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
Seeler said:
Chansen said: "The latest was the sobering realization that a new bill might delay suicides, as people will be secure that it is an option that will exist even when they are not able to do it themselves."

Chansen, do you realize that you are agreeing with something I posted??? Ha ha
Click to expand...
I will happily support ideas I agree with, no matter who posts them. Always have.

Your post resonated with me because I can picture it. It makes perfect sense. It follows that if one is committed to not going down a known bad road, they will intentionally run themselves off the road while they are still able. If the option exists to allow a professional to help later, they may very well choose to stick it out longer, and not go for the messy and/or dangerous DIY option.
 
There are so many counter points I could make, about the Vermont law (not hard enough to access) about Chansen's premise - but it doesn't matter. As long as disability is misdefined, whatever they do with the law is going to be beginning from a false premise.
 
Was there a definition of Disability in the court ruling? I thought it was just mentioned as a possible reason for accessing

You dont like the ruling, and people who have disabilities who support the opportunity to get a law developed are wrong, in your mind.

You are fighting the wrong fight
 
Lastpointe said:
Was there a definition of Disability in the court ruling? I thought it was just mentioned as a possible reason for accessing

You dont like the ruling, and people who have disabilities who support the opportunity to get a law developed are wrong, in your mind.

You are fighting the wrong fight
Click to expand...
It wasn't spelled out but the context in which it was used - as a reason for access -misdefines it (either that or blantantly disregards that PWD have human rights as a protected group). If you read anything I wrote about that you might see that.
 
I understand the concern about PWD. It is a significant concern. At the same time, opposing the entire ruling based on that is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it?
 
Northwind said:
I understand the concern about PWD. It is a significant concern. At the same time, opposing the entire ruling based on that is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it?
Click to expand...
Well, no. You can't build a law that implicates an entire protected minority group in it's premise and expect the law will be just.
 
Kimmio said:
There are so many counter points I could make, about the Vermont law (not hard enough to access) about Chansen's premise - but it doesn't matter. As long as disability is misdefined, whatever they do with the law is going to be beginning from a false premise.
Click to expand...


But you say it is mis defined. It isnt

You are interpreting how it is used. Or perhaps misinterpretting it.

You are all tied in knots about a definition that isn't actually there.

We all get that you are concerned.

It doesnt matter that it is included. All the court has done is say that the blanket prohibition is unconstitutional.

That a law is needed.

How the law gets drafted is what is important now.

The law may be broad or narrow. It may be liberal or not. It will have tons of input from tons of groups. The same groups that have already petitioned the court in their deliberations as well as others i suspect.

These 1300 plus posts are because you didnt like a definition that in fact was not there. Is that correct?
 
Lastpointe said:
But you say it is mis defined. It isnt

You are interpreting how it is used. Or perhaps misinterpretting it.

You are all tied in knots about a definition that isn't actually there.

We all get that you are concerned.

It doesnt matter that it is included. All the court has done is say that the blanket prohibition is unconstitutional.

That a law is needed.

How the law gets drafted is what is important now.

The law may be broad or narrow. It may be liberal or not. It will have tons of input from tons of groups. The same groups that have already petitioned the court in their deliberations as well as others i suspect.

These 1300 plus posts are because you didnt like a definition that in fact was not there. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Explain to me why you think it is not misdedined, or is properly defined.
 
It doesnt really matter what i think

The court gave, in my mind, a few examples of people who might choose to use the service.

I expect to imply that the law isnt to just focus on those terminally ill butconsider a wider scope.

But, i am not a lawyer and parsing words in a court ruling is their baliwick not mine. Or yours

I just cant believe we have talked about this through 1300 posts because you dont like a definition that isnt there.
 
Because I think people with disabilities are unjustly implicated and that puts lives in danger, it is worth all the posts in the world.

Not to mention it sets back human rights for PWDs by 30 yrs. I can see that some attitudes never caught up in the first place which makes it even scarier.
 
@Northwind I am a little confused as to how you can agree that there is a significant concern for PWDs but not see how the word was used and how that premise jeopardizes PWDs - who all have "irremediable" impairments - or how it is an insult to recent human rights achievements for PWDs. We defined disability as used in human rights law. That's just it. We did it. This ruling takes it back 30 years and defines who we are for us in the context that the ruling class prefers to see us as - sick and ill, and intolerable and should rather be dead than live with disability.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
@Northwind I am a little confused as to how you can agree that there is a significant concern for PWDs but not see how the word was used and how that premise jeopardizes PWDs or how it is an insult to recent human rights achievements for PWDs. We defined disability. That's just it. This ruling takes it back 30 years and defines who we are for us in the context that the ruling class prefers to see us as - sick and ill, and should rather be dead.
Click to expand...

Yet also, there has been 30 years. PWD will not take any threat to them lying down. I get that there is concern that PWD would be "lumped" with illness. At the same time, I agree with Lastpointe's last few posts, especially:
Lastpointe said:
It doesnt matter that it is included. All the court has done is say that the blanket prohibition is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I do not want to live in a world where the government has so much control over my life that they can determine how I die. That may also be very well what you are saying.

The ruling class/government can believe what they want about us. Do we want to accept their views or do something constructive? To me, saying this ruling takes rights back 30 years is exaggerating and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Now the laws can be created to hopefully protect those at risk. I hope.
 
It's not exaggerrating. There's little more important than life and death decisions and you're right PWDs aren't going to take it lying down - I'm not and the rights groups are justly upset. And I hope adequate solutions get worked on. It may be unconstitutional to tell a person how to die but it's also unconstitutional to require that a doctor to do it when their job is to heal. Maybe there should be a seperate class of assisted death practioners in the medical system. Doctors have already said they have the right to refuse based on conscience. It is even more unconstitutional to implicate a minority group of people as being a reason to die, though.
 
Last edited:
Northwind said:
Yet also, there has been 30 years. PWD will not take any threat to them lying down. I get that there is concern that PWD would be "lumped" with illness. At the same time, I agree with Lastpointe's last few posts, especially: I do not want to live in a world where the government has so much control over my life that they can determine how I die. That may also be very well what you are saying.

The ruling class/government can believe what they want about us. Do we want to accept their views or do something constructive? To me, saying this ruling takes rights back 30 years is exaggerating and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Now the laws can be created to hopefully protect those at risk. I hope.
Click to expand...

Canada only ratified the UN Convention in 2010. It was 30 years in the making and evolved incrimentally to that point. Now - with this - a significant crash. Or, shows that not even the Supreme Court is caught up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top