Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Laws put in place to recognize inequality have shifted attitudes over time.
the laws themselves haven't done the shifting. i'm glad you agree with me.

It is just like words...when a word gets created, it has a certain usage...then, over time, as it is used by human beings, it gets the meaning...which can change...

Or it is like morality...morality isn't some soul-stuff or causeless cause...it is our actions in the world over time, mixing with other people's & interacting with the world (and its laws/behaviours)
 
I am not trolling.

You do not get to determine other people's thoughts or interpretations.

You can't legislate that.

We can legislate with the intent to educate (as opposed to penalize). Not all laws have to be totalitarian draconian punitive measures. But I do believe (and I realize your anarchist mind does not) believe in laws to protect people who are vulnerable to exploitation and oppression - discriminatory attitudes that spread like cancers leading to poor behaviours and choices even within individuals towards their own selves, notwithstanding.
 
I have lost my 20/20 vision over the years due to age. It wasn't a blessing to lose my 20/20 vision. It isn't something that I want to celebrate or expect people to say "yeah, it's awesome". It is just one of the side affects of aging. Now I wear glasses, basically need an assistant device (glasses) to read this post. If I could have it fixed via surgery or other means, and I knew that repair would work, I would. I would much prefer to not have to spend money on glasses or wear them.

My Dad has lost much of his hearing. He needs hearing aids to hear. It is age related. He is isolated by not hearing. It is not a positive thing. He got hearing aids, a few different ones over time, but really, they are a pain. If he could get his hearing back, he would. It would make all of our lives better, but most importantly his. It would reduce his health risks.

He also has lost vision due to macular degeneration. It is a classic age related illness. His loss of vision is not something that he would keep. He doesn't think poorly of those who have never had vision. He knows for him, it would be better with vision returned. If he could have a medicine that would fix it, he would. He had medicine (needles in eye) which saved much of his one eye's vision. It was new medicine at the time, and his other eye was already damaged.

So, for both my Dad and myself, it is about what we wish we could still do. It is about adapting, put up with intrusions such as assistant devices. Dad definitely does not want to die yet, and has adjusted to his losses. That does not mean he wouldn't repair the damage if he could.
 
Everyone deals with a situation differently. The way I see this it isn't about choosing for another, devaluing another, or applying the same circumstances to the same level of suffering. You're the one who's really generalizing here.

I can rate two types of pain as the same level of pain intensity, but I can still tolerate aching pain of the same intensity better than nerve pain. For someone else that can be the opposite. It doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

Why is it so wrong for one person to have a different tolerance than another? Why should everyone have to deal with their condition if they are suffering and for them there is no way to stop that other than death? What gives you the right to decide that for another?
Life isn't life with no pain to get through. It does devalue my life if others in a similar circumstance would kill themselves if they were me. People who've lived through few trials I noticed have the least amount of empathy, IMO. They just can't relate to hardship. We're going to end up with a society that thinks it's better for one to kill themselves than to expect anyone else to care for them. It's almost that nasty already.
 
Life isn't life with no pain to get through. It does devalue my life if others in a similar circumstance would kill themselves if they were me. People who've lived through few trials I noticed have the least amount of empathy, IMO. We're going to end up with a society that thinks it's better for one to kill themselves than to expect anyone else to care for them.
I'm not saying that people should never experience any people, or give up on every challenge. It sounds like you want to be the one to determine what's bearable for someone else though. Again - what gives you that right?
 
Life isn't life with no pain to get through. It does devalue my life if others in a similar circumstance would kill themselves if they were me. People who've lived through few trials I noticed have the least amount of empathy, IMO. We're going to end up with a society that thinks it's better for one to kill themselves than to expect anyone else to care for them.

But no one gets to make laws that force people to think as you do: "Life isn't life with no pain to get through."

That's up to the person.

That differs from person to person...people have different thresholds for 'pain', for 'suffering', for 'disgust', for 'getting through life', for 'success'...

That's one of the challenges of our country...so many differing lifestyles, so many differing peoples with differing likes dislikes hatreds loves etc
 
I'm not saying that people should never experience any people, or give up on every challenge. It sounds like you want to be the one to determine what's bearable for someone else though. Again - what gives you that right?

What gives them the right to give up when the going gets tough and abondon people who love them, and then cause them pain and suffering? Especially if they're not dying? Are those they leave behind not valuable too?
 
@Pinga I had laser surgery a year and a half ago - best thing ever! I was so impressed. Of course I had Mr Me go first a couple of years earlier lol (I'm only joking - he wanted to have it done because he hated wearing glasses so much but when I saw how easy it was and how amazing it was I had it done - I did not do Lasik, I did the other kind - he couldn't have Lasik and I was so impressed with the place he went to). Sorry off-topic but I just wanted to throw that out there!

The situation that @Pinga spells out is very similar to the one that my Uncle is facing at 98 - only I think he would like to fall asleep for good based on his comments to me.

I think that we need to educate and adjust our attitudes to disabilities and prejucisim (see my post about the anti-lesibian rhetoric that was on FB yesterday) but I don't think we have to take away rights from people to protect others in every case.
 
But no one gets to make laws that force people to think as you do: "Life isn't life with no pain to get through."

That's up to the person.

That differs from person to person...people have different thresholds for 'pain', for 'suffering', for 'disgust', for 'getting through life', for 'success'...

That's one of the challenges of our country...so many differing lifestyles, so many differing peoples with differing likes dislikes hatreds loves etc

Maybe there needs to be more consensus on just what the value of life is. I think you find value in hedonism.
 
We can legislate with the intent to educate (as opposed to penalize). Not all laws have to be totalitarian draconian punitive measures. But I do believe (and I realize your anarchist mind does not) believe in laws to protect people who are vulnerable to exploitation and oppression - discriminatory attitudes that spread like cancers leading to poor behaviours and choices even within individuals towards their own selves, notwithstanding.

I also believe in protecting the vulnerable

There are multiple ways to do it -- we have Liberals who can try to advocate for them; we have churches who provide shelter & food & etc for them

(that's one of the strengths of capitalism -- it gives the widest field to allow people the possibility to affect people via multiple different ways at once...)

And 'exploitation and oppression' isn't b&w...one person's working on an assembly line can be another's good work.

Thinking of workers being exploited is part of the BS of marxism & communism.

If all you have is a hammer ('all PWDs are exploited') then everything looks like a nail.
 
Maybe there needs to be more consensus on just what the value of life is. I think you find value in hedonism.
I grok that

There needs to be a way for our gov't to agree on just what the value of life means; otherwise, policy is a big trouble...

Every BS has effects. I can find value in many things.

Hedonism has effects -- the absence of pain. The possibility both scares me (captain kirk going 'I NEED MY PAIN') and makes me feel good (just imagine if pain were consensual or an art form as opposed to inevitable? imagine if discrimination could be consensual? or hate? pretty heady stuff). also, mandatory joke from woody allen aboot americans thinking death is optional...:)
 
What gives them the right to give up when the going gets tough and abondon people who love them, and then cause them pain and suffering? Especially if they're not dying? Are those they leave behind not valuable too?
Is it harder to watch a loved one die in a way or which they choose, or to watch a loved one suffer horribly? You're deciding this for others it sounds like. You don't get to choose for everyone else.
 
Our lives are not just our own. The court ruled that we don't have a duty to live. I believe the court was wrong.

Good for you; I'm really glad you wrote that :3

Now do you want that belief of yours made into law?
Or what do you want to do with it?
 
Is it harder to watch a loved one die in a way or which they choose, or to watch a loved one suffer horribly? You're deciding this for others it sounds like. You don't get to choose for everyone else.

It's if they choose to give up well before their expiry date - would be very angry with them probably.
 
It's not only my belief. It was the belief of the court. It is also not the belief of so many keeping up the fight to live and be valued as whole people despite impairments or suffering.

to recap, i was responding to

Kimmio said:
Our lives are not just our own. The court ruled that we don't have a duty to live. I believe the court was wrong.

Now do you want that belief of yours made into law?
Or what would you like to do with it?

Btw, ty for the discussion -- it has been quite enlightening and I'm larnin more :3
 
It's if they choose to give up well before their expiry date - would be very angry with them probably.
Some might, not everyone. Some would be glad there loved one doesn't have to suffer. There are worse things than death for some. You don't get to choose what is better or worse for everyone.
 
Back
Top