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!

Messages
25,912
Reaction score
3,690
:confused::(:cry::mad::(

A slippery slope, dangerous for those vulnerable to having choices made for them about who gets to live and who gets to die and a stance with which I disagree with the UCCan, unfortunately and really put me at odds with them. It's quite upsetting to me. All this talk about preventing suicide - a good thing - and a bill that makes "assisted suicide" due to mental suffering legal. "Doc I feel like my life's not worth living." Doc: "Well maybe you're right ." :mad::cry::confused:

I'm against this...
 
Last edited:

chansen

Pleasant Enough
Messages
10,469
Reaction score
7,085
What about horticulturalists? Car clubs? Sailplane enthusiasts?

Why just ask churches? They have no more standing on this issue than any other group of people.
 

Seeler

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,052
Reaction score
4,917
I welcome this. I also hope that there are checks and balances put in place to help rule out 'undue influence'. I would hate to think that a person, already coping with a serious health problem, might be bullied by family or caregivers into making such a request.
 
Messages
25,912
Reaction score
3,690
UCCan took a public stand in support of this and I am disappointed in the Moderator. I love the guy, but I really disagree with his stance.

One thing that's kind of subtle about this bill is it isn't just for the physically terminally ill, or elderly. You'll notice they mentioned "mental suffering" - is there irreparable mental suffering so bad that any doctor has any right to help somebody kill themselves? Isn't that highly hypocritical and a slap in the face to all the suicide awareness promotion being done? And what about a non-communicative person? Who gets to decide for them if their life is worth living? I was so cheesed off about public support for Latimer years ago, who more or less treated his daughter with severe CP like a farm animal who needed to be taken to the back of the barn - totally irresponsible because someone would've loved and cared for her even if he decided her life wasn't worth living. That's the kind of slippery slope this legislation puts us on. It's not all about the baby boomers getting older and wanting to be able to decide when the time comes.
 
Messages
25,912
Reaction score
3,690
I welcome this. I also hope that there are checks and balances put in place to help rule out 'undue influence'. I would hate to think that a person, already coping with a serious health problem, might be bullied by family or caregivers into making such a request.
Have you ever disagreed with the UCCan about anything?

You hope there are checks and balances...after the bill now has gone through? See, many people hoped that but obviously that wasn't insured before the bill went through.
 

revjohn

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,260
Reaction score
5,579
blackbelt1961 said:
what are the moral implications if a Moral God exists ?


If a moral God exists then does that God exist depending upon our definitions of morality or independent of our definitions of morality?

If a moral God exists depending upon our definitions of morality then that moral God must adjust to the new definitions that we invent. As such a moral God requires humanity to inform that God as to what is moral.

If a moral God exists independent of our definitions of morality then that moral God is not forces to adjust to our new definitions but will respond as that God has always responded.

God, as sovereign, is still free to determine whether God will respond lovingly through either justice or mercy.

The only moral implications will be that humanity may have moved itself into a position in which it may be more prone to receiving a just response rather than a grace response.

blackbelt1961 said:
do we have a right to this over our lives?
Within the context of Canada it would appear that we do. Within a greater context of God's kingdom it remains to be seen. Either way, God's fundamental character will not change because of a Supreme Court ruling affecting Canadian law.
 

blackbelt1961

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,897
Reaction score
1,789
What about horticulturalists? Car clubs? Sailplane enthusiasts?

Why just ask churches? They have no more standing on this issue than any other group of people.
why churches? , cuz i would like to hear there stance on it since they believe in a moral God , but your right anyone can comment
 

blackbelt1961

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,897
Reaction score
1,789
Have you ever disagreed with the UCCan about anything?

You hope there are checks and balances...after the bill now has gone through? See, many people hoped that but obviously that wasn't insured before the bill went through.
I was watching the video on the outcome and they were saying checks and balances must be in place in a per case bases, and exampy was given where the kids of a sick parent true intentions is to get there inheritance
 

revjohn

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,260
Reaction score
5,579
Kimmio said:
UCCan took a public stand in support of this and I am disappointed in the Moderator. I love the guy, but I really disagree with his stance.
Actually, the UCCAN has no policy regarding assisted suicide. None.

http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/euthanasia

The third paragraph makes that clear.

The Moderator has spoken about the issue. The Moderator does not have the ability to set policy for the denomination.

I take issue with some of the Moderator's theological claims in his position.
 
Messages
25,912
Reaction score
3,690
I was watching the video on the outcome and they were saying checks and balances must be in place in a per case bases, and exampy was given where the kids of a sick parent true intentions is to get there inheritance
Okay. But what about the case of a parent of a severely disabled child who doesn't want to change diapers and have an extra mouth to feed - like Latimer? Who decided his child was in too much pain and should die? Well, we can never ask her now. And he got lots of public support for being compassionate?
 

blackbelt1961

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,897
Reaction score
1,789

The only moral implications will be that humanity may have moved itself into a position in which it may be more prone to receiving a just response rather than a grace response.


man playing God once more, yes i see your point, so i take it the ruling is not in what you would favor ?

I don't see anything in the bible on this topic, unless im missing it , the only thing i see is Jesus not willing to drink gall wine after tasting it , willing to receive the full and conscious wrath of His suffering. and also the witness of the Spirit would tell me , no to this
 

blackbelt1961

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,897
Reaction score
1,789
Okay. But what about the case of a parent of a severely disabled child who doesn't want to change diapers and have an extra mouth to feed - like Latimer? Who decided his child was in too much pain and should die? Well, we can never ask her now. And he got lots of public support for being compassionate?
I agree with you, , personally, my heart could not say yes to taking a child's life let alone anyone
 
Messages
25,912
Reaction score
3,690
Actually, the UCCAN has no policy regarding assisted suicide. None.

http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/euthanasia

The third paragraph makes that clear.

The Moderator has spoken about the issue. The Moderator does not have the ability to set policy for the denomination.

I take issue with some of the Moderator's theological claims in his position.
I heard him on the radio. I realize he can't set policy but he can influence thinking of the denomination and he represents the denomination in the minds of listeners. I love Gary. I was disappointed to hear his position.

The reason I disagree with him is because although end of life decisions are important...to lend support to this law opens doors, even if inadvertently, to prime of life decisions about suicide that aren't fully contemplated in this bill.
 
Last edited:

GordW

Church-Geek-Oramus
Messages
1,815
Reaction score
1,426
not euthanasia. euthanasia is done TO a person. distinct difference. physician assisted suicide is instigated by the patient (and if the legislation is written well there are multiple hoops to prove the decision is being made in a condition of "sound mine"--I am dubious about the wisdom of including psychological/emotional suffering for that reason). Currently being suicidal is, at face value, taken as a sign of not being of "sound mind".


The devil, as always, is going to be in the details. IT will push us as people in community to talk about questions of what is life, when is life (and death) a gift.
 

GordW

Church-Geek-Oramus
Messages
1,815
Reaction score
1,426
man playing God once more, yes i see your point, so i take it the ruling is not in what you would favor ?

I don't see anything in the bible on this topic, unless im missing it , the only thing i see is Jesus not willing to drink gall wine after tasting it , willing to receive the full and conscious wrath of His suffering. and also the witness of the Spirit would tell me , no to this
humanity "plays GOd" all the time. When we cure cancer, when we shock a heart back into a normal rhythm, when we develop a new hardier strain of wheat....

interestingly we only accuse others of playing God when we have a problem with the out come....
 

revjohn

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,260
Reaction score
5,579
blackbelt1961 said:
man playing God once more, yes i see your point, so i take it the ruling is not in what you would favor ?
I haven't read the whole ruling at present so I'm not confident that I would agree or disagree with it.

From what I have read so far I am not convinced that the ruling gives carte blanche. Physician assisted suicide is not now illegal. That doesn't mean euthanasia is now legal. Canada is now in a place where new legislation is required. I don't expect we will be seeing any in the very near future. Unless somebody chooses to make it an election issue.

It is probably not helpful to jump to conclusions at this point.

blackbelt1961 said:
I don't see anything in the bible on this topic, unless im missing it , the only thing i see is Jesus not willing to drink gall wine after tasting it , willing to receive the full and conscious wrath of His suffering. and also the witness of the Spirit would tell me , no to this
I don't see anything obvious either.

So I expect that we should move forward as lovingly and as graciously as we can. There are a number of complexities and nuances that should be heard. There will be a rush to define the issue in black and white terms. That may not be helpful at this juncture.
 

revjohn

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,260
Reaction score
5,579
Kimmio said:
I heard him on the radio. I realize he can't set policy but he can influence thinking of the denomination and he represents the denomination in the minds of listeners. I love Gary. I was disappointed to hear his position.

The reason I disagree with him is because although end of life decisions are important...to lend support to this law opens doors, even if inadvertently, to prime of life decisions about suicide that aren't fully contemplated in this bill.
Which is fair. Your reaction is your own. I was correcting your assertion that the UCCAN has taken a position. We have not.
 
Top