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!

Register Log in
What about stating a fact about disproportional inequality that needs correcting, is taking a 'victim stance'? Anyway, if you're a victim, you're a victim. Don't blame the victim for pointing it out. But the victims of systemic discrimination probably have the best insight about it, IMO, not the helpers in the system. Probably. In most instances. Because I've seen the 'system' from both sides.
 
Last edited:
@Northwind the latest stats from the government are from 2006 - 4.9% of PWDs were unemployed and 43.9% of PWDs were out of the labour force. However, 19.8% of people without disabilities were out of the labour force (meaning never worked for pay or on social assistance as opposed to working or unemployed on EI, which is still labour force attachment). 24.1% more PWDs than people without disabilities were not attached to the labour force. That speaks volumes about systemic inclusion/ discrimination of PWDs. The situation may have nominally improved but not much, if at all, by now. Especially in a tight and competitive labour market.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0917-e.htm
 
Last edited:
I will argue that PWDs alone - without identifying with any other marginalized group - face more systemic disrimination, more barriers overall, than other groups. The discrimination increases (on the whole - there will be exceptions) with every other marginalized group PWDs are also part of. For example PWDs who are aboriginal face even more systemic and other barriers.
 
Kimmio said:
I have never said that! I realize others legitimately suffer, but when it comes to systemic discrimination, PWDs disproportionately suffer the effects of systemic barriers. Their concerns are politically under-represented and under-represented in all areas of the public sphere and under-represented or poorly depicted in the media for the most part. They have higher rates of poverty and higher rates of unemployment and underemployment. Transgendered people are a group that still suffers as much if not more discrimination but, comparatively, generally, PWDs have significantly higher levels of poverty and unemployment/ underemployment than people without disabilities (regardless of gender or ethnicity). That's not a victim stance that's a fact. And if people are victims of systemic discrimination, what's wrong with calling a spade a spade? It's bad. Why sugar coat it? We should be able to say it like it is, and that it is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
Can you give some recent examples of where PWDs have been poorly depicted in the media Cousin?
 
Kimmio said:
@Northwind the latest stats from the government are from 2006 - 4.9% of PWDs were unemployed and 43.9% of PWDs were out of the labour force. However, 19.8% of people without disabilities were out of the labour force (meaning never worked for pay or on social assistance as opposed to working or unemployed on EI, which is still labour force attachment). 24.1% more PWDs than people without disabilities were not attached to the labour force. That speaks volumes about systemic inclusion/ discrimination of PWDs. The situation may have nominally improved but not much, if at all, by now. Especially in a tight and competitive labour market.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0917-e.htm
Click to expand...


Does that speak volumes about discrimination?

Or does it speak to the range of issues thiat people withi disabilities can have

I would think the latter. When the range includes those who are immobile and uncommunicative and profoundly disabled , well they will never make the work force. They are having troulbe meeting the activities of daily living.
 
I am not saying that pointing out that PWD face discrimination and oppression is the victim stance. There is no doubt that PWD face discrimination and barriers that others don't face. When the position seems to be that PWD are drowned in oppression and that forces beyond their control keep them down that suggests a victim stance. Yes oppression exists. Yes structures in society support success of some at the expense of others. We can chose to be drowned by oppression. Or we can recognize it exists and challenge it.

You and I have bother likely experienced the oppression that would keep women in our places. You have also experienced the oppression that would keep someone with a disability in her place. And yet, we are both productive members of society. Why is that? That is because women before us have paved the way to challenge oppression.

Have you read Anne Bishop? She speaks of becoming allies. She speaks of not comparing "isms" and not saying my "ism" is worse than yours. When we do that everyone loses. When we work together to make the world better for all our "isms" everyone wins.

I am aware of how much PWD have barriers. Of course it is not a lived awareness as much as what you know. I am also aware of how people who look like they have everything suffer. I sense an envy towards "normal" people, and a belief they have it easy. Certainly they do not face the same barriers. They don't always have it easy and suggesting they do is a victim stance.

I want to live in a world where everyone can make their own choices. I want to live in a world where everyone has community if they choose. That's why I believe this ruling by the court was a good one. Of course there is a need for clarity in the laws that come from this.
 
There is an interesting column today in the paper about the time line

The need is for a nuanced, careful law. The reality is that we have an election within 7 months. Trudeau yesterday called for something by May i think

Hard to get nuanced, careful, law with input, int the time allowed.

And after an election, with four months , left it starts over.
 
Kimmio. One point to add. I do agree with your point (and the WHO definition of disability) that disabling conditions can be external to the body, and that such conditions can, and do, lead to suffering.

But, we need to remember that the social model of disability is not the be all, and end all. There are numerous models of disability and you focus exclusively on one. The social model of disability, while having valid points, also falls to considerable critique. The social model of disability largely overlooks the fact that disabling conditions and suffering are also inherent to the bodies of people with disabilities and that these conditions sometimes cannot be addressed.

Your exclusive focus on the social model of disability limits serious conversation not only about the issue of suffering and assisted suicide, but also about issues related to disability.
 
Lastpointe said:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...than-a-year-to-craft-a-robust-euthanasia-law/

Here is the column.
Click to expand...

I quite agree with him. A year was sufficient for the prostitution law but it came close to the wire (the old one was due to expire December 15 or so in 2014 and the new law didn't get royal assent until November 6). With an election in there somewhere, this one could miss the deadline or be a rush job that won't pass constitutional muster. Though, to be fair, they have a Conservative private member's bill as a starting point, something they did not have with the prostitution decision.
 
I like that article. I hope he is right when he says there are legitimate ways to extend the deadline of review if necessary. I note this paragraph in the article:

“[P]hysician-assisted death involves complex issues of social policy and a number of competing societal values,” it said. “Parliament faces a difficult task in addressing this issue; it must weigh and balance the perspective of those who might be at risk in a permissive regime against that of those who seek assistance in dying.”
Click to expand...
 
Poor thinking is the worst disability. Some people are crippled and think well, others enjoy glowing health and think poorly.

If those who think poorly think that they want to end their lives prematurely because they don't think much of it, then we ought to help them to think better rather than helping them to end their lives.

Assisted suicide legislation is not meant for those who want to end their lives prematurely because of mental despair. It is for those who suffer severe physical pain that cannot otherwise be alleviated.

The Supreme Court only struck down an old law that was not strictly obeyed. Many a medical doctor gave their patient an overdose of morphine when the suffering was extreme and could not otherwise be alleviated, and the end of life was in sight, anyway. Such action was usually hushed up, but it criminalized what essentially was a compassionate act, and put doctors in danger of criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court wanted to put an end to this. The wording of the new law, however, is entirely up to us, or rather our elected representatives. Our present government probably won't touch it, but the next government has to. In the meantime, we have plenty of time to discuss the wording of the new euthanasia law.
 
Waterfall said:
Good article, but reading further one comes to this:

"The Real Dutch Disease" which brings up some legitimate concerns within a country that has "been there, doing that".

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...-assisted-suicide/the-real-dutch-disease.html
Click to expand...


Mainly i posted it because i had been under the assumption that a year was a pretty good time to craft a law. I hadnt thought about the election, parliament being dissolved likely early september. And of course they dont generally sit in the summer

It becomes a much shorter period when thought of that way.

I hope that the time period doesnt result in a hasty job
 
Agree. Hence the fact that suicide itself is not illegal. Just helping another person wa.

I also agree that lots of people, ill in hospital are assisted already towards death.

Usually with morphine doses

Gets back to a competent adult being allowed to ask for help.

At the same time, recognizing that if the person doesn't have a terminal illness, perhaps they are just really asking for help in living
 
Lastpointe said:
Mainly i posted it because i had been under the assumption that a year was a pretty good time to craft a law. I hadnt thought about the election, parliament being dissolved likely early september. And of course they dont generally sit in the summer

It becomes a much shorter period when thought of that way.

I hope that the time period doesnt result in a hasty job
Click to expand...
I agree and I think that the concerns that Kimmio has brought up should be addressed before the fact rather than after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top