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
revjohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I so agree

There will be a rush to define the issue in black and white terms. That may not be helpful at this juncture.
Click to expand...

i dont think this topic will ever be black and white, nore will it ever be easy discuss
 
revjohn said:
Which is fair. Your reaction is your own. I was correcting your assertion that the UCCAN has taken a position. We have not.
Click to expand...
The FEBCC has not taken an official position on this either - but I imagine I can guess how this news will go down in the majority of Fellowship churches. And I imagine John you can do the same for UCCanada congregations.
 
Kimmio said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is a grossly inaccurate and unfair description of the drivers to latimer 's decision
 
Pinga said:
That is a grossly inaccurate and unfair description of the drivers to latimer 's decision
Click to expand...
He said it was because she was in pain. I think her disability was inconvenient for him or too hard for him and he was selfish had no right to kill her. None whatsoever. He was found guilty and I think that was a fair decision. Now...cases like that might slide by.
 
Kimmio said:
He said it was because she was in pain. I think her disability was inconvenient for him or too hard for him and he was selfish had no right to kill her. None whatsoever. He was found guilty and I think that was a fair decision. Now...cases like that might slide by.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and think it's wrong. To blame it on diapers and a mouth to feed is completely different though.
 
Having had family in such a position where this would alleviate so much suffering I support it.
Is is moral ...... I feel it is immoral to let a person suffer so terribly and not allow them relief.
This is not a slippery slope ..... the ruling is quite clear .....
Are we not able to deal with these things as sane and reasonable adults?
To avoid something because it is difficult and uncomfortable is in my opinion .... a cop out...
By the way .... we have already done this quietly for decades.
Have we not all seen a family anguish over "pulling the plug"?
Or the withdrawal of feeding etc and let a person starve to death?
Now to me ..... that is far more immoral.....
 
I've been for this since I first heard about it in elementary school. If people don't want it, then they can wait to die. I think it's just way too difficult to state that it's wrong for everyone, in every situation. How does one know that?
 
Kimmio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kimmio - I don't know all UCC policies, I dont attend Conference or General Council. I dare say that there are some I disagree with. I have had arguments about policy at the local level, and occasionally I vote against or abstain from voting on issues at Presbytery. Was your question intended as an insult - I read it that way.

I have not studied the bill in detail - not being a medical person or a lawyer I am not sure I would understand all the terminology. That is why I said that I hoped there were checks and balances. Dont you hope so
 
Kimmio said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that this bill is about ADULTS deciding for themselves.
 
The ruling is quite clear that it only applies to adults and the person must be able to make their own decision.
Also .... the requirements for the severity and prognosis of the disease are very stringent.
Very high ... safe ... sane bars to have to reach
 
Seeler said:
Kimmio - I don't know all UCC policies, I dont attend Conference or General Council. I dare say that there are some I disagree with. I have had arguments about policy at the local level, and occasionally I vote against or abstain from voting on issues at Presbytery. Was your question intended as an insult - I read it that way.

I have not studied the bill in detail - not being a medical person or a lawyer I am not sure I would understand all the terminology. That is why I said that I hoped there were checks and balances. Dont you hope so
Click to expand...

Yes, I hope so. I am sorry, I did kind of snap at you. This topic is a sore spot and when I heard the Moderator on the radio wondered how much his views have influence over the denomination and assumptions of the public on the church's direction/ position. Because he is the strongest spokesperson. I like him a lot but I strongly disagree about this.

I just think there are checks and balances not mentioned or considered that should have been long before this bill got passed. How did mental distress get included? They should be argued for more strongly than the bill itself to make sure they are adequate.
 
Seeler said:
Kimmio - I don't know all UCC policies, I dont attend Conference or General Council. I dare say that there are some I disagree with. I have had arguments about policy at the local level, and occasionally I vote against or abstain from voting on issues at Presbytery. Was your question intended as an insult - I read it that way.

I have not studied the bill in detail - not being a medical person or a lawyer I am not sure I would understand all the terminology. That is why I said that I hoped there were checks and balances. Dont you hope so
Click to expand...
Reading this over, I don't think there's a specific bill in place, that still needs to occur.
The ruling only applies to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering who clearly consent to ending their lives.
The court has given federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands until then. If the government doesn't write a new law, the court's exemption for physicians will stand.
Click to expand...
 
I stand corrected. Even so...it starts down a slippery slope whereby people could decide for others - like Latimer did - on "compassionate" grounds. And still...the mental anguish bit is disturbing.
 
Kimmio said:
I stand corrected. Even so...it starts down a slippery slope whereby people could decide for others - like Latimer did - on "compassionate" grounds. And still...the mental anguish bit is disturbing.
Click to expand...
Actually I will bite on that Kimmo......
There should be something in the new law for making the decision on behalf of a family member that has become incompetent but has expressed the wish clearly in writing beforehand. Something along the lines of the "DNR" ... Do Not Resuscitate order.
That would be reasonable.
 
RitaTG said:
Actually I will bite on that Kimmo......
There should be something in the new law for making the decision on behalf of a family member that has become incompetent but has expressed the wish clearly in writing beforehand. Something along the lines of the "DNR" ... Do Not Resuscitate order.
That would be reasonable.
Click to expand...

That's different. But what scares me is the idea that someone could be in mental/ emotional pain and presumably a doctor could agree to end their life. Or could decide physical pain is too much and give up too soon - why does a doctor get to help decide that?
 
Kimmio said:
Or could decide physical pain is too much and give up too soon - why does a doctor get to help decide that?
Click to expand...
Give up too soon for what? Shouldn't it be an individual's decision when they get to give up? Should they be forced to go on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top