Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Waterfall They die legally - but not justly. Belgium. Way too lenient. I posted a video several pages back. I think the subject of the video with depression could've been helped. Something was going on there with her that wasn't getting addressed. Neglect? I don't know but all she said to her family was "Bye". Someone in the background said "sleep well" and she was dead in minutes. She was physically well. Very sad.

 

[chansen]

I was referring to what I perceive is your fear of doctors hunting down and killing people with disabilities.

I think that would look like The Hunger Games, but probably set in a more accessible environment, like a shopping mall.

 

[Jaebius]

In my historic novel I have an elderly Inuit woman decide to walk away from her family encampment at a time of famine, and on another occasion a family deciding at his request to leave behind a man with a broken leg when he would slow down the family as they travel to their winter hunting grounds. In neither of these cases did they require assistance -- but if they did, would you suggest that they should be allowed to choose this method of death and have someone assist them in moving away from the group and facing certain death by exposure or starvation?

Seems as valid as being injected with something or being given something to drink. What difference - if any - do you see? Perhaps there would be more dignity for someone in dying in the ways you suggest here - if that is culturally or otherwise relevant to them - than in being shot in the arm by a doctor.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But you have nothing on that. The above is just you, talking and dismissing the sort of personal story that you often use to back up your arguments.

Nobody is buying what you are selling. Maybe try changing how you sell it?

So you don't agree he's a career politician? Why does his disability have to have anything to do with his motivations?

 

[Waterfall]

Seems as valid as being injected with something or being given something to drink. What difference - if any - do you see? Perhaps there would be more dignity for someone in dying in the ways you suggest here - if that is culturally or otherwise relevant to them - than in being shot in the arm by a doctor.

A long slow death, waiting for infection to set in, dehydration......not pretty.

 

[Jaebius]

A long slow death, waiting for infection to set in, dehydration......not pretty.

Death is often not pretty. We do death an injustice I feel by demanding it be clean and sterile.

 

[Delightful Life]

fighting back against the fiendish euthanizers!

 

[chansen]

So you don't agree he's a career politician? Why does his disability have to have anything to do with his motivations?

Why doesn't his understanding of disability have anything to do with his motivations?

You quickly and easily see your side of things, even with only conjecture on your side. Anyone who doesn't is somehow evil.

 

[chansen]

Death is often not pretty. We do death an injustice I feel by demanding it be clean and sterile.

It doesn't have to be messy and painful and drawn out. We can do better than that. We don't have to approach this like Mother Teresa.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Why doesn't his understanding of disability have anything to do with his motivations?

You quickly and easily see your side of things, even with only conjecture on your side. Anyone who doesn't is somehow evil.

Who's his boss? Someone known for compassion for social issues?

 

[Waterfall]

Death is often not pretty. We do death an injustice I feel by demanding it be clean and sterile.

I'm thinking pain free, not a sterile death. We are in an era that it is possible.

 

[Waterfall]

Kimmio, you urged me to contact the nurses association for my answers. What are your plans to ensure justice for your concerns?

 

[revjohn]

People don't get it.

Or perhaps we do get what the concern is but we don't agree that the concern is warranted.

Don't care about the concerns of a bunch of raving adults with disabilities "out of our gourdes".

Are you painting us all with the same brush or are you attempting to punish everyone for the comment of one?

Thousands of us scared by this wording.

I get that. What I don't get is why. From what I am hearing you are interpreting the declaration as open season on persons with disabilities. Your fear influences you. It does not shape me. The law that was appealed was an absolute prohibition the remedy is to put a door in that prohibition and that is what the Supreme Court has declared. You appear to interpret the declaration as a complete and utter reversal where everyone is granted access for whatever reason. That is not what the declaration says. Nowhere near what the declaration says.

Disability is unconstitutionally included.

If so then there will be an appeal to determine that.

I don't think that the inclusion is unconstitutional nor do I think that the inclusion means persons with disabilities are now more at risk. Competency will still need to be determined and I expect that without clear guidelines from any jurisdiction doctors are going to be reluctant about participating in such discussions because participation, without defined guidelines leaves physicians open to charges which would not have a legal framework for adequate defence.

Nobody gets it. Nobody cares.

Keep telling yourself that. We disagree. If you need us to be ignorant that is your need and not necessarily anything near reality. If you need us to be cold-hearted that too is your need and not necessarily anything to do with reality. Again, I am not governed by your fear.

Lots of people are used to having or feeling like they have ownership over people with disabilities.

Which may be true. Of course if comepetence needs to be determined to request a physician's assistance in dying they won't be testing my competence unless it is me making the request. If you don't think persons with disability can meet a threshold of competence then they won't be getting access to that kind of assistance. If you think persons with disability can meet the threshold of competence then you need to be discussing with those people why they shouldn't be seeking that kind of assistance.

And if you think that the able-bodies are just hanging around waiting for a chance to get rid of differently abled individuals that is really your prejudice and not ours.

The social and rights model gives us a voice. Throwing back to the antiquated medical model definition in this ruling stifles that voice. You don't get it. If there was a Disability Rights Commission - as stipulated by the UN - that would not have happened. Disability would not be included as a reason to die. People are going to die from this, unjustly.

A Disability Rights Commission would not be dictating the rulings of the Supreme Court to them. So such a commission would not be the safeguard you claim it to be.

Disability is not listed as a reason to die.

Disability is listed as a reason why to door may be opened to consider a request. It is by no means the guarantee for such a request being honoured.

You won't believe that to be the case which is fair.

You will simply insist that your fear and your prejudice should be allowed priority over any objection.

Believe it or not I am open to listen to concerns about the legislation. I haven't been given any that I feel are valid.

Nobody, for example, has quoted the ruling and said, based on the arguments this is what the Supreme Court means. Nobody.

What I have heard is fearful reaction and I don't respond to panic. It generally is not well informed.

I'm not putting anyone on ignore.

I'm not claiming anyone is out of their gourd.

I can't stop you for being angry at me because others have done that.

I can assure you that I don't find that compelling or convincing and if you really want me to "get it" then you are going to have to do a far better job of explaining it so that I can understand it because I don't find your fear or your interpretation of the ruling compelling one way or another.

If you want me on your side try respecting that I think differently than you do instead of trying to bully or shame me with your emotional response.

 

[chansen]

Who's his boss? Someone known for compassion for social issues?

Not every Conservative MP is evil. Not one of them is pure evil, not even the PM. I don't like them, but there is some selective compassion, even in their ranks.

It's not black and white. Almost nothing is. You seem to want it to be.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Not every Conservative MP is evil. Not one of them is pure evil, not even the PM. I don't like them, but there is some selective compassion, even in their ranks.

It's not black and white. Almost nothing is. You seem to want it to be.

I never said he was evil but he's a conservative career politician. There is nothing about that job that requires him to care about disability rights. Being quadriplegic doesn't require him to care about disability rights.

We had a mayor a few years ago, before the current one, who was paraplegic and the disability community was upset with him for not hearing the concerns of PWDs living marginalized. A lot of people had high hopes, looked up to him. He ignored the poverty concerns. He was interested in schmoozing with big players and playing politics and getting ready for the Olympics. That was his career. Not disability rights activism. He was a lot into accessibility but not a lot of the other challenges people deal with. A lot what he did was quite elite. A totally different angle than those struggling on the margins with disabilities.

 

[Waterfall]

If it makes you feel any better Kimmio, it is my understanding that most terminally ill people have chosen good palliative care over assisted suicide in countries where it is legal.

 

[Delightful Life]

I never said he was evil but he's a conservative career politician. There is nothing about that job that requires him to care about disability rights. Being quadriplegic doesn't require him to care about disability rights.

We had a mayor a few years ago, before the current one, who was paraplegic and the disability community was upset with him for not hearing the concerns of PWDs living marginalized. A lot of people had high hopes, looked up to him. He ignored the poverty concerns. He was interested in schmoozing with big players and playing politics and getting ready for the Olympics. That was his career. Not disability rights activism.

Sam Sullivan founded 6 not-for-profit orgs that help out the disabled...yeah, definitely a total a**hole there...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Sam Sullivan founded 6 not-for-profit orgs that help out the disabled...yeah, definitely a total a**hole there...

The Disabled Sailing Association helps so many who don't have affordable housing! They can get yacht club memberships and sleep in their boats

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

He did a lot for physical accessibility, but not for poverty.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

What Sullivan did was lay the ground work for retiring boomers to live in Vancouver - who will be acquiring disabilities, by making Vancouver ultra accessible. Not terrible at all but not what many in the PWD community hoped he might address as well.