Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[revjohn]

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?

How long are we going to play the game Kimmio?

You are afraid that the declaration represents an open season on the disabled. I am not.

I also think each case needs to be viewed on its individual merits. You fear a one size fits all.

We clearly don't agree. Which is permitted.

If you need to imagine me to be mean or ignorant or heartless because I have the gall to disagree knock yourself out.

I get that you are fearful. I don't see any reason to fear.

That's also allowed.

My wife is fearful of spiders I don't get it, she is always so much bigger than they are. I don't throw spiders at her because that would be cruel. She doesn't think I'm mean or callous because I refuse to share that fear.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's not a game. I'm asking you to think about how this affects different people in different sets of shoes. Because they may indeed have reason to fear. Especially since depression=mental suffering=disability. I think most people assumed this ruling would be for terminally ill. And I think many people were surprised about the mental suffering aspect. I guess fairs fair. If physically disabled people get to do it mentally disabled should too. ??? I just don't get how people think this is okay unless they don't value life very much or they're missing something in the analysis. I really don't. At that, I am signing off for awhile.

 

[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?

My point in bringing up the program cuts was that I remember reading/ hearing that people were so dismayed and suffering because of it and had nothing to turn to so they killed themselves. My point was that because there were no more options they were suffering and wanted to die and I think that was tragic. You took that and twisted it by saying there were no doctors to help them do it. Well, if they had supports in place they may not have been suffering so much that they wanted to.

...and it is quite possible that disabled vets - including those mentally suffering PTSD (a disability) are more at risk with this decision.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

A couple of years ago they were talking suicide prevention strategies, now people with irremediable non-terminal illnesses and disabilities, including those that cause intolerable mental suffering can just have a doctor do it instead. Some prevention. This ruling stinks.

 

[Lastpointe]

These are separate issues kimmo

There will be people in pain asking for assistance. Whether they getting or not will depend in how the law is crafted and perhaps where they live.

There will be people asking for assistance who won't meet the criteria. But by asking they will have had an audible cry for help. And that is missing right now

People commit suicide. Usually because they feel they have nothing to live for. It is a significant mental health issue.

Sadly often these people are silent sufferers, or they are sending out signals that no one reads properly

My sons best friends father killed himself. None of our social circle even knew he was depressed. A good friend from our church killed himself. The minister, his family, his wife, all were involved. Yet he still did it. There was extreme pain for his children for not stopping him

Suicide is a very tragic event

What I think is hopeful in this ruling is that a depressed, in pain person may ask for help in dying but if they don't meet the criteria hopefully they will get needed help.


I think by including mental health as a possible criteria, we are recognizing that mental health pain can be very severe, very real and very hard to handle.

In physical pain and in mental pain we need to show compassion and caring. And if they also happen to have a disability we need to be aware of their pain too

People with disabilities are as diverse as the rest of us. You have real fear. Most of us feel it is unfounded. You don't. But I hope you put your efforts , not into trying to change a ruling. That won't happen.

But into safeguards in the law

At the same time, I don't want the process to be so onerous that no one can get help

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

These are separate issues kimmo

There will be people in pain asking for assistance. Whether they getting or not will depend in how the law is crafted and perhaps where they live.

There will be people asking for assistance who won't meet the criteria. But by asking they will have had an audible cry for help. And that is missing right now

People commit suicide. Usually because they feel they have nothing to live for. It is a significant mental health issue.

Sadly often these people are silent sufferers, or they are sending out signals that no one reads properly

My sons best friends father killed himself. None of our social circle even knew he was depressed. A good friend from our church killed himself. The minister, his family, his wife, all were involved. Yet he still did it. There was extreme pain for his children for not stopping him

Suicide is a very tragic event

What I think is hopeful in this ruling is that a depressed, in pain person may ask for help in dying but if they don't meet the criteria hopefully they will get needed help.


I think by including mental health as a possible criteria, we are recognizing that mental health pain can be very severe, very real and very hard to handle.

In physical pain and in mental pain we need to show compassion and caring. And if they also happen to have a disability we need to be aware of their pain too

People with disabilities are as diverse as the rest of us. You have real fear. Most of us feel it is unfounded. You don't. But I hope you put your efforts , not into trying to change a ruling. That won't happen.

But into safeguards in the law

At the same time, I don't want the process to be so onerous that no one can get help

Someone in my family committed suicide when I was a kid. Two of my friend's parents did also. What they needed was help not to - counselling resources, a caring ear- not someone to help them do it. As devestating as it was for my family and friends' families, I think people would also take cold comfort in finding out after the fact that a doctor helped them do it instead of stopping them. It would still devestate loved ones, children of the patient. The danger in the ruling is not about end of life care. The dangers are that it includes non-terminal illness and disability at mid-life. Including mental suffering. Which is what a lot of mental disability is. So, I am perplexed as to what to even suggest as solutions in the law to address this so nobody falls through the cracks. I really really think there needs to be two seperate assessments to keep people from slipping through the cracks. One for terminal illness. And a much more stringent one for non-terminal illness and disability that includes more opinions than just medical ones that might recognize where there is suffering external to the condition and how to help so someone changes their mind.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm sorry this topic has gripped me so that I am going on about it - but I can't think of a more 'moral' dilemma than a law which supports killing people - especially people who are not imminently dying and how that changes where we are - and not in a good way - in the way we value life and helping those who are suffering and what effort we are willing to make for others or not to alleviate suffering and support human life. It's really disconcerting.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Not to mention the disability wording. Disability does not equal illness. It's like saying "disease, illness, or gender" - after how far we've come that's disappointing and wrong to use disability that way. Because it implies a whole minority group of people.. Why was not "disease, illness or medical condition" there instead? Somebody who put that in there is still in the dark ages.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

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.

I worked for a large market research company in my 20s in the call centre. The reason why there are no stats on what people with disabilities think is they were probably not identified in the sample - all 300 people or so that they can manage to get to answer the phone depending on if there's a game on or not. I went looking for polls specifically responded to by PWDs and couldn't find any either. So much for "Nothing about us without us". Besides, people have no way of separating what they think about assisted suicide for terminal illness vs chronic illness and disability unless they specifically ask that in the questions. The best we can do is guess by those who responded "somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or unsure" and so the results reported on always give a somewhat skewed representation of the issues. Those amount to 34% of people and there is no way to know specifics of why they answered the way they did and how many surveyed overall were adults with disabilities.

 

[Lastpointe]

Ok. You feel that way but it's there

The optimal issue is that people who are in terrible pain can get help.


Perhaps that help is more support and perhaps the support is death

You are fearful. We all get that. We may not agree but we see it

I think what we are all saying is that the effort should be put towards how to safe guard people while supporting them through painful death.

I actually feel worried those who are not competent. They don't have the ability to access this law , as the court stipulated. And yet they may be in supreme pain.


I hope that we can craft a law that also supports them

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@chansen Adults who identify as people with disabilities are about 14% of the population so unless specifically identified for the purpose of surveying, only about 42 people would've been PWDs assuming an accurately representitive cross section of people gets surveyed. But, you know, some of them can't afford phones. Who's going to ask them?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Ok. You feel that way but it's there

The optimal issue is that people who are in terrible pain can get help.


Perhaps that help is more support and perhaps the support is death

You are fearful. We all get that. We may not agree but we see it

I think what we are all saying is that the effort should be put towards how to safe guard people while supporting them through painful death.

I actually feel worried those who are not competent. They don't have the ability to access this law , as the court stipulated. And yet they may be in supreme pain.


I hope that we can craft a law that also supports them

The support for non-terminal illness should not be death and I will be writing a lot of letters in the next year or putting my support behind the right people to do it.

 

[Ritafee]

A 1993 Supreme Court decision denied Rodriguez the right to die.

Then-federal New Democrat Svend Robinson joined her fight for assisted suicide and was with Rodriguez when she died ... An advocate for doctor-assisted suicide is celebrating the Supreme Court of Canada decision on doctor-assisted suicide by remembering the British Columbia woman whose cause he championed more than 20 years ago, when she took her dying breath.... Sue Rodriguez chose Feb. 12, 1994 to end her life with the help of an anonymous physician.
Source: The Canadian Press
Published Friday, February 6, 2015 2:27PM EST

So ...
here we have a person of canadian citizenship that disobeyed the the supreme court
here we have a person of political persuasion that disobeyed the supreme court
here we have a person of medical degree that disobeyed the supreme court

So ... does the ruling really change anything significantly at this point ... it will be another year before the constituents under the rule are allowed to take legal advantage ... it will not be decided by the constituents under the rule how the 'rules' play out ... it will be decided by the elected-above the rule-elite law makers ... does kimmio have reason to be fearful ... probably yes IMO ... will she be able to put any safeguards in place by discussing it in the Wonder Cafe forum ... probably not IMO ... still ... I am grateful for the opportunity to have learned so much from so many here in this discussion ... I would have dismissed the ruling as nothing of significance had I not participated ... obviously this is not the case for all of us ...
@Kimmio ... my 'sense' of humor seems to have offended you at some point and for that I apologize ... other than that ... I leave this conversation more convinced than ever that if there is no motivation for the supreme court or the federal government's agenda to show compassion (by eradicating poverty) for it's living constituents ... trusting them to dispose of the terminal (irremediable) constituents with a mind to compassion ahead of their own economical advantage is hardly likely either...IMO

 

[revjohn]

It's not a game.

Not a fun one but still a game.

I'm asking you to think about how this affects different people in different sets of shoes.

Because clearly I haven't ever. If I did I would come to the same conclusions you have so . . .maybe one more case study and I'll finally get it and care and not be as deficient as you believe me to be.

Because they may indeed have reason to fear.

They may? Sounds like you think there might possibly not be a reason to fear. Given your position so far I'm shocked you aren't more insistent.

It isn't anyone's circumstance that should lead to any other person fearing. Because it is the choice of an individual for their self. It isn't a doctor's or a spouse's or a child's or even a society's choice for someone else. Even having access to the choice does not guarantee that a compelling case can be made for it.

Especially since depression=mental suffering=disability.

False equivalence.

Depression = mental suffering. Is that irremediable?

Mental suffering = disability. Is that irremediable?

I think most people assumed this ruling would be for terminally ill.

Considering the Carter in Carter v Canada had a terminal illness it actually is. The Supreme Court ruled that the absolute nature of the ban infringed on section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms and as such limited what was once absolute. They opened a door people may choose to walk through they did not open a door and force anyone through it.

And I think many people were surprised about the mental suffering aspect. I guess fairs fair. If physically disabled people get to do it mentally disabled should too. ???

What is guaranteed is that people are now legally permitted to ask. There is no guarantee that they will be given what they ask for.

I just don't get how people think this is okay unless they don't value life very much or they're missing something in the analysis. I really don't. At that, I am signing off for awhile.

We must be deficient in some way. Ignorant brutes the bunch of us.

 

[Carolla]

Kimmio - at several points in this thread you stated that you were going to move on from the topic. And yet you continue to return. From my perspective it seems that continuing to do so is agitating your fears, not soothing them in any way, as you continue to imagine future catastrophic events. I do suggest, respectfully and caringly, that you consider letting this lapse for good - at least here. You've got ideas of advocacy directed toward those who will be decision makers as the law is crafted ... that's great. Perhaps turning your energy in that direction would bring you a greater sense of satisfaction.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio - at several points in this thread you stated that you were going to move on from the topic. And yet you continue to return. From my perspective it seems that continuing to do so is agitating your fears, not soothing them in any way, as you continue to imagine future catastrophic events. I do suggest, respectfully and caringly, that you consider letting this lapse for good - at least here. You've got ideas of advocacy directed toward those who will be decision makers as the law is crafted ... that's great. Perhaps turning your energy in that direction would bring you a greater sense of satisfaction.

Not finished responding to Rejohn yet. Since I think I'm part of this community and I've been told I make poor arguments for my case, I'd like to make better ones. This is no small potatoes, Carolla. What I feel like is, like other rights advocates feel, this decision devalues and could even endanger the lives of people with disabilities. The fears are real for thousands of people who don't even know each other. Do you think..for no good reason at all, really?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm not catastophizing as much as looking for some support for the concerns.

 

[Delightful Life]

I'm not catastophizing as much as looking for some support for the concerns.

Right...support for your concerns, which are your anxiety & fear...

Which you do not have any right to require of us to assuage them...

Not finished responding to Rejohn yet. Since I think I'm part of this community and I've been told I make poor arguments for my case, I'd like to make better ones. This is no small potatoes, Carolla. What I feel like is, like other rights advocates feel, this decision devalues and could even endanger the lives of people with disabilities. The fears are real for thousands of people who don't even know each other. Do you think..for no good reason at all, really?

You only speak for yourself. You do not speak for 'thousands of people'. Your disability isn't automatically someone else's disability.

This is a teeny, tiny board we have here with a teeny, tiny readership. There are more focussed and bigger ones if you actually want your words to accomplish something, other than expressing your fears, anxieties, concerns...none of the important people (people like policy makers) read this board...

You are writing in the moment of your fear & anxiety -- and that interferes with your communication.

You aren't following your own advice. You might just be addicted...

And you have shown that you prejudge us as to what our knowledge is, what our opinions are, BEFORE we talk aboot them...you've voiced your concerns and when people here have tried to come to an understanding with you you shoot them down, deny them their own experience and knowledge, prejudge them, and keep on writing...

So why write here? Why not just save the time and admit that you are talking to yourself?

You really desperately need some form of mindfulness training. There are some places nearby you that offer free meditation training. Which will take time & effort.

(i understand where you're coming from -- your life right now is quite uncalm & chaotic & uncertain & potentially fatal -- so you writing here is something that you can control...)

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@revjohn article 7 of the charter speaks to life, liberty and security of the person.

The UN recognizes a social/ rights model of disability in the Convention which Canada signed (as well as WHO now does). The reason why rights advocates have been appalled by the inclusion of the word 'disability' next to illness and disease, is it negates the new definition of disability which aknowledges that disability is a combination of impairment up against external social and environmental barriers to inclusion. (inclusion of an antiquated meaning of disability is hardly social inclusion - not exactly the right intent) this very decision creates a barrier and also means, as per the UN Convention - that people with disabilities have not been respected as equal persons before the law.

Now, had there been a disability rights commission - as there should be - to do a study concerning the implications for people with disabilities to such a ruling - research, interviews with PWDs to present it's findings to the court, I do not think disability would even be in the new ruling.

I don't know if this can be challenged. But it is unconstitutional from the get-go seeing as a whole population of a protected group people is affected by this decision - whether they care or are aware or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Right...support for your concerns, which are your anxiety & fear...

Which you do not have any right to require of us to assuage them...



You only speak for yourself. You do not speak for 'thousands of people'. Your disability isn't automatically someone else's disability.

This is a teeny, tiny board we have here with a teeny, tiny readership. There are more focussed and bigger ones if you actually want your words to accomplish something, other than expressing your fears, anxieties, concerns...none of the important people (people like policy makers) read this board...

You are writing in the moment of your fear & anxiety -- and that interferes with your communication.

You aren't following your own advice. You might just be addicted...

And you have shown that you prejudge us as to what our knowledge is, what our opinions are, BEFORE we talk aboot them...you've voiced your concerns and when people here have tried to come to an understanding with you you shoot them down, deny them their own experience and knowledge, prejudge them, and keep on writing...

So why write here? Why not just save the time and admit that you are talking to yourself?

You really desperately need some form of mindfulness training. There are some places nearby you that offer free meditation training. Which will take time & effort.

(i understand where you're coming from -- your life right now is quite uncalm & chaotic & uncertain & potentially fatal -- so you writing here is something that you can control...)

Okay so I am talking to myself. I thought everyone was ignoring me anyway.

Really, maybe when everyone has had some distance from this emotional controversial topic the ideas on both sides will be clearer.