Euthanesia to be authorized in Canada for mentally handicapped

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

And when you consider what real people are addicted to ... there's a diverse way of knocking the market down!

I'll back off ... I probably got off the thread as a thin line dividing those eligible and those not! Lionized?

What gets a lot of attention? Blood-drawn crowds ... powers fear their potential ... pray for of bit of it ... AH peace!
 
The article is confusing. On one side it says to make sure people are not suicidal, on the other they talk about fairness. The only thing I could think of is that they actually mean that an addiction would not be an excluding factor- looking at what the palliative doctor for the homeless is saying. If someone has a terminal illness and wants MAID, having an addiction should not exclude him.
Otherwise, what else is an addiction but a constant suicide attempt. So I wonder if this is more meant as addiction not being considered an exclusion rather than being the reason for MAID. But- the article is not written well enough to give the right information.
 
The article is confusing. On one side it says to make sure people are not suicidal, on the other they talk about fairness. The only thing I could think of is that they actually mean that an addiction would not be an excluding factor- looking at what the palliative doctor for the homeless is saying. If someone has a terminal illness and wants MAID, having an addiction should not exclude him.
Otherwise, what else is an addiction but a constant suicide attempt. So I wonder if this is more meant as addiction not being considered an exclusion rather than being the reason for MAID. But- the article is not written well enough to give the right information.

Freud spoke out on mortal suicide trends as folk had phobias about powers that lionized life itself as the only love ... and would retain it for their CIA their self centered idealization ... no Charon or Moe ns ... caterwauling in the dark ... groans! The insubstantial orders that people are placed into ... so their learning is interfered with ... it is a great story if not lengthy due to the stress imposed ... i'm*positioned ... and someone will shoot for the stars ... Musk ah?

Imagine the term dense and thick nebulae ... is there mores to life than life itself? A stretch of reality may diminish many dreams ...
 
The article is confusing. On one side it says to make sure people are not suicidal, on the other they talk about fairness. The only thing I could think of is that they actually mean that an addiction would not be an excluding factor- looking at what the palliative doctor for the homeless is saying. If someone has a terminal illness and wants MAID, having an addiction should not exclude him.
Otherwise, what else is an addiction but a constant suicide attempt. So I wonder if this is more meant as addiction not being considered an exclusion rather than being the reason for MAID. But- the article is not written well enough to give the right information.
The problem is actually putting it into the law at all. We have already seen how they keep moving the goal posts and when they do there’s hardly a peep from the mainstream public - they don’t seem to care about being lied to, or that any expanding groups of disabled people were lied to - with deadly consequences.
 
The problem is that it is not making the general public angry enough to speak up in numbers. They’re just saying “too bad, so sad”, which is not empathy. Once families and friends of mentally ill, drug addicted and involuntarily detained people start noticing their loved ones disappearing it’s too late. The plan is well underway. The public, fully endoctrinated …just sayin. With every expansion the public has adjusted their tolerance for people being killed. In Alberta a law was passed about involuntary detention of drug addicts. In, BC, Eby is expanding involuntary detention of people with serious mental illness and addiction but also bringing in more patient rights advocacy for those involuntarily held. I am not sure how that solves this problem though if they’re already involuntarily detained and have to have involuntary treatment.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, not talking about the MAID legislation at all, something had to be done to reverse the crisis caused by de-institutionalizing thousands of mentally ill people to no support. If that means re-institutionalizing some of the most ill, I don't know that that is entirely a bad thing. There are people who are pretty incapable of caring for themselves, ever, for a variety of reasons. IMO, this should be accomplished via attraction rather than force.
 
Under Muphy's Legitimacy this would give reason for Murph and the broom to take off to never.never land in the manipulated story of the Nestorians arising from the flight lesson ... in a flash they disappeared ....
 
In, BC, Eby is expanding involuntary detention of people with serious mental illness and addiction but also bringing in more patient rights advocacy for those involuntarily held.

There is evidence that "mandated" "treatment" is effective. I use quotation marks here because I'm not completely sure this fits in this category. Nevertheless, this has the potential to be helpful. Maybe.

.....something had to be done to reverse the crisis caused by de-institutionalizing thousands of mentally ill people to no support. If that means re-institutionalizing some of the most ill, I don't know that that is entirely a bad thing. There are people who are pretty incapable of caring for themselves, ever, for a variety of reasons. IMO, this should be accomplished via attraction rather than force.

There are people who are unable to live independently. They do though require humane, clean and comfortable homes.

I worked in three institutions and did a practicum at a provincial psych hospital. The first institution was purpose built. When I was there it had improved from its worst days. It has since closed. Only about 10% (at most) of the people living there needed total care available in a residential setting.

The second facility was a former TB sanitarium that had been turned into an institution for "the mentally retarded". One of the horrible labels that have been used for a broad group of people. Again, it was no place for humans to live. There was the potential to build more humane housing for the small percentage of people who needed it.

The third was newer and small. It was a place that could have been turned into a humane living setting for people who needed it.

Would we need MAID if we treated the most vulnerable in our society properly?
 
There is evidence that "mandated" "treatment" is effective. I use quotation marks here because I'm not completely sure this fits in this category. Nevertheless, this has the potential to be helpful. Maybe.



There are people who are unable to live independently. They do though require humane, clean and comfortable homes.

I worked in three institutions and did a practicum at a provincial psych hospital. The first institution was purpose built. When I was there it had improved from its worst days. It has since closed. Only about 10% (at most) of the people living there needed total care available in a residential setting.

The second facility was a former TB sanitarium that had been turned into an institution for "the mentally retarded". One of the horrible labels that have been used for a broad group of people. Again, it was no place for humans to live. There was the potential to build more humane housing for the small percentage of people who needed it.

The third was newer and small. It was a place that could have been turned into a humane living setting for people who needed it.

Would we need MAID if we treated the most vulnerable in our society properly?

Wha'??? That would cost something and the powerful would fear being overtaxed ... thus tax reduction schemes ... underhanded plots!
 
There is evidence that "mandated" "treatment" is effective. I use quotation marks here because I'm not completely sure this fits in this category. Nevertheless, this has the potential to be helpful. Maybe.



There are people who are unable to live independently. They do though require humane, clean and comfortable homes.

I worked in three institutions and did a practicum at a provincial psych hospital. The first institution was purpose built. When I was there it had improved from its worst days. It has since closed. Only about 10% (at most) of the people living there needed total care available in a residential setting.

The second facility was a former TB sanitarium that had been turned into an institution for "the mentally retarded". One of the horrible labels that have been used for a broad group of people. Again, it was no place for humans to live. There was the potential to build more humane housing for the small percentage of people who needed it.

The third was newer and small. It was a place that could have been turned into a humane living setting for people who needed it.

Would we need MAID if we treated the most vulnerable in our society properly?
MAiD is considered medical treatment now. We wouldn’t have track 2 MAiD if society cared. It would never have been allowed to pass. But despite the concerns raised people will look the other way for each slide down the slope, and then say “I’m glad it was an option for my grandmother” - when we’ve gone way, way past that.
 
In all fairness, not talking about the MAID legislation at all, something had to be done to reverse the crisis caused by de-institutionalizing thousands of mentally ill people to no support. If that means re-institutionalizing some of the most ill, I don't know that that is entirely a bad thing. There are people who are pretty incapable of caring for themselves, ever, for a variety of reasons. IMO, this should be accomplished via attraction rather than force.
It’s a very very bad thing with track 2 MAiD hanging over it. It’s the most corrupt domestic law Canada has had in decades.

We need more homes and better community care not institutions - and we still haven’t fixed the institutions to make them more humane first. So, then when society says it’s necessary it just sounds dismissive of lives, not helpful. The push is coming from rich constituents who want to clean the riffraff “out of sight out of mind” and who won’t notice or care who dies. I hope everybody else is capable of giving it more thought than that and considers the dark place it could go - so far though, the mainstream track record for critiquing track 2 MAiD has been dismally absent, which has allowed it to slide into further darkness.

It’s f’king mass mainstream insanity for people to normalize MAiD at this juncture in geopolitical affairs and it has been all along. Track 2 is corrupt. MAiD’s rise in popularity/ slippery slope, coincides with the rise in fascism since 2014. Coincidental or not (I think not) it’s not good.
 
Last edited:
The article is confusing. On one side it says to make sure people are not suicidal, on the other they talk about fairness. The only thing I could think of is that they actually mean that an addiction would not be an excluding factor- looking at what the palliative doctor for the homeless is saying. If someone has a terminal illness and wants MAID, having an addiction should not exclude him.
Otherwise, what else is an addiction but a constant suicide attempt. So I wonder if this is more meant as addiction not being considered an exclusion rather than being the reason for MAID. But- the article is not written well enough to give the right information.
On fairness remember that the concept really has too much slop.room? What is fair? What isn't fair? It really depends it seems (on things like the value system of the person talking aboot what is fair...)

Just like what are fair taxes? That is a tough one...

Unfortunately in Canada I think we have the wrong incentives. We aren't wise enough. There is still a sizeable portion of our country where people are obsessed with the Pandemic, raging against whatever nasty group (Freedom Truckers or the Nasty Mandates) there is.

We have to get more wise as a people first imho
 
I didn't say we needed warehouse-type institutions, but there's nothing terribly wrong with group home situations, with, say 4-20 residents and a suitable number and type of staff.
The solutions proposed need to come from disabled people and their representative organizations. Track 2 MAiD was never such a thing. But if it’s going to be fixed people would do well to listen to the calls made by disability groups.
 
The solutions proposed need to come from disabled people and their representative organizations. Track 2 MAiD was never such a thing. But if it’s going to be fixed people would do well to listen to the calls made by disability groups.
With the way things are going - the options being presented and acted upon (on our behalf by governments) are looking more and more like warehousing or death, and maybe both - for people with all types of disabilities.
 
People need to start caring that disabled people don’t want to live in institutions but that doesn’t mean they should die.

We can care until we are blue in the face, but the fact is that no society could afford personal 24-7 care in a home environment for every person that needs it. If we're going to save every super preemie baby, just for instance, the fact is that some of them will have to live together. Grouping people with similar needs together doesn't mean warehousing, it means specialization of help. Thinking of someone like @DaisyJane's son, a home environment for 2-4 similarly abled people with similar medical needs might have given all residents a community that they would not have living alone.
 
We can care until we are blue in the face, but the fact is that no society could afford personal 24-7 care in a home environment for every person that needs it. If we're going to save every super preemie baby, just for instance, the fact is that some of them will have to live together. Grouping people with similar needs together doesn't mean warehousing, it means specialization of help. Thinking of someone like @DaisyJane's son, a home environment for 2-4 similarly abled people with similar medical needs might have given all residents a community that they would not have living alone.
you’re not listening. You’re just throwing out opinions. Listening would be a good first step. I am not DwD proponent and I have no good feelings about that org and their power and influence. They’re promoting the worst instincts humans have - and they are infecting institutions with their poison. I said long ago things would get to this point - that it was moving in a eugenics direction - but nobody listened.

And you’re being a jerk for bringing up preemie babies. We’ve had this discussion before. But today you decided to throw it in where it doesn’t belong. I was a preemie baby and take offense at your jab. You know what you just did.

Don’t you worry about your son and his friends? This new expansion affects them. Maybe you should invest more time into caring: ie learning and speaking up.

“Similarly abled”….really? But… ??? How can you point out DJ’s son’s situation? There’s so much to say there but I can’t say it.
 
Last edited:
We are a wealthy country and we can afford all of the things struggling humans are asking for. All of them. But people need to snap out of their comfort zones and privelged priorities to get it done.
 
Back
Top