Maybe they don't have a supportive family. What about them?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Yeah no false choice here either. I don't think if Belgium jumped off a bridge Canada would do the same.



And yet you are opposed to the decision which in a year could lead to that outcome simply because you are convinced that to be so merciful to him we must be so cruel to Eva.

it was the lack of nuance which led to the decision.

I am not opposed to that outcome for a terminally ill patient. I am saying that the mental suffering ruling opens the door for patients like Eva? What should be done with cases like hers? There will be Evas asking for assisted suicide. I think the mental suffering ruling was wrong...but since it is there, what would you do with people like Eva? What do you think should be done with cases like hers?

 

[Layton November]

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)

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~Søren Kierkegaard
A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Layton November]

"You can bring a horticulture, but you can't make her think." - Dorothy Parker

“Tall, aren't you?" she said.
"I didn't mean to be."
Her eyes rounded. She was puzzled. She was thinking. I could see, even on that short acquaintance, that thinking was always going to be a bother to her.” - Raymond Chandler