MAID Concerns - How Will Our Politicians Respond?

I've felt for years that if mainstream Canadians don't have the empathy or capacity understand how disability rights factors into this, then they need to be educated about how we're breaking international law. Organizations chose to appeal to people's empathy alone and that angle didn't work.

At least I can sleep better now.

I won't be around for a bit.

One of the first things to be sacrificed in a martyred world is those that have lost all their resources to the powerful ...

However: the powerful do not like to process such intelligence ...

Thus it falls to the depressed to act stunned and handle the intelligence quietly ...

This discussion is depressing and causes me to consider being an outsider ... thus the man has gone off the edge ...

Develop a good face at being effaced ... or be ineffable ... silence my friend listen to how it all slips away! Its the way we come together ... implosion!

There's a hidden meaning there somewhere ... I am told I don't know anything ... thus affiliate with nothing ... an essence of thin space! Spooks?

Why people drink spirits ... declared moderate ... but questionable! Beer makes me happy ... poor man's escape ... like a good tome! Let us book that time ...

So what's the compromise?

Waterfall said:

So what's the compromise?

Click to expand...

It is usually a thin red line in the sans ...

Amendments will be made as 'the law of the land' decrees.

I can live with that and perhaps I will at some point die legally with Medical Assistance.

I have always held suicide ... legally assisted or not ... as a viable option to expedite an end to 'suffering' without foreseeable remittance.

There were many days while watching my brother and my mother in the dying process that I felt myself capable of assisting in whatever way possible to hasten their demise. I did not act on it ... both of them managed the process admirably and for the most part the medical assistance that they received allowed for their final parting to be 'comfortable' from my viewpoint. I can not imagine not intervening in the event that they did not have access to 'controlled pain management'. I am grateful for the time spent with them as they 'lay dying' ... getting to know them as vulnerable people always at the mercy of all who attended to their needs such as they were able and allowed.

I understand @kimmio's concerns ... she is particularly vulnerable in more ways than one but not as vulnerable as those who do not bother to or are unable to 'understand' what these changing 'laws' may afford 'the powers that be' towards the 'mores of grim reaping'.

I trust that ... since we all have a duty to die one way or another ... dying without 'too much distress' - legal or illegal - is preferable.

Making something legal does not necessarily make it a right - buyer beware - there is a difference between privilege and virtue.

Virtue is my individual pursuit ... not bound by legalities one way or the other.

No...not only me, me and many thousands of others. I'm not an obscure anecdote.

The law of the land cannot continue break international law without those most adversely affected eventually fighting the injustice. Those rights were earned virtuously over time and ratified by our government under the UN convention in order to preserve those rights that people struggled to advance.

Just because people here on WC2do not understand or necessarily respect our commitment to disability rights under international law - doesn't mean that's going to remain the case in this country going forward.

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

The law of the land cannot continue break international law without those most adversely affected eventually fighting the injustice.

Click to expand...

International law may have a great deal of moral legitimacy, but the ability of 'states' to disregard it in pursuit of their own interests demonstrates international law to be a guideline not an enforceable “law.”

To draw an analogy between international and domestic courts can be misleading.

The "critical difference" between the two is that the former lacks an effective and coercive state apparatus to enforce their decisions.

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

No...not only me, me and many thousands of others. I'm not an obscure anecdote.

Click to expand...

• Amnesty International’s first report examining war’s impact on a range of people with disabilities
• Scant support for at least 4.5 million Yemenis with disabilities

In a wealthy country like Canada there's not enough concern for the marginalized here...of course in war zones there's even less concern for them. People with disabilities are the most vulnerable everywhere, relative to the rest of those where they are. Especially in catastrophes. The wealthy don't want us, whether we die under a needle or die under rubble.

Ritafee said:

International law may have a great deal of moral legitimacy, but the ability of 'states' to disregard it in pursuit of their own interests demonstrates international law to be a guideline not an enforceable “law.”

To draw an analogy between international and domestic courts can be misleading.

The "critical difference" between the two is that the former lacks an effective and coercive state apparatus to enforce their decisions.

Click to expand...

You're right. It's not an enforceable law, it is a guideline for setting precedent that becomes enforceable in domestic law - and it's not being followed, as was promised to be. So does making it unenforceable, disregarded by choice, make it better? Oh, freedom!

What then, if no laws were enforceable - would people just act out of universal human ethics and virtue? I think you can see the answer to that.

You can't have equality and total personal freedom of choice. The two are incompatible. I do not advocate survival of the fittest as a human principle. And total anarchy only puts that principle into play to the worst ends. It's the reason why this world is so screwed because too many people - maybe most - cannot give a s**t unless it's enforced. I believe in just laws that serve equality - which is about loving your neighbour as much as yourself.

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

You're right. It's not an enforceable law, it is a guideline for setting precedent that becomes enforceable - and it's not being followed. So does making it unenforceable make it better?

Click to expand...

Well @kimmio you are far more in favor of enforcement than I am ... at a personal level ... I guarantee you that I will never vote to or personally execute your euthanasia against your will ... beyond that I have no authority. Getting back to what will happen in Canada based on setting precedent that becomes enforceable:

Fraser Health working to enforce rules ...

Fraser Health is working with an hospice facility in Delta that is refusing to allow assisted death at its facilities.

An advocate with Dying with Dignity Canada says if the authority allows it to refuse, it sets a worrying precedent.

Facilities cannot receive public funding and then prohibit assisted death.

That’s the perspective from Dying with Dignity Canada as it calls for the Delta Hospice Society to give people that 'option'.

I have tried and tried in these forums and others to make people understand my own point of view around mandatory health initiatives as governments set new precedents ... WC2 as a majority does not favor my perspective ... millions of people the world over do. You win some you lose some ... personal virtue remains your own responsibility ... it is better IMO to suffer injustice than to serve injustice. Legalities be damned ... do what you've got to do to respect yourself.

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

What then, if no laws were enforceable - would people just act out of universal human ethics and virtue? I think you can see the answer to that.

Click to expand...

How do you act outside of enforceable laws? I know how I do ... so the answer to that may be different for you than for me but I doubt it.

Interestingly, one of the first things I saw this morning was a post from a friend of mine on FB:

This evening, my aunt, D______, chose to end her life with medical assistance. While I am very sad, I am also very proud of her and my uncle B___'s decision.

Life is precious. However I do believe we have the right to choose to die with dignity and without prolonging the pain within and for those that love us. I view this choice as courageous.

It was an unusual experience to speak with my aunt this evening, knowing that our conversation was the last words we would ever share. D was ready for what may come next. B was at her side, as he has been for many many years.

Cancer tortures more than just the individual who is ill.

I encourage you to read & learn about MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying). Our Federal Government is looking for your input.

My aunt D was my Mom‘s sister. Ukrainian, strong, stubborn, loyal and loving. I am missing her. However I know she is no longer in pain. Medical Assistance in Dying - Share Your Views Online

I fully support my friend and the decision his aunt made. It sounds like she made the decision after some consideration.

This discussion has been interesting. As for legislating people's lives, I'd rather see less than more legislating. I'd like to treat people as adults and let them make decisions that work best for them. I believe most people are capable of this. It pisses me off to be accused of not caring for the marginalized and vulnerable people because I support this part of the law. I imagine I'm not alone in that feeling.

As I mentioned above, hospitals and health professionals have to follow best practice guidelines and protocols. When you walk into a health care setting you will not necessarily get what you want just because you ask for it. If I were to ask to apply MAID to my disabled family member I highly doubt I would get what I want. I would probably be questioned and scrutinized with suspicion.

I don't know the answer to this. I am glad though this is being discussed.

My dad always was against suicide ... I warned him he might change his mind if he was in great physical, mental or emotional pain ... he disagreed.

A few days before he died he asked me early one morning to take him out of the hospital and shoot him! I suppose he was out of his mind for unknown reasons ...

Call it a shot in the dark if you will ...

I understand that.

I personally want to be flying high as a kite loving everybody at the end of my days.

End of life suffering is no longer what we are discussing though.

Even at that, the association of palliative care doctors is against it.

Think about it - why would they keep palliative care around if it's so much less expedient?

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

I understand that.

I personally want to be flying high as a kite loving everybody at the end of my days.

End of life suffering is no longer what we are discussing though.

Even at that, the association of palliative care doctors is against it.

Think about it - why would they keep palliative care around if it's so much less expedient?

Click to expand...

????????? Please clarify. You understand what? What are doctors against?

Ritafee said:

How do you act outside of enforceable laws? I know how I do ... so the answer to that may be different for you than for me but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Well maybe that can cover your own ass but it doesn't protect people as a whole.

Northwind said:

????????? Please clarify. You understand what? What are doctors against?

Click to expand...

I understand Luce's dad.

Palliative care doctors are against MAID expansion. The majority are against it now.

Kimmio Laughterlove said:

Well maybe that can cover your own ass but it doesn't protect people as a whole.

Click to expand...

So, does that mean you need laws in order to be lawful?