Expansion of MAID delayed until after next election

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
I'm objecting to the fear mongering aspect of your argument. I'm objecting to the sense that I'm getting that you want track 1 gone. I'm objecting to the "slippery slope nature of the argument. We've seen many such arguments that did not result in the slope stuff happening.

I don't understand what further safeguards you want. Someone with a disability must be showing significant decline. They must be capable of asking for the procedure and understanding what it is.

Why aren't you out fighting for better solutions such as better supports for people with disabilities or other vulnerable people?

I've stated my views on track 2 before and don't feel a need to repeat it yet again.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
What about disabled people with cancer who don’t have adequate homes to recover in or people with ALS without accessible housing whose symptoms haven’t progressed to the point that people with adequate support could still live with, or other disabling illness - or where’s the concern for involuntary patients who get sick with other things? Too much can, is and will go wrong for vulnerable people.
Click to expand...

Have you read who qualifies for MAID and how they access it? Please learn that.
 
Northwind said:
I'm objecting to the fear mongering aspect of your argument. I'm objecting to the sense that I'm getting that you want track 1 gone. I'm objecting to the "slippery slope nature of the argument. We've seen many such arguments that did not result in the slope stuff happening.

I don't understand what further safeguards you want. Someone with a disability must be showing significant decline. They must be capable of asking for the procedure and understanding what it is.

Why aren't you out fighting for better solutions such as better supports for people with disabilities or other vulnerable people?

I've stated my views on track 2 before and don't feel a need to repeat it yet again.
Click to expand...
Because they can have other concerns driving them to MAiD but still be found eligible based on their disabilities.
 
I want track 1 revised and safeguards bolstered at some point. Because Track 2 or something like it will keep popping up if not. It was ambiguity in law and policy that allowed it to happen. I want that ambiguity gone, to save lives. It’s not up to me it’s up to the public and legislators to see this plight.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Supreme Court of Quebec rule that the earlier law discriminated against those whose death was not "reasonably foreseeable"?

I understood that was the decision that led to Track 2.
 
paradox3 said:
Didn't the Supreme Court of Quebec rule that the earlier law discriminated against those whose death was not "reasonably foreseeable"?

I understood that was the decision that led to Track 2.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because they wanted disabled people “included”. That’s why they removed it. It was never a medical term but was used as a (too poor, ambiguous safeguard) at first, then removed to allow track 2. The Quebec decision should’ve been challenged for a number of reasons but wasn’t.
 
paradox3 said:
Didn't the Supreme Court of Quebec rule that the earlier law discriminated against those whose death was not "reasonably foreseeable"?

I understood that was the decision that led to Track 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, someone who was disabled started that challenge.
 
Again, not seeing the point in sticking around here. I won’t waste more of my time. I’m not doing good for the concerns repeating myself to people intent on not listening. It harms me, and does nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
I want track 1 revised and safeguards bolstered at some point. Because Track 2 or something like it will keep popping up if not. It was ambiguity in law and policy that allowed it to happen. I want that ambiguity gone, to save lives. It’s not up to me it’s up to the public and legislators to see this plight.
Click to expand...
It’s also about far more people than me.
 
I'd like an answer to why you aren't putting effort into getting more services for disabled people to reduce risk.
 
I'd also like to know what additional safeguards you think are needed considering you don't believe the detailed process now in place isn't enough.
 
Northwind said:
I'd also like to know what additional safeguards you think are needed considering you don't believe the detailed process now in place isn't enough.
Click to expand...
Read the article. Perhaps MAiD providers heeding the concerns in there would be a safeguard. It’s already laid out here.
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
www.thenewatlantis.com

‘A Blatant Situation’ — New leaks on Canada's failing MAID safeguards

In Ontario, euthanasia regulators tracked 428 possible violations of the law and never referred a case to police
www.thenewatlantis.com www.thenewatlantis.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top