Bill C7 (MAiD expansion) and impact on Standards of Care

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
BetteTheRed said:
Of course you were, and your questions made it very clear the answers you were seeking and AI pleased you. Kimmio, I do not disagree with you on this topic, but I don't think I've seen "confirmation bias" demonstrated quite so clearly.
Click to expand...
If it confirms I’m biased against the dangers and toward the FACTS so be it. “Confirmation bias” - those words became a tool of right wing internet trolls - as instructed by sociopathic influencers (Scott Adams, the Intellectual Dark Web bunch)- to put down support for human rights in general and covertly support fascism. I don’t respect the term or when someone uses it to be passive aggressive with me. Especially on something this important. It shows serious lack of empathy for people who are anguishing over their loss of rights and feeling dehumanized and ignored - those words are dismissive when applied to social issues where a minority group has been shut out of their own expertise on an issue by a powerful lobby co-opting. It’s like if I were to look up Trump gutting the DEI programs and asked AI to point out what went wrong, AI agreed about the reason why it harms vs the benefit to the far right agenda, and you told me that’s confirmation bias. Same thing. It’s not just a difference of opinion or agreeing. It’s saying you either care or you don’t about how it’s affecting hundreds of thousands of people, their perceived worth, and their lived dignity now and into the future.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio, you can't ban words because people you don't like use them. You can be many things, but not the language police.

'Confirmation bias" is a really useful phrase with a fairly specific meaning. It means the tendency of humans to seek evidence for their pre-existing POV.

And really, YOU could stop the gaslighting behaviour. It's gotten to the point that a minor disagreement to any of your points results in a collective insult of "saying you either care or you don’t about how it’s affecting hundreds of thousands of people, their perceived worth, and their lived dignity now and into the future". However do you think that your black and white, I'm right and everyone's wrong (on every detail of a rather complex social issue), presentation helps the cause? You know that you are preaching to the converted here, yet you spew insults around as if we were a bunch of ignorant strangers, rather than on-line but human humans, some of whom you have met and most of whom you have known for at least a decade.

Even if you wish to argue that you're educating all the lurkers on this site (as if a wide world was waiting with bated breath for the next WC wonder-wisdom dropping), putting it in the context of insulting your largely supportive co-members of a small on-line community doesn't really add to your credibility.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Kimmio, you can't ban words because people you don't like use them. You can be many things, but not the language police.

'Confirmation bias" is a really useful phrase with a fairly specific meaning. It means the tendency of humans to seek evidence for their pre-existing POV.

And really, YOU could stop the gaslighting behaviour. It's gotten to the point that a minor disagreement to any of your points results in a collective insult of "saying you either care or you don’t about how it’s affecting hundreds of thousands of people, their perceived worth, and their lived dignity now and into the future". However do you think that your black and white, I'm right and everyone's wrong (on every detail of a rather complex social issue), presentation helps the cause? You know that you are preaching to the converted here, yet you spew insults around as if we were a bunch of ignorant strangers, rather than on-line but human humans, some of whom you have met and most of whom you have known for at least a decade.

Even if you wish to argue that you're educating all the lurkers on this site (as if a wide world was waiting with bated breath for the next WC wonder-wisdom dropping), putting it in the context of insulting your largely supportive co-members of a small on-line community doesn't really add to your credibility.
Click to expand...
You’re right. I’m sensitive. I’ve been dumped on more in society while just living my life in recent years so I have a tendency to not trust anyone who isn’t on the same page even a little bit because that little bit can grow into a bigger threat for us. Like being a little bit racist - just as non white people have reason to be sensitive to that. I suppose non racists have a confirmation bias but it’s still correct. I’ve actually been experiencing being at the bottom end without a voice - we’re experiencing hostility others can’t see - feeling the growing diminishment of attention to disability rights, and the stereotyping, in real life and it’s scary s**t - the world is a hostile place now and the same attitudes affecting the US are here too. It’s real not just an intellectual argument for more and more people. And it’s damaging. People don’t see it when they’re not affected in their own lives by discrimination so much, so maybe keep that in mind. We’ve known each other a long time and you know I’m also a real person who’s been hurt by all this for real - not just a poster having a debate.

I’m not banning anyone’s use of words. I’m pushing back because I remember exactly in what context - Scott Adams - those words started being used here. That was a bad time, and people were falling for it. Certain words have become dog whistles - to particular political points of view - when they may not have been before. I’m not banning you from using them I’m pointing out that their use can be passive aggressive to those who understand how they’ve been used in the past ten years.

Not sure what gaslighting I’m doing though. I’m being honest.
 
Last edited:
I’m also sensitive because I remember when it didn’t matter how well an argument I laid out it was treated as irrational and I was given a really hard time undeservedly. Until the warnings actually became true. And the UN backed it up. Then a few news articles in papers people here read. But people died before anyone believed me - people I’d interacted with or at least knew of within online disability circles even, and found out they’d had MAiD due to inaccessibility and isolation concerns and gave up - they were real people too - so needless to say I am sensitive. It would’ve been so much better - maybe people would’ve helped change things - if I hadn’t been dismissed before. I am bruised over that but I’m okay.
 
Last edited:
Confirmation is also big in the edifice ... and thus stoned formations! They declare it cannot change ... and then? Oma gauwd!

The myth thus extends ... as sometimes cockamamie? Mortals get few things right ... but demand points ... prickly essence ... like the catholic monstrous! Moe's trusted item ... strutted out ... blunders? Mishappen blunders ... like Oma? Before they knew it was Ova ... and what was absorbed? Unspeakable ... especially if something was learned ... powers hate learned items ... thus Ophie departed ... the "H" being a space Eire ... if you can assemble there?
 
Last edited:
A young man died from track 2 MAiD - family is challenging it. I’m glad he has that kind of family. People need to speak up before it happens, though, not after. Ellen Weibe just won’t quit signing random people up to die - uh I mean “qualify”, even if they’re from out of province - from off the corner of her desk, it seems. It’s irresponsible at minimum. That’s the nicest way to put it. I didn’t catch any mention of who the second mandatory assessor was.

Has anyone assessed her mental health? Serious question that goes back to my thread about personality disorders and power. Several hundreds have died with her approval. She’s prolific. It’s something necessary to be concerned about.

Medical staff - anyone working in medicine with certain personality disorders shouldn’t be allowed near MAiD. Without the Hippocratic oath in firmly in place that they’re all expected to commit to - it isn’t anymore - it makes people less safe in the system.

globalnews.ca

Ontario family calls for changes after their 26-year-old son received MAID in B.C. | Globalnews.ca

“He didn't have the items necessary to qualify for MAID and quite frankly, the system failed him," Joseph Caprara, Vafaeian's stepfather, said.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
I think I mentioned it before. She’s being sued by the family of a man who walked over to her office from the hospital on a psychiatric day pass, and she allegedly gave him MAiD.

vancouversun.com

Family who says B.C. man received MAID on psychiatric day pass files wrongful-death lawsuit

The suit accuses Dr. Ellen Wiebe and her clinic of malpractice, though none of the allegations has been proven in court.
vancouversun.com vancouversun.com
Click to expand...
Has there been any more info? The challenge was over a year ago.
 
The young man who received MAID in British Columbia after not qualifying in Ontario is concerning.

It demonstrates that the so called "well defined criteria" are still somewhat (or considerably?) subjective.

There's a lot we don't know here.
Was his partial blindness a complication of his type 1 diabetes? Was he expected to go fully blind in the future?
Was his diabetes well controlled with insulin or was he a brittle diabetic?
Was his depression a reactive one?
Did he have a long standing mental illness that was not treated properly? Or was it a treatment resistant depression?

Many factors.
 
paradox3 said:
The young man who received MAID in British Columbia after not qualifying in Ontario is concerning.

It demonstrates that the so called "well defined criteria" are still somewhat (or considerably?) subjective.

There's a lot we don't know here.
Was his partial blindness a complication of his type 1 diabetes? Was he expected to go fully blind in the future?
Was his diabetes well controlled with insulin or was he a brittle diabetic?
Was his depression a reactive one?
Did he have a long standing mental illness that was not treated properly? Or was it a treatment resistant depression?

Many factors.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. He was suicidal and shouldn’t have been killed. She’s setting a very poor standard. She enjoys this “job”. Scary.

Did she even refer to a second opinion? Was a psychiatrist consulted about his application (even if it was treatment resistant, at this point it’s still illegal to give someone MAiD for mental illness - and most psychiatrists would disagree that it’s impossible to find options - it’s their reason for existing.) Was there a full 90 days between the application and the “procedure”? Did he refuse treatment available?

Why was he - while refused MAiD in Ontario - allowed to see a doctor in Vancouver for MAiD when locals don’t even have family doctors to treat conditions when they want to live?

In the past it was in the news that this same doctor once agreed to MAiD for an out of province patient. He was refused in his province. She approved him over the phone. He flew out, she picked him up and drove him to her office and performed MAiD. Something’s not right with her.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't make any difference to the powers ... they make their demands and nail them down. The populace often supports the powers ... unknowingly, much of the time ... as we were conditioned that; "ignorance is best." ... so it goes!


Mores to ponder ...
 
@Kimmio Laughterlove
One could argue that anyone who desires MAID is, in fact, suicidal. I don't see it this way myself but perhaps you do.

With this particular case you are asking good questions. So many unknowns! I hope more info will come out.
 
paradox3 said:
@Kimmio Laughterlove
One could argue that anyone who desires MAID is, in fact, suicidal. I don't see it this way myself but perhaps you do.

With this particular case you are asking good questions. So many unknowns! I hope more info will come out.
Click to expand...
You’re right - I see it that way in all but end stage terminal cases. It’s both suicide and social murder as a result of bad policy.

Whether we agree or not about that - this case is bothersome, and I think this doctor is concerning (a documentary was made for the UK, who are where we were 9 years ago and disabled people there - including the Liz Carr actress who made the film - are horrified by her). I hope we get a follow up on this.
 
Last edited:
paradox3 said:
@Kimmio Laughterlove
One could argue that anyone who desires MAID is, in fact, suicidal. I don't see it this way myself but perhaps you do.

With this particular case you are asking good questions. So many unknowns! I hope more info will come out.
Click to expand...

Yet there are those that demand that we see them as knowing all ... questionable? It appears something will always steal away from us ... with thoughts typically ... as thinkers are dangerous! Deep ...

We are right into it:
  • Good
  • Bad
  • Ugly
  • Beautiful (great stir when observed from the out position; one must be ousted to see it!)
I've always been out ... one way or another ... mental deficiency rubs off ...

Could be the company! Or maybe not if self-induced ... mysterious induction? Goes about ...

Then your marked ... for what's coming ... you get it like everyone else ... c'est fini or Ste Phanny! Annie?
 
Last edited:
I watched most of the Liz Carr documentary mentioned by @Kimmio and it is worth taking a look at.

Carr travelled to Canada and interviewed Dr Ellen Wiebe. Wiebe identifies as disabled herself. She is a controversial figure who provides both MAID and abortions.

Carr asked Wiebe if she would qualify for MAID in Canada. The answer was, "You would need to convince me you are suffering." Kinda said with a grin (I thought) which I found chilling.

There is also a perspective provided by a medical ethicist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top