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!
How does it necessarily fit into the theory that there would be no judgment? I believe in God, Creation, and free will, but I also believe we will be judged for the choices that we choose to make using our free will.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
No it does not. It just doesn't. Sorry.
This ruling says that people who are suffering greatly, and have personally decided that the suffering exceeds what they personally can cope with, and who are capable of consent, MAY meet a threshold that gives them access to assisted suicide.
I do not disagree with your comments about prejudice and stigma for people with disabilities. But, by repeatedly asserting this ruling devalues the lives of people with disabilities you affirm this notion that the lives of people with disabilities are somehow worth less. That is your message. It is not the message of the ruling.
No, it is not me saying that. The inappropriate use of the word disability negates society's responsibility for addressing the other factors that create "disability". That is totally unfair and treating PWDs as unequal from the premise.
Say you were a counsellor - and two people at different appointments came to see you and expressed that they were suicidal. One appeared to be able bodied the other did not. Would you make an assumption that the person with a disability's life was more hopeless with less investigating, or help to reframe how they view pain management and lifeskills management, etc, than the able bodied person or not? Would you assume that the able bodied person had more to live for?
Remember they are both equals. One lives with more complications than the other but that is the baseline they are starting from. Don't compare the level of inconvenience the person with a disability already lives with to the one who doesn't.
Remember they are both equals. One lives with more complications than the other but that is the baseline they are starting from. Don't compare the level of inconvenience the person with a disability already lives with to the one who doesn't.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Can't speak for DaisyJane but I would not. In both cases, I would want to hear from them what was their motivation. At least that's how I hope I would approach it. The disabled person's motivation may not, in fact, have anything to do with their disability. It might stem from a crisis in their marriage or something.
Carolla
wondering & wandering
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
No. I would definitely not make these assumptions.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I think what is complicating this is that the definition Seeler posted was, AFAIK, used before the one you are using. Giving up the first doesn't come very easily, especially when it's based on the roots of the word.
@Carolla @Northwind @Mendalla Well, keep in mind that if they were going through a relationship crisis, it could be exacerbating other symptoms but their disability is their 'norm'. But by naming disability with illness and disease it disregards that that is their 'norm'. Their very way of being in the world is equated with illness and disease and so that's why the ruling is prejudicial at it's premise.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
What about when illness or disease is someone's norm?
What about it? That person is not a disease though. They have a disease. That's why this is prejudicial.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
What people aren't aknowledging is that what makes disability disabling are external barriers created by society.
And by not aknowledging somebody's impairment as their baseline normal that they might otherwise be content to live with if the barriers were managed or overcome - they may not be suffering enough to want to die. This ruling says these barriers (because disability is about external barriers) are a valid reason to want to die and so be it. I don't believe they are. I think they are confusing individual choice with a failure of society to address barriers.
It's like saying well I know the prejudices you face seem insurmountable, and you feel your family or support system is burdened with your care - and without that your pain or challenges to daily life is too much to bear...so looks like you're at the end of your rope. I don't blame you. No! That's the only reason I could see why a PWD would feel so hopeless as opposed to anyone else who didn't have a terminal illness, and our job as fellow human beings would be to help them find hope to live!
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I most certainly would not assume that the apparently able bodied person had more to live for than the person with an obvious disability. I would also not assume that the PWD had less to live for or was less capable than the so called normal person. I have learned that appearances are deceiving.
I find it rather offensive that you believe helpers devalue some lives so much.
It is in the sense that they have external barriers that complicate it more than someone without a disability that is why it is a disability. It doesn't mean that they don't cope with and try to overcome the barriers that complicate their lives.
Not having accessible buildings, transportation, having people make assumptions about what you "have" or can or can't do, being excluded from sporting events and recreation and socialization, needing help with things that others take for granted - especially if that help isn't available, or you're made to feel apologetic for asking....yeah! Those are 'complications! It's offensive that you don't realize that barriers = complications.
Last edited:
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Well, the person with the disability has the added bit of being systematically oppressed by the majority, under my understanding of the 'social model of disability' Belief System?
Good thing, too, that you are finding things offensive...they can also point to something one believes that is being challenged...
I've been through the 'system' myself and I also worked with some pretty insensitive 'helpers' in one extension of the 'system'. You don't need to feel offended that there are people working in the system who don't actually care to help or understand much. They're not you. But it's helpful to recognize it.
Being systemically oppressed is rather complicated.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Yes PWD do face barriers "normal" people do not have to face. That does not mean their suffering is worse or their barriers are worse than those faced by others. I would also not assume that someone who doesn't appear to have a disability is in fact without disabilities.
You are making a huge assumption when you say I do not recognize the barriers PWD face. A huge one.
When we are part of a group that has been oppressed in any way it is easy to assume the other has it easy. That is as dangerous as believing a group has been set back 30 years because of a court ruling.
I have worked in this system and have seen insensitive helpers. That does not mean all helpers are insensitive or ignorant of the issues people face.
I learned a new word last week - "kyrarchy" It might be a good one for you to learn when you are focused on oppression.
You are making a huge assumption when you say I do not recognize the barriers PWD face. A huge one.
When we are part of a group that has been oppressed in any way it is easy to assume the other has it easy. That is as dangerous as believing a group has been set back 30 years because of a court ruling.
I have worked in this system and have seen insensitive helpers. That does not mean all helpers are insensitive or ignorant of the issues people face.
I learned a new word last week - "kyrarchy" It might be a good one for you to learn when you are focused on oppression.