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
Something like Alzheimer's might be akin to terminal illness. I understand that. But, even when a person's personality changes - supposing a person gives consent to assisted suicide, at what point is their life not worth living - is suffering based on what others think their personality should be - is it based on how much others suffer the changes to their loved one? We have to make laws that respect the right to live without others projecting what a valid life should look like.


Depression is not a terminal illness - and according to the article Northwind posted, and ones I have brought up - laws such as Belgium's are unconscionable to me (and many). People will be depressed but it is not a doctor's job to end their lives even if that's what they feel they want in the midst of depression. To take the easy route of giving them death vs giving them hope cannot happen - doctors should be denied licences for that. There are so many chronic illnesses that may be depressing, cause suffering when one loses hope but that doesn't have to be acceptable to us as a society. That cannot happen here or we've lost hope in life as a country.
 
Last edited:
I do think Belgium's law is something our politicians will be working to avoid, to be honest, if only because it keeps being held up as an example of assisted suicide gone too far.

The problem with Alzheimer's and this ruling is that the court has ruled the person has to be competent to give consent and Alzheimer's patients may be past that point when it becomes bad enough to qualify.
 
Mendalla said:
I do think Belgium's law is something our politicians will be working to avoid, to be honest, if only because it keeps being held up as an example of assisted suicide gone too far.

The problem with Alzheimer's and this ruling is that the court has ruled the person has to be competent to give consent and Alzheimer's patients may be past that point when it becomes bad enough to qualify.
Click to expand...
That's a quandry that's out of my depth - all I can say is I hope they are encouraged to live as full a life as they can while they can and not to succumb too soon.
 
Another disappointing thing is how little has been brought up in the MSM about how this could affect PWDs. I read about concern about including disability in the ruling from disability rights activists early on, weeks ago, but nothing since. So, for most of the public, they haven't even thought about it. It's a non-issue.
 
Kimmio said:
That's too bad because the social model is the UN and WHO internationally recognized one so get used to it.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is the definition of disability PRESENTLY being used by WHO. The WHO revises its definitions of disability regularly. My guess is that as academic circles increasingly critique the social model of disability as lacking nuance about embodied disability and suffering then the definition will also be critiqued. Similarly, in a Canadian context, which is what matters here, the social model of disability is NOT the only model despite what you wish to suggest. Other models of disability helpfully add to the conversation.

Your exclusive focus on the one model not only demonstrates its specific problems, but also demonstrates the problems associated with pinning an argument on ONE model that lacks nuance.

So, the upshot, I wouldn't get too used to it.
 
Kimmio said:
I don't think it does, daisyjanes. By limiting focus on the suffering of the body you negate the exacerbation of the suffering by social factors. Harder to live with pain or discomfort if you are social isolated, no care supports, and nothing to look forward to - and if others are projecting their understanding of suffering onto you (or sometimes dumping their suffering onto you making you feel like a burden) and you internalize it. I think that creates a situation, whereby alleviating suffering by all means available (except death), at least lessening it to where one can have a quality of life - becomes less a priority. I'm sorry but I don't want a bunch of freakin parliamentarians defining how much suffering is too much. Can't trust em as far as I can throw em.

In another thread - John posted a video of Amanda - now many of us before hearing her speak with the help of a computer - would not recognize that she did have a rich world to her own liking - a quality of life - and that she was thinking and communicating. She obviously had a place to live and people to carw for her. But if she were to internalize what "normal" people consider quality of life- that includes healthcare providers and staff in social services - she, or people with other severe disabilities might assume their lives were not worth living. Luckily Amanda is strong and confident about her own worth as a human being.
Click to expand...

And by focusing exclusively on the social model of disability you minimize, or worse, completely overlook, the suffering that is inherent to the body. Yes, suffering can be exacerbated if you are alone and poor. No argument. But, sometimes suffering is present in an embodied form that is overwhelming even in the face of good supports.

Disability is a for more complex "thing" that you want it to be. As I have said before, and will say again, by reducing it to ONE definition you limit a serious and nuanced conversation.
 
Kimmio said:
Why ridiculous, chemgal? I left off the word 'syndrome' but why ridiculous to aknowledge person before the condition and why brush it of with such arrogance? Because this angle on disability rights is new to you and too much to be bothered with? I get that feeling, and not mostly from you.
Click to expand...


And just add the "person first, disability second" conversion is being critiqued in some academic circles. So yes, it is new, but we need to remember that this stuff is all fluid and subject to ongoing revision.
 
Last edited:
Northwind said:
I think I understand now. Only someone with a disability can have an opinion about the issues and disagreeing with someone who has a disability is part of the oppression and discrimination. There is only one way to define a disability and all persons with disabilities should be hired regardless of their physical abilities. Otherwise, they are being oppressed.

Have I got that right? :confused:
Click to expand...

It seems that way, and that even if you live with serious disability as a caregiver your opinions are suspect.
 
My problem with simply focusing on one model is that it seems to disempower rather than empower people. I am well familiar with anti-oppressive theories, which seem to feed this model. I absolutely recognize the structures in society which make our world easier to navigate for some. I am also familiar with the medical model. It can also disempower.

When the focus is on the oppressive forces, it is easy to take a victim stance and blame outside forces for problems. It is easy to forget the nuances of a problem for instance, has the unemployment stat been examined to discern who among the unemployed are actually unemployable?

We also have to facilitate change, and part of that is recognizing the strengths of individuals and groups within the system.
 
What I do like about the medical model is it's holistic approach and that each person and their particular diagnosis and circumstance should be viewed on an individual basis.
 
Waterfall said:
Would you please tell us what the other models are?
Click to expand...

Hey Waterfall

There are numerous models of disability and to list and define them all here would take forever. If you google "models of disability", particularly in Google Scholar, you would get a sense of the range.

To name a few there are:
- the rights based model of disability
- the expert model of disability, contrasted with the empowerment model of disability
- the economic model of disability
- the tragedy-charity model of disability (common in religious circles)
- the moral/religious model of disability
- the rehabilitation model of disability


This list only names a handful, and I will admit that while I am familiar with the spectrum (come to think of it, that is a model as well I believe!!), I am not well-read in all. I have done a fair bit of reading in the areas of the social model, medical model, rehab model, tragedy-charity model, moral/religious model. Even authors who espouse one particular model over another acknowledge other models relative their position, and identify limits to their discussion.

In my opinion, some of the themes of the models listed might be similar to ideas encountered in the social or medical model of disability, but the upshot, to me, is that disability is a very complex idea. It is not reducible to this dichotomy of medical/social. To reduce conversations around disability to one particular model or definition really limits conversation.

I think we also need to remember that this conversation is about suffering (which MAY include disability), but to devolve it to exclusively disability, and in particular the social model of disability, really restricts a fair and nuanced understanding of an incredibly complex discussion.
 
Last edited:
DaisyJane said:
Please remember that there are more than two models of disability.
Click to expand...
the critiques won't be accepted by the disability rights community. Funny, you put it down but all the accessibility and ALL the human rights progress was made possible because of the social model.
And the social model is being critiqued by 'experts' who want to reign in control - they don't quite like people with disabilities defining themselves. The social model does not negate personal impairment and the need for medical treatment but it does level the playing field and make society responsible for addressing discrimination.

It's not a case of 'pick and choose your favourite model'. The social model is it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top