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!
Membership is a matter of conscience. I have volunteered and worked for one, though, yes. I am inclined to trust them in their reasons for being worried.
But you told me that if I didn't join one of the groups that I was working against disability rights. Seems you apply different standards to yourself. Or does it just bother you that some people with disabilities don't jump on the groups' bandwagon.
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
which knocks free the association that somehow what humanity thinks up is somehow automatically less than whatever it is that exists without humanity ('objective', 'intrinsic meaning, purpose') -- which brings up the ultimate totalitarianism state -- that which can never be escaped or mitigated
of course, one can keep on thinking and not stop with the above excerpt on nihilism and eventually break through to a place where one comes to grok that what humanity creates can be as important as that which 'has intrinsic meaning'
we live in the worlds (and words and symbols and etc) that others have created for us...they aren't unchangeable and immutable...if only we can learn how to try on different worlds and words and etc and see what becomes real and etc and etc
Okay...membership in my mind means - self-identifying with the PWD community - get to know the work they do, help them out, stand with them, keep up with the issues, and if there is something that you feel they do that is not adequately addressing a concern for people with disabilities, bring it to their attention. Talk to them about it - as a person with a disability instead of being seperate from them altogether. They are advocates for all matters affecting the lives of people with disabilities, and in an effort to help them achieve equality. They are also run by people with disabilities.
The tie that binds PWDs as a distinct group is not impairment, specific or otherwise, it is disadvantage that is socially constructed by able bodied norms that they seek to overcome.
Here's another article about the opposing side of this decision featuring a Carlton University Student:
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10793102
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10793102
What's so f**king wrong with the court decision is that the word "disability" was included in the ruling - and that it was included alongside disease and illness. Equating disability simply with illness and disease. Even though the UN and the World Health Organization both aknowledge that disability is an interaction between an impairment and physical and social environment. It is not illness and disease. Without those external barriers it is not disability. Therefore disability and the social and environmental suffering - even though not part of a doctors job - will be reasons people feel they are a burden and might seek to kill themselves and this needs to be addressed. Rights advocates go so far as to say disability is a social construct - another reason the word should not be in the ruling. The use of the word disability in this ruling is a breach of human rights - from our charter to the UN. Thinking (of something Rita said re why transgender wasn't included) - disability actually shouldn't be included because then they might as well have used Caucasian or woman as a criteria. So, so, wrong and dangerous. Even more dangerous is how few people "get it" and all the supposed "progressives" who are happy and over-joyed about this for themselves, but are putting a population in danger by not aknowledging the danger is there.
Last edited:
Disability needs to be struck from the wording.
It almost sounds Cousin like you're likening assisted suicide to genocide.
No. But it is dangerous - it opens the door for careless deaths to happen - careless unjust deaths will happen because of this - and closes doors to possibility that people might get the help they need and learn to live well - and indeed expect to live well - with disabilities.
I'm actually curious as to how this will look down the road. Right now in hospice it is the nurses and the family that are with the clients at the time of their demise. Doctor assisted suicide? What will that look like in the future? An order handed to a nurse, or do you imagine that a physician will actually come to your home or a facility to do this? The reality now is that orders are given for those who are palliative and the nurse carries it through. The doctors are called to sign the death certificate. I'm wondering if it will be the nurses that actually come to one's home or wherever to do this? I imagine for many, they would prefer to die at home surrounded by family.
Whatever they prefer, I guess. I'm more concerned about the people who do not have terminal illness who will die because their lives aren't valued by themselves or society. Already, they're not. People aren't even aknowledging that the fears are real or that the dismay over the carelessness of the wording is justified. People who think they are so progressive and compassionate for supporting this current decision are only thinking of themselves and their possible moment of decision over their life. An elderly person in his or her final days I understand. People with disabilities "Nah. Not a concern. It's all fine." bulls**t. People are going to needlessly die and everybody thinks the decision is fine and they're not listening. It's really astounding.
Last edited:
Sure they do. But this unconstitutional ruling needs to be fixed - by new wording in the law -before docs or nurses are allowed to actually do anything, or consider what to do with patients. It's like building a house on a shakey and dangerous foundation.
Well there are many issues to work through. I just bring forward another. While I am not against the option of assisted suicide, I would prefer not to be the one to do it. There are probably many that feel the same way, and others that would be okay with it. Down the road, it will probably become "nurse assisted suicide" or maybe I'm wrong there?
Imagine the outrage if the wording had been "suffering due to disease, illness, and homosexuality" instead of "suffering due to disease, illness and disability" - what an unconstitutional outrage that would be. This is the same sort of disregard to a distinct group of persons under the law. Disregard to UN and WHO definitions and current understanding of disability ....calling all the "progressives", take note.
I think you can opt out due to conscience.
I'm sure they will be. Why not inquire?