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!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
It's not just a little subset Rita. Because disability involves chronic permanent conditions - it's a significant number of people. How bigotted.
Click to expand...
Good grief Kimmo ...... the word subset does not infer size (other than it is not the entire group) nor does it infer significance.
I am disappointed with your labeling my correct use of a word as bigoted.
I do not feel I deserve that.
 
RitaTG said:
Good grief Kimmo ...... the word subset does not infer size (other than it is not the entire group) nor does it infer significance.
I am disappointed with your labeling my correct use of a word as bigoted.
I do not feel I deserve that.
Click to expand...

Considering the wording by the Supreme Court of 'irremediable' (not 'terminal') it is not a subset. Terminal would be a subset of the population that are part of this decision. Irremediable could potentially be anyone with a permanent disability. That's not a subset of people affected by this decision.
 
Kimmo ..... from here on in I will leave your comments be....
Obviously you do not understand the word "subset" nor do you seem to be inclined to.
I am hurt by your assertion my use of the word was bigoted and further discussion with you will only cause further hurt.
There is no value in that and no positive path forward from what I can see.
 
Kimmio said:
There are couple of points I'd like to point out in this article

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/health/story/1.2948265

One is that the Canadian Medical Association is in fact "concerned about how doctors will assess the competency of a patient and what constitutes an 'irremediable' condition" - if the professional body governing doctors doesn't even know, we need to be concerned.
Click to expand...



Respectfully I submit that you are missing important context.

You claim that the article quotes the CMA which is factually untrue. The article does quote the President of the CMA and yet the quote actually attributed to Dr. Chris Simpson is not that he is "concerned about how doctors will assess the competency of a patient . . ." That is a quote from the reporter and it is his interpretation of the actual quote attributed to Dr. Simpson which is:

Dr. Chris Simpson said:
There are grey zones around medical competency," Dr. Chris Simpson told CBC News. "Maybe we should use two doctors or maybe a board" to (assess a patient's mental state).
Click to expand...

In all fairness I think the reporter has not fairly interpreted Dr. Simpson's comment.

I have been a part of a hospital ethics board and I remember very clearly having to address a "grey zone" regarding brain death protocols.

At issue was two doctors on staff who began the brain death protocols and then refused to follow the protocol to a definite conclusion. In fact, in a 25 step protocol to determine brain death the doctors completed 24 steps and then refused to complete the 25th step which is to actually remove life supports. They are to monitor the body to see if it responds to the actual crisis of not having supports present. Any sign of distress in the patient is taken as an indication that the brain of the patient is not dead and then supports are reintroduced.

The family was made aware that the protocol would begin and in fact, gave consent for the protocol to be initiated. They wanted to know whether there was any hope for their loved one and medical opinion was that if their loved one actually was brain dead there would be nothing the hospital could do medically to reverse that.

What conclusion do you think the family comes to when the doctor stops such a protocol? Particularly when they refuse to see if the body responds to the absence of support?

The greyzone was eliminated by emending the protocol to prohibit stopping the protocol unless a preliminary step indicated brain activity. The only thing that can prevent doctors in that hospital from not proceeding to step 25 would be an indication of brain activity at step 24.

In this instance both doctors were young and neither was prepared to deal with the grief of the family when they were informed that their loved one would never recover. I'm sympathetic to the doctors whose relative inexperience in that aspect of medicine led them to hesitate. At the same time I know the pastoral pain that the families went through suddenly leaping to the erroneous conclusion that their was hope for their loved one to recover. A doctor on the next shift noting the failure to finish the protocol carried the protocol through to its completion and it was that doctor who dealt with the newly dashed hopes of the family.

It was a very messy time and it put the family through a lot of pain unneccesarily. Still, the ordeal illuminated a grey area and we on the hospital ethics committee decided that the grey could not continue and we needed a black or white solution. Which was easy to implement.

Note that Dr. Simpson is suggesting that the grey zone would potentially be leaving the decision to a singular physician and his suggestion to eliminate the grey zone is to have more than one doctor participate in evaluating the competency of the individual requesting assistance in committing suicide.

Kimmio said:
The other point in this article worth mentioning is by a representative from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (who sits on CCD's Bioethics Committee), Heidi Janz, who has CP and uses a wheelchair and a feeding tube - says the decision amounts to "We won't do anything to help you LIVE, but now, we're prepared to hasten your death."
Click to expand...

No hyperbole in that comment at all eh? It provides interesting optics from a Bioethicist that is for certain.

At any rate it is not at all relevant to the declaration made by the Supreme Court because again, what was not struck down was the impediment of vulnerability in accessing a physicians help. What was struck down was the absolute prohibition which created undue suffering to an individual suffering from a terminal illness.

Kimmio said:
Two things I've been saying. Things to be considered as this proceeds.
Click to expand...

Which while true doesn't make them more compelling even when they appear to come from someone else.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
It's not just a little subset Rita. Because disability involves chronic permanent conditions - it's a significant number of people. How bigotted.
Click to expand...

So again Cousin - I go to the questions which on another thread you chose not to answer - are the disability rights groups truly representative of all persons in Canada who have disabilities. Who comprises these disability rights groups and what exactly is their agenda.
 
Kimmio

We get that you feel vulnerable.

But, your insistence on dire warnings and "sky is falling" fears is very reminiscent of the fears about gay marriage and abortion from the religious right

A new law will be crafted. Career civil servants, lawyers expert in constitutional law, medical experts in palliative care, advocates for terminal illnesses, advocates for disabled groups, nursing groups........ These will all be consulted by these civil servants.

And regardless of what party is in power eventually, within the time frame proposed by the court, a new law will be proposed and debated.

Existing laws in other countries will be studied and compared to our constitution.

This is a good thing for the small group of people who are in overwhelming pain. Most of us will have no use for this law, like most of us dont use many of the laws on the books.

And perhaps we will see situations where courts will step in to decide on competence. I would expect that as part of the law. That would help health care providers who do feel that rich old granny is being pressured by greedy families. Certainly as a nurse i am aware that nurses can have a very interesting insight into family dynamics. So i expect there may be a set up of testimony and witnesses surrounding the decision

And at the endof this process we can feel pleased that we are trying to show compassion for those who need it.
 
RitaTG said:
Kimmo ..... from here on in I will leave your comments be....
Obviously you do not understand the word "subset" nor do you seem to be inclined to.
I am hurt by your assertion my use of the word was bigoted and further discussion with you will only cause further hurt.
There is no value in that and no positive path forward from what I can see.
Click to expand...

(RitaTG --- "bigoted" :LOL::LOL::LOL:)
 
And so work will be done to ensure that

We have competency hearings all thetime regarding mental health committments. Regarding power of attorneys rulilngs.

Ethics committees in hospitals meet often to discuss individual patients.

Rules will be established

The sad part is that a mentally incompetent person, such a daisy janes son Matthew will not qualify. He will endure pain

The majority of patients in hospital, in my ICU experience , die from withdrawal of treatment. Some die from sudden cardiac arrest but it is far more common that the patient or family of the patient meet to discuss the lack of future hope.

The elderly fade away often due to weakness and refusal to eat

Treatment is stopped, ventilators turned off, ivs discontinued. Families say good bye


This will cover that small group of people who are existing in a painful limbo. Waiting for death because there is nothingto turnoff
 
Pr. Jae said:
So again Cousin - I go to the questions which on another thread you chose not to answer - are the disability rights groups truly representative of all persons in Canada who have disabilities. Who comprises these disability rights groups and what exactly is their agenda.
Click to expand...
Learn for yourself. Here, Jae:

http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/about/

Provincial CCD member organizations. Have a look at each:

http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/about/members

And one of the oldest and largest most respected groups representing people with developmental disabilities - who are opposed to LAS:
http://www.cacl.ca/about-us/history
 
I'm feeling like several people here are bigotted by refusing to look at PWD rights concerns through a PWD rights lens, as per the issues they are raising, rather than a mainstream lens.
 
Kimmio said:
Fair enough. What needs desperately to be addressed is what, if anything, constitutes unbearable suffering for those who do not have a terminal illness.
Click to expand...


Maybe and Maybe not. The Supreme Court use the terms "grievous" and "irremediable" it also clearly set those terms into the case brought forward (Carter v. Canada) which involved a terminal illness.

That is specific and that is important because it provides additional context which help to define how those terms are applied to any individuals seeking Physician Assisted Death. Granted that may be more implicit understanding at this point in time. The various legal jurisdictions have the ability to make that implicit understanding explicit through legislation.

If the same ruling had been delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada in which terminal illness was not a factor I expect that the ruling would have been dramatically different.

Kimmio said:
And one thing that's disconcerting is that the CMA, the body governing the physicians who will assist suicides doesn't even have a definition of an irremediable condition
Click to expand...

While possibly true I doubt that they do not understand the meaning of the word irremediable which dictionary.com defines as: not admitting of remedy, cure or repair. Again given the Supreme Court ruling and the context of the case they were asked to rule on this points very strongly towards terminal illnesses to which there can be no remedy, cure or repair. It would seem that what becomes a significant issue is whether or not palliative care for the illness in question exists to a degree sufficient enough to mitigate the pain of the patient.

Kimmio said:
and without a disability rights commission it looks like it's now up to them and politicians to determine one without consulting broad research and recommendations of an official body representing PWDs concerns themselves. Which is a breach of human rights. Without a disability rights commission there's nothing to ensure they will weigh PWD concerns in their definition. They don't at this point, in their definition of disability as it is.
Click to expand...

Possibly, possibly not. Again the Supreme Court did not strike down the prohibition they struck down the absolute nature of the prohibition The little door that they did open looks for specific benchmarks terminal illness being one of them. The Supreme Court did not strike down the protections for individuals considered vulnerable to inducement. Which means the protections for individuals vulnerable to inducement still exist.

While I do agree that Canada can and should do more to help persons with disabilities I do not believe that the Supreme Court declaration is equivalent to throwing persons with disabilities under a bus in either a figurative or literal sense. Nor has anybody made a compelling case that persons with disabilities are at greater risk to being murdered by family members because of the Supreme Court declaration.
 
Last edited:
OMG

This is not PWD rights issue kimmio

I think everyone hear agrees that discrimination against any group or "subset" as rita said is wrong

Women, b lacks, men, wasps, jews, muslims, people with disabilities, new immigrants, gays, transgendered, youth, poor........

And if they are mentally competent and meet all the criteria for assistance with death , then they can ask.

And unlike your wishes,just because a terminal brain cancer patient also has CP doesnt make them inellegible. That would be discrimination. And cruel

You and i could have the same thing, be equally in pain, but i can ask for help because i am able bodied and you can't? That is the definition of discrimination
 
Pr. Jae said:
Let's bring back the guillotine.
Click to expand...

Here's a couple of other choices to consider ---



Not for today - I realize. However - a question arises - if people are to have the right to request assisted suicide - should they also have the right to choose how said suicide is carried out.
 
Lastpointe said:
OMG

This is not PWD rights issue kimmio

I think everyone hear agrees that discrimination against any group or "subset" as rita said is wrong

Women, blacks, people with disabilities, new immigrants, gays, transgendered, youth, poor........

And if they are mentally competent and meet all the criteria for assistance with death , then they can ask.

And unlike your wishes,just because a terminal brain cancer patient also has CP doesnt make them inellegible. That would be discrimination. And cruel

You and i could have the same thing, be equally in pain, but i can ask for help because i am able bodied and you can't? That is the definition of discrimination
Click to expand...

Oh FFS, if a person with CP had terminal brain cancer it's the terminal brain cancer that's the issue. CP has nothing to do with it. If they were prevented because they had CP that would be discrimination and cruel. If CP being 'irremediable' was considered a reason for them to die - that would be discrimination and cruel.

...OMG yes it is a PWD rights issue!
 
My expectation would be a medical overdoes of morphine. Puts you to sleep and stops your respirations while you are asleep

But that is a point, the prisons in the usa are having difficulty with capital punishment. They are having trouble getting the meds.

So i would not expect some sort of death cocktail but a more generic use of strong pain killers.

My dad died that way in London. There was no hope and we elected to allow him to die

The term we used to use was to "snow" someone. Give them so much morphine that they fell asleep like people in a snowbank

I actually felt guilty because my dad was in a coma and it was our decision. Based on our knowledge of how he lived. I will admit that I had more than one conversation with my minister about my feelings

Death is not easy. And it shouldn't be
 
ok ... moving on to what should be in the new law....
For this post I am not dealing with the determination of competency .... I will comment on that later.
For now let us assume the competency requirements are met....
In regards to determining if the person is entirely serious about the request for assisted suicide.
I feel that the benchmarks for assessing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria would be a useful model.
Insistent ...... consistent .... persistent ......
Those are the words that I would suggest should be in the new law.
Once again ..... competency determined first ..... and that a separate discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top