Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I haven't seen that said or implied by anyone in this thread.

Well if people with disabilities can seek death from a doctor due to their disabilities, that's what it amounts to. All non-terminal illnesses/medical conditions up against barriers are disabilities. And all disabilities are disabling due to external barriers. The way the ruling currently reads - the ruling equates disability with illness and disease - and allows people with non-terminal conditions to seek death from doctors. The ruling takes disability out of the context of the duty enshrined in human rights law to remove systemic and attitudinal barriers - and then places disability right in the middle of a huge attitudinal and systemic barrier, which is this ruling.

You see people with disabilities are supposed to be equal under the law to able-bodied people. That's the baseline. If the judge had respected that human right to be equal then the law could've been made to include only people suffering from terminal illness - either a primary terminal illness for able-bodied people, or a terminal illness on top of the already existing disability. To honour the human rights of people with disabilities it should look more like this:

Able bodied people acquire terminal illness=permission to seek assisted suicide when their suffering becomes intolerable at the latter stages

Already disabled people acquire terminal illness= can ask for permission to seek assisted suicide when their suffering becomes intolerable at the latter stages.

What we have now is:

Terminal illness is intolerable=disability is intolerable

Keep in mind that disability is only disability if the impairment is up against discriminatory attitudinal and systemic and environmental barriers. Impairment alone is not disability according to human rights law. This ruling sets up a systemic barrier for potentially deadly attitudinal discrimination to breed.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You may be putting others lives at risk down the road if people have the attitude that doctors should help people kill themselves - in particular poor people who want to live with dignity but have little support - by supporting it to be legal for doctors to kill non-terminally people, seeler. It's a slippery slope. That's not what doctors are there for.

 

[BetteTheRed]

So, could some besides doctors be involved in assisted suicide?

There's obviously a great deal of unresolved/unresolvable suffering in this world. Many people successfully commit suicide, but the avenues are often truly awful - for those who find living intolerable, for those who find them, and for those who inadvertently kill them (I'm thinking of drivers of trucks, cars, trains, etc., by which people commit suicide). Given that only the Buddhists purport to be able to render the world's suffering moot, can't we find some improvement on the status quo? The Supreme Court seems to think so, and has, thankfully, IMHO, opened this conversation with their ruling.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

They opened it. There may be challenges to the wording of the ruling. Expect such. One question might be what's making life so intolerable that someone with a non-terminal illness wants to kill themselves? Economic disparity, loneliness, isolation, shame of living with disability? The way the ruling is written such people could ask to be killed, and a doctors job is only to assess the degree of physical and mental symptoms.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling respecting the human rights of disabled people. Be happy all you want but it puts a lot of people in peril. There are already people who believe that to be disabled is to lead a meaningless life. Now, there will be more of them.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Bette's right. But there should be equal opportunity to death. Not a bunch of rules and hoops to jump through. If it takes too long you may change your mind. What a happier place Canada will be when all the whiners are deleted at will.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Bette's right. But there should be equal opportunity to death. Not a bunch of rules and hoops to jump through. If it takes too long you may change your mind. What a happier place Canada will be when all the whiners are deleted at will.

That's utter nonsense

 

[unsafe]

So here is a question -----

The teenagers killing themselves because of being bullied ---harassed ---and being shut out from friends and family ---because of them being gay --transexual etc--etc ---or just being bullied at school by cowards ----the pain and suffering they feel is very great to the point of wanting to die and many have killed themselves ----does this qualify as a euthanasia scenario --what is the difference that each feel in their pain and suffering -----one group wants to die cause they can't stand the pain and suffering of their disease and the cost to fight the disease is beyond their means ---the other can't stand the pain and suffering of being shut out and not accepted -----both have great Pain and Suffering to the point of wanting to take their lives ----both Groups are Spirit broken with no hope -----What is good for one group is good for the other ------the young teens should have free will to choose to die with dignity as opposed to doing it themselves ----their pain and suffering is no less than the terminally ill person in my view -------

 

[Mendalla]

No, because bullying and harassment are not "irremediable". They are most definitely remediable if society takes them seriously and starts taking action on them.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No, because bullying and harassment are not "irremediable". They are most definitely remediable if society takes them seriously and starts taking action on them.

Then disabilities are remediable, too. Unfortunately, they've been lumped with illness and disease as potentially "unremediable". An unremediable group of people? Unremediable social barriers?

 

[unsafe]

So what you're saying Mendalla is that it is OK for teens to take their own lives as long as the Dr. doesn't do it ---cause there is a cure --you try telling that to a young teen about to take their life -----you might say there is a cure but to them at that point there is no cure --no hope ---the pain and suffering is too great and they see no other way out ----they are no different than the the person who is terminally ill ------

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So here is a question -----

The teenagers killing themselves because of being bullied ---harassed ---and being shut out from friends and family ---because of them being gay --transexual etc--etc ---or just being bullied at school by cowards ----the pain and suffering they feel is very great to the point of wanting to die and many have killed themselves ----does this qualify as a euthanasia scenario --what is the difference that each feel in their pain and suffering -----one group wants to die cause they can't stand the pain and suffering of their disease and the cost to fight the disease is beyond their means ---the other can't stand the pain and suffering of being shut out and not accepted -----both have great Pain and Suffering to the point of wanting to take their lives ----both Groups are Spirit broken with no hope -----What is good for one group is good for the other ------the young teens should have free will to choose to die with dignity as opposed to doing it themselves ----their pain and suffering is no less than the terminally ill person in my view -------

No. Both groups should be counseled and given reasons and opportunities to live better.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So what you're saying Mendalla is that it is OK for teens to take their own lives as long as the Dr. doesn't do it ---cause there is a cure --you try telling that to a young teen about to take their life -----you might say there is a cure but to them at that point there is no cure --no hope ---the pain and suffering is too great and they see no other way out ----they are no different than the the person who is terminally ill ------

I would say being at the late stages of being terminally ill is different because they are going to die soon anyway and don't want to suffer a really painful death. But I would say the person with a disability asking to die is no different than a teen who should be counselled out of suicide.

 

[unsafe]

Hi Kimmio ---

Exactly ----I agree ----Amen to that !

 

[Luce NDs]

Bull-yin and brutality are just the modern incarnation of the republican attitude (mood, spirit) to get everyone other than yourself into the Circe ... where they can be eliminated giving the observer a beta chance at being the last man standing ... a force manifested as irrational idealism under the family of Gods ... where they will kill one another to become the peak person ... sharp as a tack ... but in polity dull! Such is eternal sibling rivalry to support surreal emotions in the shadow of Sous-la ... or as the Semites label it an imaginary j' Suis ... this redacted of evolved to Jae Zous ... within limited understanding ... and thus ... the adept poe'elle of thought that sinks out of sight of the hier archons ... as appear faintly as Hieronymus oddities in time to get out just before the end and thus constitutional chits ... wee small things ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Hi Kimmio ---

Exactly ----I agree ----Amen to that !

Ever encounter a youth that was so brutalized by numb adults as to wish to escape a life as a feint icon of ridiculous humour?

One might be attempted to call these youths all-f**k dupe ... unless you understood the chaos on the other side of the ridiculous image of who knows better when their church teaches them that knowing anything is an improper state of mind when attempting delusion. If you didn't know better you might be satisfied with not asking! Such is the fate of those with minimal knowledge ... if you've ever been to that brink as a result of what you see modern Christianity capable of to prove they are successful in stepping over the less advantaged.

Rev King ... does this sense of lesser-sous and big-sur compare to hype and hypo sense? That uppity one is quite vacuous they say ... delinquent of material thoughts?

 

[Mendalla]

So what you're saying Mendalla is that it is OK for teens to take their own lives as long as the Dr. doesn't do it ---cause there is a cure --you try telling that to a young teen about to take their life -----you might say there is a cure but to them at that point there is no cure --no hope ---the pain and suffering is too great and they see no other way out ----they are no different than the the person who is terminally ill ------

Where did I say that, unsafe? I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that it is an unrelated issue; that the solution has nothing to do with doctor assisted suicide or the regulation thereof, and everything to do with stopping the bullying and harassment. It is not, in the Supreme Court's words, an "irremediable" problem because we can remedy it if we have the willpower: crack down as hard on bullying and harassment as we are on "terrorism". Bullying and harassment are true terrorism and are, unlike the kind Harper is targeting, a serious, omnipresent problem in Canada. There is a cure, society just seems to be having problems implementing it. If we eliminated or substantially reduced it, then fewer kids would get to the point where suicide was their only option. Suicide is not a crime and never should be but a society where people are taking their own lives because of a problem that can be solved is.

And, by the way, you're speaking to someone who hit the brink once or twice while being bullied in high school so don't think I am insensitive to their plight.

 

[Luce NDs]

Yet modern Christianity still traffics in naïveté as best ... regardless of the expected consequence that appears logical ... or otherwise a reasonable flo' ... of intellect outwards ... theological brae in drain? Some nich to be in rite?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Where did I say that, unsafe? I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that it is an unrelated issue; that the solution has nothing to do with doctor assisted suicide or the regulation thereof, and everything to do with stopping the bullying and harassment. It is not, in the Supreme Court's words, an "irremediable" problem because we can remedy it if we have the willpower: crack down as hard on bullying and harassment as we are on "terrorism". Bullying and harassment are true terrorism and are, unlike the kind Harper is targeting, a serious, omnipresent problem in Canada. There is a cure, society just seems to be having problems implementing it. If we eliminated or substantially reduced it, then fewer kids would get to the point where suicide was their only option. Suicide is not a crime and never should be but a society where people are taking their own lives because of a problem that can be solved is.

And, by the way, you're speaking to someone who hit the brink once or twice while being bullied in high school so don't think I am insensitive to their plight.

So, considering disability is only disability because of attitudinal and systemic and environmental barriers in the way - isn't it a crime that this ruling makes it so that people with disabilities could seek death when the barriers to a full life are still in the way? But alas, doctors' jobs are not to treat the symptoms of a sick society.

 

[Mendalla]

So, considering disability is only disability because of attitudinal and systemic and environmental barriers in the way - isn't it a crime that this ruling makes it so that people with disabilities could seek death when the barriers to a full life are still in the way? But alas, doctors' jobs are not to treat the symptoms of a sick society.

Dear God, now you're reading things into my post that aren't there. I was specifically addressing the issue of bullying and said nothing about disabilities. Kimmio, a doctor's first job is to help the person live their life to the best of their ability. Assisted suicide, IMHO, should be reserved for terminal conditions or those that are near to it (e.g. spending the rest of one's life in an iron lung or something, which mercifully is very rare now). It should not be an option where there are other ways to alleviate the suffering. And the court has not closed the door to the legislation saying that. All it has said is that the option should be there for a certain set of people. In the end, it will be legislation, not the court, that defines who actually falls in that certain set.