I think RevJohn might be a bit overconfident that what needs to be considered is covered. Just in case - considering Eva in Belgium (subject of the PBS video) -I won't take his word for it
Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning
- Thread starter blackbelt1961
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
I think RevJohn might be a bit overconfident that what needs to be considered is covered. Just in case - considering Eva in Belgium (subject of the PBS video) -I won't take his word for it
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The decision actually covers nothing beyond overturning the current law for a specific set of circumstances. If you are really concerned about how this will apply to the real world, then start lobbying your MP. The court is finished with this file. There will be no change to its decision. The matter is now in the hands of the politicians and doctors and the present government, given its strong conservative base, will likely try to make the legislation as tight as possible.
Can you clarify what you mean by "I can't bear knowing"? I'm not sure what that means.
It really should be in more hands than politicians and doctors. Disability studies professors, sociologists...And groups representing the concerned voice of people with disabilities through a rights commission as stipulated by the UN that being signatories to the convention, we are obliged to appoint to have input into matters of the state that impact them.
Last edited:
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.
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."
Two things I've been saying. Things to be considered as this proceeds.
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.
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."
Two things I've been saying. Things to be considered as this proceeds.
Fair enough. What needs desperately to be addressed is what, if anything, constitutes unbearable suffering for those who do not have a terminal illness. 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 - 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.
Last edited:
Void
Member
It must be difficult to craft a law to cover all situations, when likely, every imaginable (and unimaginable) situation will be unique. I'm sure the underlying theme is mercy. Will you leave this in the hands of politicians and lawyers? Here's a thought, instead of trying to imagine all the instances where it might affect you, imagine that YOU need to write this law. It is not just for you, it should cover all people in Canada, all those yet to emigrate here, and of course, all those not yet born.
Challenge to Wondercafe2:
Sit down and think about it. Then, instead of arguing about every possible `bad' situation, imagine what words are needed to cover all situations. Bonus points for brevity.
Void
Member
There seems to be a lot of bright and educated people here. (Citation needed). Rather than `discussing' this topic, how 'bout we come up with some solutions? A novel and radical idea, perhaps, but it seems to me a bit more useful. I'll even start, here.
Don't kill without mercy and preferably with consent. Go.
Don't kill without mercy and preferably with consent. Go.
Mercy...but not pity. Because pity tends to be vicariously determined (i.e. "if I was them I could never live like that...poor thing")
First I would want to clarify consent, then. With consent definately, not preferably with consent. At what point/ stage is it given, and at what point might it be no longer required (should it ever be no longer required)? Exactly how is competency to give consent determined?
First I would want to clarify consent, then. With consent definately, not preferably with consent. At what point/ stage is it given, and at what point might it be no longer required (should it ever be no longer required)? Exactly how is competency to give consent determined?
Last edited:
Welcome. You 'sound' vaguely familiar.
Differentiate mercy from pity first as well make sure that's clear. (need to craft this with a fine toothed comb)
A small abstract that might shed some light on some of the disagreement in this thread:
http://jcb.utoronto.ca/tools/documents/jcb_seminar_15sep2010.pdf
This page goes into the questions a bit more:
http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Resource Topics/Disability.html
This explores in more detail the conflict between disability rights and bioethics (which the medical model of disability is based on):
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/2008-ConflictingValues.pdf
In order to craft any just laws, and language around them, I think these conflicting views need to be aknowledged - because they are almost different languages - and the disability rights perspective given more weight at the table than it currently is:
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/2008-ConflictingValues.pdf
http://jcb.utoronto.ca/tools/documents/jcb_seminar_15sep2010.pdf
This page goes into the questions a bit more:
http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Resource Topics/Disability.html
This explores in more detail the conflict between disability rights and bioethics (which the medical model of disability is based on):
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/2008-ConflictingValues.pdf
In order to craft any just laws, and language around them, I think these conflicting views need to be aknowledged - because they are almost different languages - and the disability rights perspective given more weight at the table than it currently is:
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/2008-ConflictingValues.pdf
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
What we keep going back and forth on this thread though, is that the disabled are not the focus of what the supreme court said.
They struck down the existing law. Rules need to be established. Groups will weigh in. The RNAO has published a letter today with suggestions. Lots of groups, who are involved in end of life care will weigh in. If a disability rights groups, that is involved in end of life care , wants to , they too will have a Voice.
The supreme court outlined a need for a new law to look at how we help people , who wish help , with end of life. That is all.
No one is forcing, and we have the benefit of seeing some examples of how other countries have tackled this. Good and bad examples
It is a modern phenomenom. In the past, if you got really sick , you died pretty quickly. Now, with advanced medical care, you are saved from imminent death but then languish while your body slowly dies. No quick death now
We all get that your focus is the disabled group.
If, you, at the end ofyour life, develop brain cancer, extreme suffering and pain, then you too will be able to ask for assistance, should you want it. Provided that you meet the yet to be established criteria.
Instead of the fear that people are going to be killed at a whim, i would more be concerned that access will be an issue.
Its easy in big cities, admittedly where most of us live, to access healthcare. But as we have seen with abortion in this country, it depends on where live
In small communities, with limited health options, and no psychiatrists or therapists, what will be the options?
They struck down the existing law. Rules need to be established. Groups will weigh in. The RNAO has published a letter today with suggestions. Lots of groups, who are involved in end of life care will weigh in. If a disability rights groups, that is involved in end of life care , wants to , they too will have a Voice.
The supreme court outlined a need for a new law to look at how we help people , who wish help , with end of life. That is all.
No one is forcing, and we have the benefit of seeing some examples of how other countries have tackled this. Good and bad examples
It is a modern phenomenom. In the past, if you got really sick , you died pretty quickly. Now, with advanced medical care, you are saved from imminent death but then languish while your body slowly dies. No quick death now
We all get that your focus is the disabled group.
If, you, at the end ofyour life, develop brain cancer, extreme suffering and pain, then you too will be able to ask for assistance, should you want it. Provided that you meet the yet to be established criteria.
Instead of the fear that people are going to be killed at a whim, i would more be concerned that access will be an issue.
Its easy in big cities, admittedly where most of us live, to access healthcare. But as we have seen with abortion in this country, it depends on where live
In small communities, with limited health options, and no psychiatrists or therapists, what will be the options?
I would erase your "preferably." Consent _must_ be obtained first.
They may not be the focus but because the Supreme Court did not stipulate terminal illness and because disability involves people who are often marginalized in society living with chronic impairments this decision effects them as a whole and rights groups are rightly worried. They've been following the issue for years because they feel if assisted suicide of people with chronic impairments is acceptable their lives - being proud to live with impairment and pain and all - will be looked upon with less value. They see disability as natural and normal like race or gender and equality means quality of life for PWDs. It totally makes sense to me.
I'd recommend skimming through the last few links I provided above if you can. It might shed light on the concern maybe.
I'm wondering what the drug of choice would be for ending one's life. Or would it look more like the machines that are set up for those on death row? Would the doctors need "anonymity" like an executioner or is it preferable to "know" the doctor?
Let's bring back the guillotine.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
Hello Void.
My contribution, though I might fail on the brevity part.
Disability and suffering are not the same thing. However, very severe disability can lead to profound suffering for some individuals. Individuals with severe, progressive conditions should have the right to clearly decide what constitutes unbearable suffering, and when and how very severe disability might impact that threshold. It goes without saying that social justice initiatives that create a more inclusive world are important and will, ideally, creates fewer situations where disability is viewed as synonymous with suffering.