Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Waterfall]

Honestly: if we believe in individuality, and free will, then no one controls another person's life, and their choices.

But what do you make of the above articles I posted and how over time a whole nations attitude can become, "they would have been better off dead"? Can our thinking change and be influenced by this law to become less compassionate over time? Or even thinking assisted dying is more compassionate?

 

[redhead]

Asking for help and seeking care through a healthcare system politically funded and supported is tough. Healthcare should not be attached to politics, but it is.

And it is terribly flawed.

 

[redhead]

Waterfall, I can't judge. Free will and the rights of decision making go hand in hand. Age, illness, at the end of the day, it is not our concern; only the concern of the person dealing with his/her health issues.

 

[Hermann]

Asking for help and seeking care through a healthcare system politically funded and supported is tough. Healthcare should not be attached to politics, but it is.

And it is terribly flawed.

Makes one wish for the times when the sick were looked after in monasteries, or in hospitals run by ordained nuns or monks.

When I was a child in Bavaria, I once was admitted to a hospital still run by ordained Sisters. I'll never forget the extreme kindness of those Sisters!

 

[Hermann]

I also went to a kindergarten run by ordained Sisters, attached to the above mentioned hospital, and I remember that the Sisters were so extremely kind. But this was right after I had gone through the tail end of the war, and experienced extreme unkindness. Maybe this influenced my judgement.

 

[Hermann]

The Sisters had their residence right beside the hospital, and grew a big, exemplary garden, for themselves and the hospital. Sometimes the hospital food smelled and tasted faintly of wood smoke, because they cooked with wood.--Those were the days!

 

[ChemGal]

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.

I had a tough time with the social disability model leading to the only correct definition. I haven't paid attention to how it became that, and I have only gone to some of the links Kimmio has posted.
What you posted matches my instinct though.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Auto-correct changed both to bother.

Did you look up kyriarchy?

Yes. I pointed out my understanding of it up thread.

I don't sit around whining all the time and being a victim - although I really resent the 'victim stance' phrase. It negates what we have every right to be pissed off about.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I had a tough time with the social disability model leading to the only correct definition. I haven't paid attention to how it became that, and I have only gone to some of the links Kimmio has posted.
What you posted matches my instinct though.[/QUOTE
It

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.

The UN and who recognize the social model/ rights model daisyjanes whether you like it or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I had a tough time with the social disability model leading to the only correct definition. I haven't paid attention to how it became that, and I have only gone to some of the links Kimmio has posted.
What you posted matches my instinct though.

That's too bad because the social model is the UN and WHO internationally recognized one so get used to it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

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.

Too bad because it's the internationally recognized model now. I have looked at the models and it makes the most sense from an equality perspective and that's why PWDs pushed for it.

 

[redhead]

Hi Kimmio, could you please provide the United Nations and World Health Organization definitions of disability? Providing such information would be very helpful to your argument, and it would also help your defense.

 

[ChemGal]

Too bad because it's the internationally recognized model now. I have looked at the models and it makes the most sense from an equality perspective and that's why PWDs pushed for it.

There are statements from Canadian organizations that there is no one common definition. As long as multiple definitions are being used commonly, that needs to at least be acknowledged, even if you're not happy about it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

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.

No. That's where there's misunderstanding. The numbers of people who could participate in the labour force if accommodated and not discriminated is far greater than PWDs who can never do any meaningful employment. For example I don't suppose a store or a restaurant would hire someone who has a thalidomide disorder to serve customers with their feet, even if it were possible, and their feet were clean, would they?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

There are statements from Canadian organizations that there is no one common definition. As long as multiple definitions are being used commonly, that needs to at least be acknowledged, even if you're not happy about it.

That's because not everyone's caught up with human rights.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Hi Kimmio, could you please provide the United Nations and World Health Organization definitions of disability? Providing such information would be very helpful to your argument, and it would also help your defense.

Oh redhead. I have several times. Here and on other threads.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/faqs.htm#definition

http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

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.

I don't think it does, daisyjanes. By limiting focus on the suffering of the body you negate the exacerbation of the suffering by social factors. Harder to live with pain or discomfort if you are social isolated, no care supports, and nothing to look forward to - and if others are projecting their understanding of suffering onto you (or sometimes dumping their suffering onto you making you feel like a burden) and you internalize it. I think that creates a situation, whereby alleviating suffering by all means available (except death), at least lessening it to where one can have a quality of life - becomes less a priority. I'm sorry but I don't want a bunch of freakin parliamentarians defining how much suffering is too much. Can't trust em as far as I can throw em.

In another thread - John posted a video of Amanda - now many of us before hearing her speak with the help of a computer - would not recognize that she did have a rich world to her own liking - a quality of life - and that she was thinking and communicating. She obviously had a place to live and people to carw for her. But if she were to internalize what "normal" people consider quality of life- that includes healthcare providers and staff in social services - she, or people with other severe disabilities might assume their lives were not worth living. Luckily Amanda is strong and confident about her own worth as a human being.

 

[Delightful Life]

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.

MEDITATION FOR ALL SEMI-AWARE FIREARMS!
and EMBRACING of moments when we get SUPER-CLARITY from DEPRESSION!
semi-aware firearms known as human beings, ENGAGE!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The problem is @Hermann the law did open up to those experiencing mental despair who are not dying. And I suspect, because there are people here so delighted about having assisted suicide available for real end of life decisions for people who are really and truly at the end of their lives, they are looking for ways to justify in their minds, the dangerous gaps that this ruling leaves for those who are not terminally ill.