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
What is this world coming to ???????

Here is a good one for those who want to come back after they pass on -----you can now have your body frozen or parts of your body so when they find a cure you can come back -----it only requires a one time fee -----

Woman, 23, has her head frozen so she can be reborn after a cure for her brain cancer is found - against the wishes of her religious family

ByJAMES NYE
PUBLISHED:04:23 GMT, 25 January 2013|UPDATED:11:29 GMT, 25 January 2013


Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rn-cure-brain-cancer-found.html#ixzz3Rksp8ZzH
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook


A dying young woman has decided to place her faith in science and have herself frozen after her death until a cure is found for her brain cancer.

Kim Suozzi, 23, of St Louis, ignored the wishes of her religious family and decided to have her head placed in cryogenic storage after she entered into the final stages of her life.
Diagnosed with an aggressive form of Glioblastoma multiforme, Kim died on January 17th and spent the final two weeks of her life at a hospice n Scottsdale, Arizona, so that she was near to the cryopreservation center that she chose.

A facility such as Alcor Life Extension Foundation, where Kim's head is now stored, chraves up to $70,000 for neuropreservation and whole body preservation can cost up to $200,000.

Cryonic preservation freezes legally-dead people to liquid nitrogen temperature to stop physical decay. People undergo it in the hope that future technology will exist to revive their bodies and restore them to good health.
 
unsafe said:
What is this world coming to ???????

Here is a good one for those who want to come back after they pass on -----you can now have your body frozen or parts of your body so when they find a cure you can come back -----it only requires a one time fee -----

Woman, 23, has her head frozen so she can be reborn after a cure for her brain cancer is found - against the wishes of her religious family

ByJAMES NYE
PUBLISHED:04:23 GMT, 25 January 2013|UPDATED:11:29 GMT, 25 January 2013


Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rn-cure-brain-cancer-found.html#ixzz3Rksp8ZzH
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook


A dying young woman has decided to place her faith in science and have herself frozen after her death until a cure is found for her brain cancer.

Kim Suozzi, 23, of St Louis, ignored the wishes of her religious family and decided to have her head placed in cryogenic storage after she entered into the final stages of her life.
Diagnosed with an aggressive form of Glioblastoma multiforme, Kim died on January 17th and spent the final two weeks of her life at a hospice n Scottsdale, Arizona, so that she was near to the cryopreservation center that she chose.

A facility such as Alcor Life Extension Foundation, where Kim's head is now stored, chraves up to $70,000 for neuropreservation and whole body preservation can cost up to $200,000.

Cryonic preservation freezes legally-dead people to liquid nitrogen temperature to stop physical decay. People undergo it in the hope that future technology will exist to revive their bodies and restore them to good health.
Click to expand...
Did she have her whole body frozen or just her head? Nevermind, just her head. She'll be waiting longer that way ;)

'It was explained to me that the cyropreservation was more successful if it was just the head. I can`t tell you why, I just know what they are really after is the brain,’ she said
Click to expand...
*sigh* Maybe for preservation, but somehow I doubt that's the case for typical functioning.
 
Last edited:
unsafe said:
What is this world coming to ???????

Here is a good one for those who want to come back after they pass on -----you can now have your body frozen or parts of your body so when they find a cure you can come back -----it only requires a one time fee -----

Woman, 23, has her head frozen so she can be reborn after a cure for her brain cancer is found - against the wishes of her religious family

ByJAMES NYE
PUBLISHED:04:23 GMT, 25 January 2013|UPDATED:11:29 GMT, 25 January 2013


Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rn-cure-brain-cancer-found.html#ixzz3Rksp8ZzH
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook


A dying young woman has decided to place her faith in science and have herself frozen after her death until a cure is found for her brain cancer.

Kim Suozzi, 23, of St Louis, ignored the wishes of her religious family and decided to have her head placed in cryogenic storage after she entered into the final stages of her life.
Diagnosed with an aggressive form of Glioblastoma multiforme, Kim died on January 17th and spent the final two weeks of her life at a hospice n Scottsdale, Arizona, so that she was near to the cryopreservation center that she chose.

A facility such as Alcor Life Extension Foundation, where Kim's head is now stored, chraves up to $70,000 for neuropreservation and whole body preservation can cost up to $200,000.

Cryonic preservation freezes legally-dead people to liquid nitrogen temperature to stop physical decay. People undergo it in the hope that future technology will exist to revive their bodies and restore them to good health.
Click to expand...
On what religious grounds did they object?
 
Justme said:
Maybe because it's a "God awful lot of money"?
Click to expand...
yuppers, sounds like a statist t'me

"stop eating your pie. i want pie."

:3

(warren ellis did a fun riff on someone waking up in the future from cryogenics...its in his Transmetropolitan comic book series, specifically "another cold morning", issue #8...)
 
Mendalla said:
Slippery slope arguments rarely bear fruit in my experience. The Gwen Jacobs decision on whether women could go topless in public spaces in Ontario (which still stands, by the way) was supposed to be a slippery slope leading to all sorts of public hedonism being legalized (it happened in Waterloo so I was there for it and remember the fuss) and I have not seen any evidence of it after almost 25 years.

Your argument assumes a right has been granted to doctors to decide when to end a person's life. But that's not what was said. A right has been granted to competent patients to decide when to end their own life with the support of a physician. And the government has been told that they can regulate it. So I would suggest that any such alarmism about this decision is misplaced until we see that regulatory regime.

As I and others have said to Kimmio, instead of spouting alarmism on the board and elsewhere, try getting involved in a lobbying effort. The government has a year to come up with new legislation and there will be an election within that year (probably) so it's a good chance to bring some pressure to bear on politicians and make them aware of these issues and concerns before they draft the legislation (or get in put in the position of doing so).
Click to expand...

This is significantly more serious than toplessness about a group of people that hasn't had human rights for very long. They've just been rolled back in a significant way.
 
The thing about sociopolitical and attitudinal slippery slopes is they don't get noticed by the maistream until it hits near bottom and the attitudes are entrenched. History teaches us that. And then people go : "oh s**t why didn't we think of that?"

And the reason why it's important for the mainstream to be aware sooner rather than later is the disability rights 'voice' needs their help.

Putting disability, and mental suffering and ambiguous words about a person's perspective of what's intolerable according to their circumstances - and not limiting the ruling to be about terminal illness leaves dangerous perceptual cracks.
 
And I don't doubt that after a few years, the government bureaucrats won't be looking at the accounting sheets to see where the cost savings are. They have x number of people opting for assisted death instead of feeding tubes, and then x number of people who live on disability welfare with feeding tubes, money going to personal care aides - and then figuring out what costs less. And all this information is being crunched in a centralized data base... You know IBM made the computers - old punchcard systems - that counted the people who were exterminated in WW2? People in the offices didn't really understand the scope of things they just crunched the numbers. And people with disabilities were the first to go. Government programs that supported doctors to euthanize disabled patients. We are on a slippery slope. It just doesn't look that way to those who are secure, maybe to those who could provide for their adult children. They're safe. They have the priveledge to choose death without being pushed to the margins without options to live.
 
Last edited:
revjohn said:

I don't know how the wording indicates a resolve to terminate anyone.

I don't see how opening the door for some means open season on all.

I've met some doctors I'd describe as incompetent. I'd be surprised if any of them responded to a request from anyone for physician assisted death with "Please let me do it." I simply cannot fathom any doctor not actually exploring why such an option is being requested. Most Doctors I have dealt with won't prescribe anything stronger than an anti-biotic without satisfying themselves that I need it. If i were to walk into the office and request enough opiates to kill myself with I expect I wouldn't simply be handed them.

And I don't think that is impacted any by whatever definition of disability is in play. It is impacted by who a doctor is.

I nearly lost a leg because of one doctor.

He was negligent certainly but he wasn't hanging over the bed saying without the leg I might as well be dead.

You fear.

I don't.

You read the declaration as a death warrant.

I don't.

You believe that economics is now reason enough to kill someone.

I don't.

I don't find you convincing.

You don't find me convincing.

You've said several times you should walk away from this conversation yet you never do.

I can. So I will.
Click to expand...
There is no 'resolve' to terminate anyone. Just ambiguous wording that doesn't take people with disabilities as a distinct protected group into account, that also includes anyone deemed to be "suffering" with a disability - and leaves the responsibility to interpret the ambiguity up to doctors (and bureaucrats). It is a slippery slope not an open season call.
 
I never thought I'd agree with Stockwell Day on anything, and I definately disagree with Trudeau, so unless he shows awareness for the negative nuances of this ruling he will lose the potential for my vote. And Mulcair's opinion remains to be seen - he's pushing it under the carpet for now. Read the below and make of it what you will. It's written heavily biased on the 'pro' side. Conveniently ignoring the implications of the ruling going beyond terminal illness - so, IMO, all those who anticipate their deaths in the next couple of decades - the boomers with the most influence - are in favour of it. They think it's all about them and are content to ignore the gaps, and the slippery slope it creates for others. Of course they are.

One of the things that stands out for me are the points at the end of the article, about worldwide drug shortages. So, again budgets and costs of keeping people who need them alive for longer - are by default, implicated in this ruling.
I don't think poor people with disabilities will be getting first dibs on those drugs. Especially now that healthcare systems are being designed to make drugs affordable for seniors (aging baby boomers?) but there is less and less public will to do things to help people who are not seniors but who are disadvantaged.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/13/...suicide-ruling-would-be-difficult-to-subvert/
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...tor-assisted-suicide-raises-ethical-concerns/
Click to expand...

I saw this article. I'm not going to "like" it because it's biased. I refuse to believe that tough to treat cases of depression are irremediable - or at the very least, the degree to which people suffer could be made much, much less. They just may not be remediable by conventional medical means and non-social medical bias alone. That's why it is dangerous to leave the crafting of the laws, giving the ability to honour a suicide request, in the hands of doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats alone, and not other non-medical fields.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
Noone said they need to get to that stage. But people with disabilities can live well with disabilities. Their lives lost value with this ruling.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand you, medically assisted death with dignity is ok for some, but not for others?
 
I'm not understanding why people can't seem to distinguish between murder and suicide.

Kimmio, what if it was absolutely illegal for anyone with a disability, past or present, to avail themselves of this law. As Seeler said, to specifically ban assisted suicide ONLY for PWD. Would that make this right for you?
 
@BetteTheRed Take the word 'disabilities' out. Take non-terminal illness and mental suffering out. People with disabilities acquire terminal illness on top of their disabilities as well - that becomes a different choice. I don't believe it should be legal for a person living with a disability that is not terminal to request help to die from a doctor. The doctor has a duty to help people live, and can refer them to resources to help them live better with their disabilities, along with the best medical options to live better. But disability does NOT=impairment or disease... disability=impairment+attudinal, systemic and environmental barriers->discrimination. Which is what this ruling does. This ruling disrespects human rights law protecting people with disabilities - a group of people that fights for the right to lead adapted lifestyles WITH DIGNITY - from potentially deadly discrimination down the slippery slanted road that they just got off of in about 1982. Actually I think people were still being abused in institutions into the 90s.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
@Seeler

Click to expand...


Kimmio, I watched the video. It does not change my mind. As one who has a progressive, incurable, non-fatal disease I fear the suffering that I might experience over a long period of time (Parkinsons does not kill, it just slowly but surely destroys). I would welcome any legislation that might make it easier for me and my family when I decide that my life has no more meaning for me. Until now I have looked at the possibility of passive methods such as refusing medication or nourishment - now I can hope for an easier way - WHEN AND IF I CHOOSE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top