Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Mendalla]

But there is nothing to stop the government (whoever that may be) from eliminating disability in the law and if someone challenges that in court, pulling out the convention as part of their defence. IOW, the court's word is not final here. The government can, and will, put forward a law that it believes meets both the needs and wants of Canadians and then defend it before the court if someone questions it.

Good recent example: The new prostitution law passed late last year does not, in the minds of many legal experts, meet the tests set by the Supreme Court in its decision of December 2013. However, the government still passed it and it is now the law of the land. If it is challenged in court, the government lawyers will no doubt have arguments prepared to show that it does meet the tests set in the December 2013 decision that struck down sections of the old law and there is legal justification for any abridgement of rights in the law.

The law arising from the decision on physician-assisted suicide could easily be handled in the same way.

 

[Northwind]

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/r...cal_Timeline_for_People_with_Disabilities.pdf

So, does this ruling now mean we can practice eugenics, discriminate against PWD in employment, etc?

I studied a lot of this history while I was in university because I was originally working with people with developmental disabilities. I also know that we ignore history at our peril.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So, does this ruling now mean we can practice eugenics, discriminate against PWD in employment, etc?

I studied a lot of this history while I was in university because I was originally working with people with developmental disabilities. I also know that we ignore history at our peril.

No. Not yet. But it signals a slippery slope back in that direction if attitudes get planted rendering the achieved definition of disability moot - and if people were to accept the understanding that being a person with a disability is a reason to die.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

This is UN's definition of Disability. Canada adopted this, after a long struggle on behalf of the PWD community, in 2010, by ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is also the World Health Organization's understanding of Disability.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/faqs.htm#definition


The is the convention that the above definition applies to:

https://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150

 

[Spirit Wind 7]

I suppose we all have an opinion...that is human. And each view is different as unique individuals having different backgrounds, experiences on our journey, So, I expect many views from angles to be carefully addressed in each & every case. Will that happen? It is our job to make sure it does in our own territory, where we work & serve and pray, and play.

It will bring a higher consciousness for us I think. We are up to it. I believe life is gift given by a loving Creator, who has no issues with us. We are the ones with issues of how to deal with God. From an unconditional love for every tiny bit of what was and is, and will be,
I have to say God accepts us.

I do not believe God created suffering, we did that. Nor do I believe, God wants us to suffer. From that I can consider that my life, my gift of life, is to be as free to be at peace as I can make it. We have a world that affects us, people affect our lives and cause suffering, yet to suffer because other people say you have to is unacceptable to me.

And yes, precautions must be taken to keep people safe from greedy people, and people with influence must hold themselves in check. Or someone will need to step in.

To keep clients safe, even a banker asks in private is this you making this decision? Or do you feel pushed to do it? If people have a Living Will they can make these decisions well ahead of the probable need to even think about it. Mine is signed by doctors and witnessed. Your Power of Attorney for Personal Care becomes your advocate. Pick wisely to find a person who knows you, and can understand your wishes. Doctors should be advising people along lines because they are the ones who will need to act accordingly...even now they do that. I think I am safe is saying that no one wants to linger, or be in pain. And no one else has your pain, you don't have theirs. How can I comment as to how you..should.. leave this life. Much, much more respect for the closing of life is sorely needed.

The Creator I worship has no thoughts of reprisal... these are human ideas that limit God. God's love is unlimited and we cannot fathom its vast and holy grasp of who we are... beloved in spite of ourselves.

As for doctors.... how is it that they can gently assist us into the world, yet not assist us gently out of it?

Death is not the end, nor the enemy, many think it is. Fear is too obvious in this. Life as sacred allows good beginnings and good endings. That wold be a sacred closing. And for us a good beginning again.

It is our choice, base it on respect and love and knowing life and death are a cycle, not to be feared but revered.
Both birth and death were part of the energy of creation, right from the start. Be not afraid.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

What about people who want to live who probably feel pain "and must be suffering" in the eyes of others. The thing that still sticks in my craw is that they way some people with disabilities live full lives is seen as suffering and a reason to die for others with similar inpairments and that really disgusts me - because it is not just a matter of choice, it is a matter of how that shapes prejudicial attitudes towards living. I suppose some would say even I have 'suffered' everyday of my life - I have had tightness, muscle spasms, lots of falls, discrimination from others - has been depressing at points - someone with my condition more severe than me probably have had significantly more pain and I have met so many lovely people, but some others just look at them and think "I couldn't live like that it's just too awful. I wouldn't want others to stare at me (the way I stare at them). I could never be happy like 'that'." and that really makes me angry. Why should they not learn to deal with their condition and be happy to be alive? Who says we're entitled to not go through such trials in life?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

As I've said, I have CP and I'm ambulatory with a cane. If I get stiffer or more pain from wear and tear, I may need a walker, then a scooter or wheelchair at some point as I age. Maybe I'll need help with bathing and dressing and toileting younger than most people- maybe by my 60s instead of 80s. It's possible. How 'undignified'? I don't think so. Maybe giving up is undignified. There are other conditions that are non-fatal that people can acquire that manifest similarly and the attitude that they couldn't live like that actually makes me angry. It upsets me. It devalues me as a person with a disability trying to struggle for equality while others think they'll just give up because to have a life like mine is so unworthy of living. I am angry with people like that.

 

[Mendalla]

As I've said, I have CP and I'm ambulatory with a cane. If I get stiffer or more pain from wear and tear, I may need a walker, then a scooter or wheelchair at some point as I age. There are other conditions that are non-fatal that people can acquire that manifest similarly and the attitude that they couldn't live like that actually makes me angry. It upsets me. It devalues me as a person with a disability trying to struggle for equality while others think they'll just give up because to have a life like mine is so unworthy of living. I am angry with people like that.

To be honest, though, @Kimmio I'm not sure there's any malice or intentional devaluation there. They simply cannot comprehend what it is to live differently from how they are. They likely say the same thing about hunter-gatherers or homeless people or monks. There's ignorance and lack of compassion, but that should be an opportunity for a teachable moment, not anger.

I get your point, @Kimmio, but I'm not sure these people all merit your anger. Some, maybe even many, but not all.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I know it's not always intentional, or even often, but it is ignorance. And I suppose those are the same people who would stare at me, talk down to me, or look at me with pity or assume I can't enjoy life or am not a whole person with anything to contribute - or couldn't view me as a healthy person despite mobility challenges.

 

[Delightful Life]

I know it's not always intentional, or even often, but it is ignorance. And I suppose those are the same people who would stare at me, talk down to me, or look at me with pity or assume I can't enjoy life or am not a whole person with anything to contribute - or couldn't view me as a healthy person despite mobility challenges.

i grok

all of which you can't make laws against -- ideas & thoughts aren't illegal -- that's already been tried time & time again...you also can't legislate how people have to interpret someone, think of someone, how someone thinks of their own life (what is enough suffering, what is undignified for them, how happy they are, what they find to be happy, what they like & dislike, what they find to be disgusting & absolutely wonderful, which all can be different for each person, and so forth...) and so forth...

well, there are a few places where they still try to make certain ideas & thoughts illegal...North Korea, for one...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No. You can't make thoughts illegal, but you can make laws that challenge prejudicial and discriminatory thought processes and don't allow them to become systemic. Right down to speed limits - some may think speeding is just great, but of they do choose it there are possible consequences. You could say speed limits help to preserve the life and liberty of others despite personal preference.

 

[Justme]

You have to be careful though - employment equity had some really negative consequences for some of the groups that it was supposed to help and while some of them may have been protected on some levels the day to day discrimination was pretty brutal (there were a lot of young white men who were bitter about not qualifying for jobs because they had been designated for ee groups and often those people who got the jobs were held to higher standards and faced discrimination - I think we have heard of that with some women in the RCMP).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You have to be careful though - employment equity had some really negative consequences for some of the groups that it was supposed to help and while some of them may have been protected on some levels the day to day discrimination was pretty brutal (there were a lot of young white men who were bitter about not qualifying for jobs because they had been designated for ee groups and often those people who got the jobs were held to higher standards and faced discrimination - I think we have heard of that with some women in the RCMP).

We don't have employment equity like in the US - and I agree it was a failed model in some respects.

But this issue takes discrimination to a life or death level, in terms of how people are seen and valued. Not just a workplace value. Although some believe that human capital in the workplace is the only value an individual's life has. That's how I feel about the heavy focus we've chosen to take on PWDs and employment with regard to human rights. There are other things worth living for.

 

[Delightful Life]

but you can make laws that challenge prejudicial and discriminatory thought processes and don't allow them to become systemic.

You can try; but it has failed, after having been tried time & time again.

It's called Totalitarianism*. Or a religious Theocracy. And they fail time & time again and have produced the most misery & sheer violence & human death for humanity ever.

You can make laws that deal with ACTIONS, not thoughts.

Agape has to be voluntary. The change has to come from within the people themselves, not forced on them from outside.

Why should they not learn to deal with their condition and be happy to be alive?

Because their thoughts & interpretations and what they like & dislike etc are not your thoughts etc etc etc? You don't get to determine that if a PWD is unhappy with their condition, that it is because of 'systemic discrimination'. Only the particular PWD gets to determine (is 'competent').

* various systems of governance (like Communism & Marxism) have tried to treat human beings as a blank slate -- an open book upon which to write any behaviour. steven pinker shows why that doesn't fit the actual facts

the TL;DR version in wikipedia

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I am not against human rights in the workplace, but the onus has been placed not with the employer to adjust expectations, but on PWDs to live up to them. And if they can't, then again, their lives diminish in value.

 

[Delightful Life]

I am not against human rights in the workplace, but the onus has been placed not with the employer to adjust expectations, but on PWDs to live up to them. And if they can't, then again, their lives diminish in value.

do you care to elaborate further for us ignorant folk? diminish in value? how is that determined? onus on PWDs to live up to human rights in workplace???

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You can try; but it has failed, after having been tried time & time again.

It's called Totalitarianism*. Or a religious Theocracy. And they fail time & time again and have produced the most misery & sheer violence & human death for humanity ever.

You can make laws that deal with ACTIONS, not thoughts.

Agape has to be voluntary. The change has to come from within the people themselves, not forced on them from outside.



Because their thoughts & interpretations and what they like & dislike etc are not your thoughts etc etc etc? You don't get to determine that if a PWD is unhappy with their condition, that it is because of 'systemic discrimination'. Only the particular PWD gets to determine (is 'competent').

* various systems of governance (like Communism & Marxism) have tried to treat human beings as a blank slate -- an open book upon which to write any behaviour. steven pinker shows why that doesn't fit the actual facts

the TL;DR version in wikipedia

Yeah. I do get to determine that. Just look at the stats and how unequal we are in terms of measuring up to norms. You don't get to tell me anything, because you're trolling me again.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Laws put in place to recognize inequality have shifted attitudes over time.

 

[Delightful Life]

Yeah. I do get to determine that. Just look at the stats and how unequal we are in terms of measuring up to norms. You don't get to tell me anything, because you're trolling me again.

I am not trolling.

I was referring specifically to your

Why should they not learn to deal with their condition and be happy to be alive?

You do not get to determine for these PWDs that they should learn to deal with their condition and be happy to be alive.

No one does but the person in question.

 

[ChemGal]

What about people who want to live who probably feel pain "and must be suffering" in the eyes of others. The thing that still sticks in my craw is that they way some people with disabilities live full lives is seen as suffering and a reason to die for others with similar inpairments and that really disgusts me - because it is not just a matter of choice, it is a matter of how that shapes prejudicial attitudes towards living. I suppose some would say even I have 'suffered' everyday of my life - I have had tightness, muscle spasms, lots of falls, discrimination from others - has been depressing at points - someone with my condition more severe than me probably have had significantly more pain and I have met so many lovely people, but some others just look at them and think "I couldn't live like that it's just too awful. I wouldn't want others to stare at me (the way I stare at them). I could never be happy like 'that'." and that really makes me angry. Why should they not learn to deal with their condition and be happy to be alive? Who says we're entitled to not go through such trials in life?

Maybe giving up is undignified. There are other conditions that are non-fatal that people can acquire that manifest similarly and the attitude that they couldn't live like that actually makes me angry. It upsets me. It devalues me as a person with a disability trying to struggle for equality while others think they'll just give up because to have a life like mine is so unworthy of living. I am angry with people like that.

Everyone deals with a situation differently. The way I see this it isn't about choosing for another, devaluing another, or applying the same circumstances to the same level of suffering. You're the one who's really generalizing here.

I can rate two types of pain as the same level of pain intensity, but I can still tolerate aching pain of the same intensity better than nerve pain. For someone else that can be the opposite. It doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

Why is it so wrong for one person to have a different tolerance than another? Why should everyone have to deal with their condition if they are suffering and for them there is no way to stop that other than death? What gives you the right to decide that for another?