Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Delightful Life]

Spock: Scans of the object indicates it seems to be made of %100 pure sin
Kirk: BREAK OUT THAT CHABLIS. AWAY TEAM: ME! *beams away*
Yeoman Rand: *shakes head*
McCoy (to kirkless space): dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a theologian.
Sulu: Oh. My.

 

[RitaTG]

Spock: Scans of the object indicates it seems to be made of %100 pure sin
Kirk: BREAK OUT THAT CHABLIS. AWAY TEAM: ME! *beams away*
Yeoman Rand: *shakes head*
McCoy (to kirkless space): dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a theologian.
Sulu: Oh. My.

ROFL!!!!

 

[revjohn]

Spock: Scans of the object indicates it seems to be made of %100 pure sin
Kirk: BREAK OUT THAT CHABLIS. AWAY TEAM: ME! *beams away*
Yeoman Rand: *shakes head*
McCoy (to kirkless space): dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a theologian.
Sulu: Oh. My.

Actually, I think this was covered in TNG's "Skin of Evil." Poor Tasha.

 

[Northwind]

The problem is that the ruling disregards the legal definition of disability by equating it with illness and disease.

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.

It is my understanding that a person must be terminally ill in order to fall under this ruling. Would you please show me where it equates disability and illness?

 

[RitaTG]

Don't bother Northwind ...... we have tried to cover that ground.....

 

[Northwind]

I don't understand why those who allegedly are on god's side even continue to try save us poor heathens......We're pretty un-savable by some standards! Spock? Chablis? Kirk?.......we're doomed.....

 

[Northwind]

Don't bother Northwind ...... we have tried to cover that ground.....

Okay, well, as I said, I haven't read all 50+ pages of this thread.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Spock: Scans of the object indicates it seems to be made of %100 pure sin
Kirk: BREAK OUT THAT CHABLIS. AWAY TEAM: ME! *beams away*
Yeoman Rand: *shakes head*
McCoy (to kirkless space): dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a theologian.
Sulu: Oh. My.

you forgot good ol Scottish man Scotty

Jim if you sin more the warp drive will explode in seconds , damning us and the crew to Hell

 

[RitaTG]

maybe that is why they call it warp drive LOL

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

maybe that is why they call it warp drive LOL

Don't bother Northwind ...... we have tried to cover that ground.....

Excuse me?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It is my understanding that a person must be terminally ill in order to fall under this ruling. Would you please show me where it equates disability and illness?

No. This article lays it out. I can search for the court document.

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/canada/

The person has to have " a 'grievous' and 'irremediable'"....anything permanent... medical condition (illness, disease or disability) ...italics mine....."that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition" is cause for serious concern. What might those circumstances be? Poverty, isolation, lack of social, financial or medical supports? ...and they've included mental suffering as a criteria. As far as I know there is no terminal illness whereby the primary symptom is mental suffering. Usually the things that cause 'mental suffering' are mental illnesses like depression. A main reason why suicides are prevented, not helped along.

 

[Seeler]

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. It was not my intention. In fact the post was not directed to you - just putting out the facts for people to see.

This is one of those things that I look at and thing "O for Heavens sake - maybe we shouldn't open our mouths at all to avoid somebody taking offense where none was intended."

 

[Northwind]

I took a look at the link and see where they have the line "(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."

I don't have time to look through it deeper right now since I am supposed to be working. I understand your concern.

How do you suggest we respond to people who are terminally ill and wish to end their lives on their terms?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

This is one of those things that I look at and thing "O for Heavens sake - maybe we shouldn't open our mouths at all to avoid somebody taking offense where none was intended."

I thought she was talking to me because her comment followed directly after mine, about the same subject.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I took a look at the link and see where they have the line "(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."

I don't have time to look through it deeper right now since I am supposed to be working. I understand your concern.

How do you suggest we respond to people who are terminally ill and wish to end their lives on their terms?

That's a whole other matter and this ruling is not restricted to that. People have requested that I dismiss my concerns because they are not relevant to this ruling - and focus on what you suggest above - but I object because of the other implications of this ruling.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Alzheimer's would be one illness where you could more closely associate mental suffering with terminal illness - the condition deteriorates dramatically. But the ruling is not clear on that. It leaves room for mental illness to be interpreted as a reason to seek suicide (which often has a bunch of social 'trigger' factors that a purely medical pov doesn't necessarily assess well).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm sticking to my position. It hasn't changed.

 

[Lastpointe]

Actually i think Altzeimers is a glaring ommision. Having had both my mother and mother in law die with altzeimers.

You could not have Altzeimers and qualify to be mentally competent.

That does lead though to whether having the early stages of altzeimers and knowing it , you could leave instructions.

My mom was pretty content

But my mother in law was terribly distraught. She was 65. Had two masters in chemical engineering, one in her second language. When she realized she had early Altzeimers she was inconsolable.

For about two months. Then she passed into less cognitive ability and so was calmer.

She quickly lost speech and was bed ridden within the year. Took ten years to die though

She could not have consented. And even with the first diagnosis, she was so distraught i am not sure she would have met standards for competency

In reality my father in law saw it as his duty to care for her. He would not have consented either i dont think

 

[Lastpointe]

Many people agree with you. Though i expect it will be one of the few times you agree with Conrad Black

It will be a complicated law to draft i expect. With all e provinces weighing in and quebec already doing its own thing.

I am looking for nuance, protection, compassion, in whatever law arrives

Interestingly, it could go the way of abortion. When the abortion law was struck down, a new one was never enacted. No one really wanted to touch it. The docs already had strict guidelines and so here we sit. No law, just medical ethics

I wonder if the same could happen here?

All the parties have aspects of relilgious people, disability rights people, elderly voters. No one may want to open this

 

[Northwind]

Alzheimer's would be one illness where you could more closely associate mental suffering with terminal illness - the condition deteriorates dramatically. But the ruling is not clear on that. It leaves room for mental illness to be interpreted as a reason to seek suicide (which often has a bunch of social 'trigger' factors that a purely medical pov doesn't necessarily assess well).

Fair enough. A person with early stage Alzheimers who wanted to choose suicide would presumably still have the physical and mental capacity to just commit suicide. Once they are further along in the illness, I highly doubt anyone would consider them mentally competent to make such a decision. My grandmother had advanced dementia when she died. She had very few moments of lucidity. Perhaps someone in her condition could be seen as briefly mentally competent.....I'm stretching my imagination here. Having said that, someone in my grandmother's condition would have been physically able to kill themselves without assistance. This is about assisted suicide, not euthanasia.