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
Ummmm .... Pontifex ...... the conversation is over here.....
The right for a competent adult with such serious medical conditions that are not going to get better.
I have seen a loved one writhing in pain praying for the end because all the pain medication no longer works.
How about we focus on that????
 
RitaTG said:
Ummmm .... Pontifex ...... the conversation is over here.....
The right for a competent adult with such serious medical conditions that are not going to get better.
I have seen a loved one writhing in pain praying for the end because all the pain medication no longer works.
How about we focus on that????
Click to expand...
We can't just focus on that or else there will be people who slip through the cracks.
 
Kimmio said:
I agree that anybody contemplating suicide is disabled in some way. Severe mental suffering IS a disability.
Click to expand...
Ummmm .... Kimmo ..... just maybe they are contemplating suicide because their disability has become insufferable?
 
Um, @Rita we have to look at all the factors that influence a person to feel that way and that perhaps society is at fault for not addressing that suffering. If it is only a matter of impairment=diagnosis=disability and measuring suffering only in terms of that there .are serious gaps and people who could've been better helped will die
 
Kimmio said:
We can't just focus on that or else there will be people who slip through the cracks.
Click to expand...
Good grief!!!!! ...... if we want to totally eliminate "slipping through the cracks" then we have to eliminate DNRs and remove the decision making power for a family to terminate life support.....
Yes we can and do need to focus on the competent person who is suffering terribly and wants to die....
That is why the supreme court struck down the existing law and set benchmarks for a new law to pass muster.
My loved one deserved the right to make such a decision and it was not available.
 
Kimmio said:
Um, @Rita we have to look at all the factors that influence a person to feel that way and that perhaps society is at fault for not addressing that suffering. If it is only a matter of impairment=diagnosis=disability and measuring suffering only in terms of that there .are serious gaps and people who could've been better helped will die
Click to expand...
Kimmo Kimmo Kimmo ....... that is exactly what the supreme court addressed when they set the benchmarks for a new law.
 
Kimmio said:
We can't just focus on that or else there will be people who slip through the cracks.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, it is primarily because the blanket prohibition was found to lead to undue suffering for some that the blanket prohibition was struck down. Though to be technically correct we should say it will be struck down since the declaration is currently under suspension.

Again, the protections for the vulnerable were not nor are they about to be struck down.

In essence what the Supreme Court is looking for is legislation which will permit individuals to be exempted from the proihibition.
 
@Rita the danger is in others not intervening when a mentally competent person who is not dying chooses suicide because the help they needed was either not available or not medical, therefore, not a factor in the prognosis. I am not arguing that terminally ill people should suffer. They should not.
 
Kimmio said:
I am not arguing that terminally ill people should suffer. They should not.
Click to expand...


And yet the legislation as it stood did lead just to that. It was also this argument which was ultimately compelling in the declaration made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is calling upon the various levels of Government to determine how individuals can prove that they fit this criteria.
 
Kimmio said:
@Rita the danger is in others not intervening when a mentally competent person who is not dying chooses suicide because the help they needed was either not available or not medical, therefore, not a factor in the prognosis. I am not arguing that terminally ill people should suffer. They should not.
Click to expand...
Kimmo ..... once again .... the supreme court made it quite clear that any law must place the decision in the hands of the individual. The benchmarks are designed to filter out a number factors before the person qualifies to make such a decision.
Not only does the person have to want it .... they have to meet a number of requirements to qualify.
 
revjohn said:
And yet the legislation as it stood did lead just to that. It was also this argument which was ultimately compelling in the declaration made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is calling upon the various levels of Government to determine how individuals can prove that they fit this criteria.
Click to expand...

Various levels of government. Like the ones who designed the disability tax credits forms and the ones who have cut human rights tribunals and the ones who have decommissioned disability rights commissions even though the UN has stipulated that is part of signing the convention? Think about that for a few minutes before being settled that those levels of government won't leave any cracks. Not a conspiracy theory, but an important oversight.
 
For goodness sake Kimmo ...... that is exactly the sort of thing that has to be determined in the process of drafting a new law!
That is what comes now ..... drafting the new law .....
The right has been determined and that is that ...... the benchmarks that a new law has to achieve have been set.
I would suggest your work .... and mine ... is to help make sure the new law addresses the concerns as carefully as possible.
But understand this .... the right has been determined ..... now we need to work to implement the right correctly.
 
Right. But there won't be any time to make sure that a disability rights commission is in place first. Only de facto coalitions like the rights groups. Whose concerns are being ignored.
 
Kimmio said:
Which authoritative experts get to determine the requirements? Perhaps consider that is why the disability rights groups are nervous.
Click to expand...

Politicians will ultimately be responsible for crafting the legislation. If the politicians who seek to craft this particular legislation follow the typical pattern for such work they will consult with various medical folk and more than a few lawyers.

If that gives one pause then I invite individuals to consider it was more or less the same politicians who put the previous legislation in place.

Why did we trust them with that and not trust them with this?

If I have read the papers correctly there is at least one private members bill waiting to address this particular issue. Because of this there may not be any consultation period (private members generally do not engage in broad consultation on issues) so the best thing to do is to write your MPP with your concerns.

For more oomph do not send an electronic letter. That generally prompts an electronic response which politely informs you that your MPP thanks you for your time and is taking your opinion under advisement. This is where good old fashioned snail mail still has a slight edge.

To assist your MPP in reaching a decision it is best to use small words and short sentences. Not because MPP's are stupid but rather because they have to read a lot of stuff.
 
Kimmio said:
Right. But there won't be any time to make sure that a disability rights commission is in place first. Only de facto coalitions like the rights groups. Whose concerns are being ignored.
Click to expand...
Well Kimmo .... you can sit in the corner all dejected and mutter about conspiracies and such or you can come and sit at the table and contribute to the work ahead in a meaningful way.
In my experience .... we are far more capable of affecting things when we go about it with the right attitude and in the right way.
 
Kimmio said:
Think about that for a few minutes before being settled that those levels of government won't leave any cracks.
Click to expand...

I have. And to be frank the reason why the Supreme Court ruled as it did was because the previous legislation was absolute and not nuanced.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not say "anything goes" nor did it say "open season on the disabled" That may be what some have chosen to hear that was not, as a matter of fact, actually said.

Currently the prohibition is absolute. No one may have a physician assist them in their suicide. The Supreme Court has said that the absolute prohibition cannot be allowed to stand because individuals in certain rare situations have made a compelling case to have an exemption to the prohibition. An exemption which you have recently agreed should be accessible.

So now the Governments are tasked with shaping how that exemption works. Those who do not meet the criteria for exemption will not be given leave to have a physician assist them in committing suicide. Those that the current legislation defines as being vulnerable to inducement will still be considered vulnerable to inducement meaning they will not be able to access the exemptions any new legislation creates.
 
If there are no disability rights commissions and less access to human rights tribunals people with disabilities are already disadvantaged as this goes to the table. @Rita what you suggest is what I am doing right now - asking people to help me and others as this proceeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top