Religious people are opposed on religious grounds (including some doctors). Disability rights groups on human rights grounds (including some doctors). And nobody's going to just shut up and accept it without weighing in.
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!
I say you will note quote often when I want people to note something? Would you prefer Dude, take a gander....? I'm not sure what the objection is.
Yes - if you read the links they talk about how they have adjusted their position before the ruling. Partly because of the survey they did (45% support) and partly because I suspect the writing was on the wall and one has to work within the system to enact change. I never said they would embrace it - was merely providing links from where people (not just you) could see the positions from the proverbial "horse's mouth".
Also 100-27=73 percent of doctors won't perform the procedure at this time - we're not far off on our numbers only got mine from the Association representing the physicians. That's all. Nothing to be defensive about or to go on the offensive about.
I really would like to know what is wrong with the "You will note..." aspect - from your perspective or any one else's.
You will note - has the tone of "Listen up pal" it's used in business writing but really has an authoritative tone not casual conversation tone.
Was this directed to me? I never suggested that people should shut up and accept it - all I said was they were working towards ensuring a just legislation (just as in fair) and that they were working within the democracy that is prevalent in Canada this day (the Supreme Court struck down a current law, need to make a new one and there is a process - to complain that the finding is wrong does nothing to protect people - that is all).
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
And that is how it should be. We are a democracy which means everyone gets a say ... if they want it. Too often, on too many issues, people don't bother to speak out. The court has said we need a new law that recognizes certain rights. The government has a year to do it. The more voices are heard, the more information and opinions they have to take into consideration. And that is a good thing.
I'm just expressing my thoughts. Related to my last post but not necessarily directed at you in particular.
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
*bathes in the warm glow of our successful democracy*
*sips a mai tai*
*sips a mai tai*
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I have read the beginning few posts and last few posts in this long thread, so I may be repeating something that has already been said. I have given this a lot of thought and have heard/read some excellent commentaries on this subject. I am glad this decision has been made. That being said, I do not think that suicide is always the best option. I support this decision because it is not my place, nor the government's to dictate another person's choice. We able bodied people have the ability to chose to end our lives. Some people have had that ability removed by their physical condition. I would hope though that all supports for life are still in place, for both able-bodied and for those who are not able-bodied. We need improved mental health supports and treatments. We need improved palliative care supports. This can never ever be a replacement for good palliative care and end of life treatment. Ever. Some of the stats I've heard about this suggest a small minority of people have access to palliative care. This needs to change. I understand Kimmio's concerns about people who are disabled. Those of us who believe all life is valuable need to work to ensure no one is "encouraged" to die prematurely.
I truly hope this is not the beginning of a slippery slope. From what I understand, there are few assisted suicides in the places that allow them. There are hoops to jump through and processes before any suicide is assisted.For some, this is the most compassionate action - to allow them to end their lives on their terms.
I truly hope this is not the beginning of a slippery slope. From what I understand, there are few assisted suicides in the places that allow them. There are hoops to jump through and processes before any suicide is assisted.For some, this is the most compassionate action - to allow them to end their lives on their terms.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I don't think anybody suggested people could not weigh in. Their god or gods can't weigh in, or at least, we shouldn't care what other people's gods say.
And if this is a medical service, nobody who meets the criteria and requests it should be denied. This should not be a situation like abortion in many US states, which are defunding Planned Parenthood and erecting other barriers to the procedure in lieu of overturning Roe v Wade. If it is legal, it should be accessible, based on the approved criteria.
Not every 'symptom' is a medical problem. I only hope at this point the approved criteria takes into account that disabilities are not parallel to illnesses; that they involve social and environmental barriers that cannot be medically diagnosed - and those barriers must be factored in as issues to be solved, outside of medical means because doctors are not very often authorities on social issues (it's not usually their scope of knowledge), prior to any death request. Otherwise we just undid about 30 years of human rights work. The ruling starts us off on a discriminatory foot. I hope it is addressed robustly through all available legal and political channels.
Last edited:
The problem is that the ruling disregards the legal definition of disability by equating it with illness and disease. Thereby ignoring the social and environmental factors that our systems already neglect to address, that might lead a person to want to commit suicide - poverty, poor living conditions, social isolation, not enough assistive support, etc.
The other things is how it devalues the lives of those living, who want to live, with their disabilities. Some object to my opinion - but I really do believe it plants the seed that says "to be disabled is worse than being dead. There is no way I could go on like THAT." that's where the issue of choice starts to affect social attitudes that could gravely affect other people and their options for living full lives with disabilities.
Last edited:
I'd like to add that it is not the same as the abortion "free choice" issue because we're talking about how it affects social attitudes and solutions for competent adults with years worth of lives of their own, that devalue their lives because others want to make "individual choices". I find it disconcerting how many don't seem think about how social attitudes get planted and shifted when major political changes happen. That seems to be the case for this particular "moral majority" on this issue. Not enough foresight, IMO.
airclean33
Well-Known Member
Nice to hear from you as well Brother. You are right it can be hard here sometimes. But you , I am sure understand it will be nothing . To how hard it gets when you and I . Or anyone comes in front of GOD with sin on there hands.I have no wish that any should. God Bless--airclean33--Gord.
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
Good grief ...... how I love the hidden digs ....... is that really necessary ????
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
your g_d is always testing you, RitaTG :3
now if only your g_d had a glam or makeover function
sparkles for all!
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
LOL ...ok ..... now I am getting it!!your g_d is always testing you, RitaTG :3
now if only your g_d had a glam or makeover function
A glam function .... now that would fill the pews LOL
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
yes but at the end of the day, we all have dirty hands
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
so sin boldly