I’ve done better than a lot of people but the existence of this law in its current form and with its current lobby power behind it influencing the public - is so toxic to disabled people already dealing with ableist barriers most people don’t see - everyday.
Expansion of MAID delayed until after next election
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
It’s not like people have stopped asking for more accessible housing, etc. it’s that the law proposing that sick people can be killed was passed first.
And to be blatant, non disabled, not sick person suicidal from a life situation would receive suicide prevention. But a disabled or sick person suffering other life circumstances could be offered MAiD based on the perceived severity of their disability or illness because they could take that to a MAiD assessor for consideration but the non disabled person in the same scenario couldn’t. Thats where it’s discrimination but DwD pulled a fast one initially - Eby leading the helm in that - arguing that the right to die hinged on disabled people’s right to commit suicide. Disabled people were singled out and used because of ableism. It was easy for the public to assume we shouldn’t want to live - because of grave ableism. Or else there would be suicide kits for everyone. Instead they made it part of public healthcare, using disabled people as the excuse to bring it in.
If they used someone from any other group who was suicidal due to systemic discrimination, and shame about being part of that group, and unmet need, there’d be an uproar. Rightfully so. But because it’s disabled people the public doesn’t see their part in driving the suicidality in the disabled population. They’ve endorsed it instead.
Which is exactly why robust human rights laws need to exist and be followed despite mainstream opinion about us.
And to be blatant, non disabled, not sick person suicidal from a life situation would receive suicide prevention. But a disabled or sick person suffering other life circumstances could be offered MAiD based on the perceived severity of their disability or illness because they could take that to a MAiD assessor for consideration but the non disabled person in the same scenario couldn’t. Thats where it’s discrimination but DwD pulled a fast one initially - Eby leading the helm in that - arguing that the right to die hinged on disabled people’s right to commit suicide. Disabled people were singled out and used because of ableism. It was easy for the public to assume we shouldn’t want to live - because of grave ableism. Or else there would be suicide kits for everyone. Instead they made it part of public healthcare, using disabled people as the excuse to bring it in.
If they used someone from any other group who was suicidal due to systemic discrimination, and shame about being part of that group, and unmet need, there’d be an uproar. Rightfully so. But because it’s disabled people the public doesn’t see their part in driving the suicidality in the disabled population. They’ve endorsed it instead.
Which is exactly why robust human rights laws need to exist and be followed despite mainstream opinion about us.
Last edited:
WhyCzar
Connect The Dots
- Pronouns
- They/Them/Their
Call it what you will.
IMO, as the the criteria for state killing gets wider and wider the right to die will become a duty to die.
But I could be wrong.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Yes, and.....
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
If you had actually read and understood the process, you'd know a person has to request MAID themselves. They have to understand what it involves. Etc. Apparently you missed that.
Eby has lead the helm? The ruling in Quebec claimed that disabled people were excluded from MAID laws and that was discrimination.
Ah, borrowing from @paradox3
Eby was part of the
Eby was the helm of the initial landmark case in B.C. I’ve discussed that before. I do not want to start over because you’re being fickle.
(In the above article Eby argues that doctors already help dying people die at the very end and at that time risked criminal charges because of that. We’ve departed very far from that because in court they argued suicide was legal but disabled people couldn’t do it themselves so they should be “included. Disabled were used as a legal argument that was very different from the argument that doctors were already ending terminally ill patients’ lives covertly at the very end.)
A person no longer has to be terminally or incapacitated to request MAiD. They have to be deemed to be in a state of advanced decline and with no treatment options they deem acceptable. There is little difference realistically between offering it and providing information about how to apply for it when even if denied people can shop around for providers, and MAiD assessors are being taught how to make requests most likely to succeed. Being offered an application and information to help a patient determine “options” without them asking is arguably, coercion.
Last edited:
This topic is morose and depressing - even though I’m used to it. Hard to talk about, but it’s necessary to prevent systemic abuse. And soon, mental illness will be a candidate again. I think everyone who is suicidal whether it’s because of grappling with disability or illness or any other reason should be offered the same prevention efforts by their doctors and it shouldn’t be assumed that we should want to die because of being disabled or that our lives if we get sick, matter less. It is that way or track 2 wouldn’t have been allowed to emerge out of track 1. In BC even the crisis hotline is allowed to discuss MAiD resources with sick and disabled clients. I read it on their site yesterday. They view MAiD as legitimate. That, I find, horrible.
If it weren’t for a powerful lobby’s campaign this would still be viewed through a human rights lens, protecting disabled people from it.
If it weren’t for a powerful lobby’s campaign this would still be viewed through a human rights lens, protecting disabled people from it.
Last edited:
In fact they can’t be incapacitated mentally, thank god, because that’s an evil potential can of worms.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
So, I've been an ableist Boomer, privileged and now I'm fickle. What else will you use to discredit anything I have to say?
He's not wrong strickly speaking. (Just for argument's sake)
That is clearly spelled out in the act.
I'm not exactly sure what your point here is. People cannot ask for something they don't know exists. Providing information is not automatically coercion. Health professionals all have to abide by codes of ethics etc. If they are actually breaching those codes, you can file a complaint. If a person legitimately wants MAID, they have every right to ask. That doesn't mean they'll get.
Omg. I didn’t say “ableist boomer”. You are privileged. So am I compared to lots of others. And this post shows you are fickle.
Well isn’t it great that they can inform disabled people looking for healthcare care that it exists - and in fact, have to. /s
Isn’t it great that puts disabled people potentially on two tracks. /s
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
You have called me an ableist Boomer in the past. You use name calling as a way to discredit. Not cool.
What they are doing is informing someone that MAID is available. They can turn it down. A friend of mine had that experience when she was initially diagnosed with late stage ovarian cancer and told it would kill her quite quickly. They told her this at the time of diagnosis when her brain and logic had essentially stopped working. She went on to live another couple years and did not succumb to pressure she experienced when she was extremely vulnerable. Being offered the information or even pressured does not mean coerced.
I suppose it is a possibility that someone who is disabled could also be diagnosed with cancer that ultimately is terminal. It's not either/or.
As for being fickle, I've been quite consistent in my views. I'm just responding differently to what I see as misinformation.
What they are doing is informing someone that MAID is available. They can turn it down. A friend of mine had that experience when she was initially diagnosed with late stage ovarian cancer and told it would kill her quite quickly. They told her this at the time of diagnosis when her brain and logic had essentially stopped working. She went on to live another couple years and did not succumb to pressure she experienced when she was extremely vulnerable. Being offered the information or even pressured does not mean coerced.
I suppose it is a possibility that someone who is disabled could also be diagnosed with cancer that ultimately is terminal. It's not either/or.
As for being fickle, I've been quite consistent in my views. I'm just responding differently to what I see as misinformation.
Do you have any ethical problems with DwD’s weilding disproportionate power throughout? Can you see the potential that disproportionate power has corrupted these laws from the beginning, and people’s acceptance of them?
The UN declarations Canada is part of are supposed to protect marginalized people from abuses of power that impact our right to live. Our government blatantly ignored them and upended our charter rights so that DwD has vastly more power (direct access to politicians, legal proceedings, money, corporate sponsorship) to advance disabled people’s “right to die” on our behalf despite objections by almost every organization that represents us, than those organizations have to promote our right to live adequately.
So what do you think about the power differential in the development of the laws? Makes no difference to your thinking on this @Northwind ?
Last edited:
you only call out my behaviour in these discussions. Others can be as flippant and mean as they want to be to me, but if I criticize you in any way yes, you can be quite fickle. That’s not name calling it’s behaviour observing.
I mean you’re now asking me to go back to the beginning when we were in agreement a week ago and assuming name calling that isn’t there or was long ago and out of the way. That’s fickle isn’t it?
If I called you that long ago (I’m sorry I don’t remember but I shouldn’t have) and we moved on I don’t see its relevance here.
I’m just someone who is disabled who wants the injustices to us to stop. And I have to deal with discussions like this, harassing, discriminatory, and constantly disappointing. It’s no wonder I lose my cool too at times. Disabled people are disproportionately marginalized and things look very different from the bottom end. And it’s impossible to convey that - people don’t “feel” it - so we need stronger human rights protection which we do not have with the MAiD laws. But we can’t get that if the mainstream can’t see it or feel it. It’s an impossible catch 22 situation we’ve been put into by a very powerful lobby group that has their tentacles everywhere in positions to influence the public.
It’s a dangerous point in time. We need stronger not more weakened disability rights. Hopefully the court will give us that apart from public opinion because public opinion shouldn’t come first in determining our right to live, above our objections.
It’s a dangerous point in time. We need stronger not more weakened disability rights. Hopefully the court will give us that apart from public opinion because public opinion shouldn’t come first in determining our right to live, above our objections.
Last edited:
Imagine if an ethnic group had to justify their right not to be euthanized through request to their doctor - based on their ethnicity - because some people of that ethnicity felt demoralized to go on living with their ethnicity and they experienced attitudinal and systemic barriers to living because of it?
Imagine if demoralized individuals were used to build a court case pushed by a powerful and well funded lobby group, that affected other members of their ethnic group, and were placed at the mercy of public opinion about them?
That would clearly be wrong. The dangers of historical precedent would certainly be recognized, here, wouldn’t they?
But if the Supreme Court and legislators and the public can be persuaded by a powerful lobby group to upend disabled peoples’ rights that’s a dangerous precedent to beware of.
Our situation should be looked at the same way.
Imagine if demoralized individuals were used to build a court case pushed by a powerful and well funded lobby group, that affected other members of their ethnic group, and were placed at the mercy of public opinion about them?
That would clearly be wrong. The dangers of historical precedent would certainly be recognized, here, wouldn’t they?
But if the Supreme Court and legislators and the public can be persuaded by a powerful lobby group to upend disabled peoples’ rights that’s a dangerous precedent to beware of.
Our situation should be looked at the same way.
Last edited:
I think this is the most important question to ask everybody to consider - completely objectively, based on our principles as a society.
Yeah you’re right about the potentiality of “duty to die”. It’s not ahistorical, either. I just think genocide is more apt thing to be concerned about and thing to call it - because it’s about one group of citizens right now.
Prognosis with clear times. Define clearly, timeline and severity of symptoms for when MAiD can be considered. Take out “treatment that they deem acceptable”. Make MAiD conditional on having tried all recommended medical treatment (put the healthcare back in “medicine”), do not make MAiD an equal option to discuss. It’s a last resort. Do not make MAiD an extension of palliative care. Most palliative care physicians do not feel it is. Don’t force it on them. Don’t force religious run hospitals to provide it. Have some MAiD free hospitals and healthcare centres where disabled people can feel safe. Recognize in policy, that discussions about MAiD can feel threatening and scary and unwelcome. Do not allow doctors to bring up MAiD at all unless a person is literally close to death. Make sure treatment to prolong lives available to all, if it exists. Make sure people have housing and social support and that is not quietly affecting their decision in any way. Doctors aren’t the best people to be assessing that so make sure that SW’s and housing advocates have to be involved. Make sure patients are not being driven by feeling like burdens to family, or the state due to draconian welfare policy (that’s a “duty to die” concern). Make sure there are strong legal consequences to providers who break the rules. Right now there are not. There needs to be stronger legal deterrent against carelessness and error and potential abuse. Educate healthcare professionals about medical ableism.
Last edited:
…Make DwD the lessor power - recognize they have undue influence - recognize that disability rights groups expertise and experience, and not public opinion about us, need to be leading the discussion about both tracks. That was stolen from disabled people with Bill C-14. We have a right to have it back.
Eliminate the potential for “doctor shopping” and potential that conscienscious objectors and those who refuse requests for sound reasons do not funnel their patients into the hands of those eager to approve death to those patients.
Allow next of kin to intervene where there’s concern about suicidal ideation and error in judgement of either the patient or the assessor - recognizing that such error in judgement causing MAiD to be provided will certainly lead to death - which is final and irreparable - and should therefore be considered differently from other private medical decisions.
Eliminate the potential for “doctor shopping” and potential that conscienscious objectors and those who refuse requests for sound reasons do not funnel their patients into the hands of those eager to approve death to those patients.
Allow next of kin to intervene where there’s concern about suicidal ideation and error in judgement of either the patient or the assessor - recognizing that such error in judgement causing MAiD to be provided will certainly lead to death - which is final and irreparable - and should therefore be considered differently from other private medical decisions.
Last edited:
…bring the 10 day relection period back. Make it longer if anything - again recognizing that death is irreparable and final and needs to be treated with more caution and reflection than other decisions might.
Last edited: