And I don't speak for thousands - only my concerns in this place - but I know that thousands share similar concerns through the disability rights groups which have been brushed off here as illogical.
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!
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Kimmio said:
They are affected only in as much as they now have the right to approach a doctor and ask for specific assistance.
They will not be compelled by any one to start that conversation.
They cannot compel a doctor to offer that assistance or even agree that the request justifies such action.
No open season exists.
No new danger now exists.
A door previously shut is now open.
The shut door forced people to act in secret. The open door means nobody has to scurry through shadows and the fact that there will be a discussion means doctors (the kind committed to medicine not the kind hoping to get to kill people) have a chance to actually discuss death with a patient.
You want to close the door. Fine. It won't save people. How many commit suicide without a doctor's help? How many times does a family have to weep about not seeing the signs? How many individuals have to agonize about not having an opportunity to tell their loved ones that there is another option other than death?
But lets not have those conversations at all.
Let's make the illegal like they were before when everything was sunshine and roses because people killed themselves then but you felt safer.
@Inannawhimsey yes, my life is uncertain and unsettled. No it is not potentially fatal. I wish people would stop making such assumptions just because I am concerned about a topic enough to write a lot.
I don't see why the ruling could aknowledge the people who are terminally ill who want to die humanely but be resolved to save those who are not terminally ill and ease suffering.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
.What this is, is a two hour debate stretched over a week with me doing most of the talking. I've had enough for real. I didn't expect to get so wrapped up in it but some of the content of the ruling really worries me. What can I say? I said it all multiple times.
True but the idea is to not needlessly cut it short. I think we have a lifespan for a reason.
Aarg. Why wouldn't 'medical condition' suffice for wording. Why an antiquated assumption about what disability is?
Enough. Goodnight. Maybe this'll blow over until someone brings up strip clubs. 
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I'm not entirely sure where the wording came from in the first place - was it actually coming from the court?. I do agree that medical condition is probably more suitable than disability.
It's in the 4th paragraph from the bottom.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/n...isted-suicide/article22828437/?service=mobile
Actually it does say medical condition but then that's qualified with "(illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition" - so, if the old definition of disability applies equating illness with disability, then it's not recognizing all the factors of disability- if the new definition applies one has to wonder whether barriers in the external environment count as intollerable suffering"?
Last edited:
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Kimmio said:
I don't know how the wording indicates a resolve to terminate anyone.
I don't see how opening the door for some means open season on all.
I've met some doctors I'd describe as incompetent. I'd be surprised if any of them responded to a request from anyone for physician assisted death with "Please let me do it." I simply cannot fathom any doctor not actually exploring why such an option is being requested. Most Doctors I have dealt with won't prescribe anything stronger than an anti-biotic without satisfying themselves that I need it. If i were to walk into the office and request enough opiates to kill myself with I expect I wouldn't simply be handed them.
And I don't think that is impacted any by whatever definition of disability is in play. It is impacted by who a doctor is.
I nearly lost a leg because of one doctor.
He was negligent certainly but he wasn't hanging over the bed saying without the leg I might as well be dead.
You fear.
I don't.
You read the declaration as a death warrant.
I don't.
You believe that economics is now reason enough to kill someone.
I don't.
I don't find you convincing.
You don't find me convincing.
You've said several times you should walk away from this conversation yet you never do.
I can. So I will.
In the past couple of days I've chatted with some friends over this issue. There really is some concern out there beyond what Kimmio has been expressing on here. A blind friend of mine shared her concern with me - and others have opined that what we have now is a slippery slope - going down to where doctors can declare someone's life should be extinguished without their consent.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Slippery slope arguments rarely bear fruit in my experience. The Gwen Jacobs decision on whether women could go topless in public spaces in Ontario (which still stands, by the way) was supposed to be a slippery slope leading to all sorts of public hedonism being legalized (it happened in Waterloo so I was there for it and remember the fuss) and I have not seen any evidence of it after almost 25 years.
Your argument assumes a right has been granted to doctors to decide when to end a person's life. But that's not what was said. A right has been granted to competent patients to decide when to end their own life with the support of a physician. And the government has been told that they can regulate it. So I would suggest that any such alarmism about this decision is misplaced until we see that regulatory regime.
As I and others have said to Kimmio, instead of spouting alarmism on the board and elsewhere, try getting involved in a lobbying effort. The government has a year to come up with new legislation and there will be an election within that year (probably) so it's a good chance to bring some pressure to bear on politicians and make them aware of these issues and concerns before they draft the legislation (or get in put in the position of doing so).
It isn't my argument Mendalla.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Which is worse, the hundreds who suffer too much pain for days, weeks, even years, who see their quality of life reduced to lying in a fetal position in a nursing home bed unable to care for their basic needs, to see, hear, swallow - or the one who perhaps could have been helped but who slips through the cracks?
I'll take my chances.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
I answered.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many people would offer to step in and help a person who can't afford to continue living because of the cost to stay alive ---would you offer to pay for the cost of the drugs to help the person reject the dying option -----money pays a big part in this issue -----not just for the person but the goverment as well in my view ------
Read all here ----
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ugs-breaking-the-bank-to-stay-alive/article42
TIME TO LEAD
The cost of drugs: breaking the bank to stay alive
ANDRÉ PICARD
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER — The Globe and Mail
PublishedSunday, Apr. 03 2011, 11:40 AM EDT
Last updatedThursday, Aug. 23 2012, 4:50 PM EDT
Julie Easley had just graduated from the University of New Brunswick when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. She was 23 and broke - with exactly $9 in her bank account.
Thankfully, in Canada, her medical care was free of charge - or so she thought.
In fact, while physician visits and in-hospital care like chemotherapy are covered by medicare, Ms. Easley soon learned that the essential medication she needed to take out-of-hospital was not.
Read all here ----
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ugs-breaking-the-bank-to-stay-alive/article42
TIME TO LEAD
The cost of drugs: breaking the bank to stay alive
ANDRÉ PICARD
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER — The Globe and Mail
PublishedSunday, Apr. 03 2011, 11:40 AM EDT
Last updatedThursday, Aug. 23 2012, 4:50 PM EDT
Julie Easley had just graduated from the University of New Brunswick when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. She was 23 and broke - with exactly $9 in her bank account.
Thankfully, in Canada, her medical care was free of charge - or so she thought.
In fact, while physician visits and in-hospital care like chemotherapy are covered by medicare, Ms. Easley soon learned that the essential medication she needed to take out-of-hospital was not.
