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
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
If the UN and just about every disability organization in Canada isn’t a good enough argument for you - quite vetted and should be seen through their lens first - maybe you’re the problem.
Click to expand...
One take on seeing through the lens of the UN.
The United Nations was founded as a forum of governments. This arrangement presented enough problems of its own. Now the UN, in contravention of its own charter, is rapidly evolving into a predatory, undemocratic, unaccountable, and self-serving vehicle for global government. The UN is unweildy, gross, inefficient, and incompetent. In addition, it is configured as to reach deep into the national politics of its member states and, by sheer weight and persistance, to force at least some of the worst of its agenda upon them all. Only a handful are brave enough to counter all of this. Indeed, with notable exceptions, generations of officials and policy-makers have been content to look away from the UN's multiform deficiencies and derelictions while occassionaly indulging in minor punitive measures.
Click to expand...

For many others, the institution itself is still held in nearly sacred regard.

I am not one of the latter.
 
WhyCzar said:
One take on seeing through the lens of the UN.


For many others, the institution itself is still held in nearly sacred regard.

I am not one of them.
Click to expand...

Then don’t participate in this discussion please because you are then blatantly supporting genocide in this context. It’s the highest legal reference to preventing genocide.

The UNCRPD was brought about by a citizen delegation of disabled people by the way. I knew one of them. They were not a shadowy cabal. They were regular disabled people trying to protect our right to live and participate on an equal basis with others in society.
 
Last edited:
JayneWonders said:
curious, why do you choose a disabled person.
How about someone who is facing death, and possibly considering track ! as part of it.
Click to expand...
Because disabled people were used to bring in this law against disability rights movements’ consent. The entire thing relied on using disabled people to pass it. Disabled people should placed first in discussions about MAiD. Nothing about us without us.

See new thread.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Because disabled people were used to bring in this law against disability rights movements’ consent.
Click to expand...
Track1, though, has a key part of the deliverable being the support for those who are approaching end-of-life.
Sorry, you are being rather privileged -- using your disability to disallow anyone else to be seen as valid.
 
My guess is you want the conversation to be strictly related to disability. Is that correct? If so, if the conversation is strictly limited to disability and if should be included, then your parameters are reasonable.
 
JayneWonders said:
Track1, though, has a key part of the deliverable being the support for those who are approaching end-of-life.
Sorry, you are being rather privileged -- using your disability to disallow anyone else to be seen as valid.
Click to expand...
The entire law and every subsequent expansion came in against disability rights groups consent while using disabled people to pass it.
 
JayneWonders said:
My guess is you want the conversation to be strictly related to disability. Is that correct? If so, if the conversation is strictly limited to disability and if should be included, then your parameters are reasonable.
Click to expand...
No I want disabled people to be first in discussions about MAiD. We were used (against our consent) to pass it. There would be no track 2 without track 1. See thread. I want the entire MAiD discussion viewed through a disability lens first because it wouldn’t exist and be so permissive (even track 1) if it disabled people weren’t wrongly used and our rights upended.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
No I want disabled people to be first in discussions about MAiD. We were used (against our consent) to pass it. There would be no track 2 without track 1. See thread. I want the entire MAiD discussion viewed through a disability lens first because it wouldn’t exist and be so permissive (even track 1) if it disabled people weren’t wrongly used and our rights upended.
Click to expand...
ok, then, if the base concept of being able to have MAID is out of the conversation, then I need to bow out.

Reason: You are determined that disabled cannot be allowed in any way shape or form.
That is your right to state that.

It is also the right of those facing death from terminal illness to be able to have the option to choose MAID rather than like previous times, when they had to committ suicide, or risk someone else going to jail.

You wish, based on your comment above, to deny that choice to those in that situation.

I think for me, that is like someone vehemently against abortion pushing women back into clothes hangers and dirty alley abortionists.
 
JayneWonders said:
ok, then, if the base concept of being able to have MAID is out of the conversation, then I need to bow out.

Reason: You are determined that disabled cannot be allowed in any way shape or form.
That is your right to state that.

It is also the right of those facing death from terminal illness to be able to have the option to choose MAID rather than like previous times, when they had to committ suicide, or risk someone else going to jail.

You wish, based on your comment above, to deny that choice to those in that situation.

I think for me, that is like someone vehemently against abortion pushing women back into clothes hangers and dirty alley abortionists.
Click to expand...
I think we need to revisit previous times and pass a law that doesn’t rely on using token disabled people to upend disabled people’s right to live against every disability groups objections. Until then, disabled people who object should lead the discussion in my opinion. You took away our right to vote about what’s entailed in our own right to live, so there’s that.
 
I agree that at the very end - minutes or hours from death - doctors shouldn’t be culpable for murder if a patient is begging to be let go. And that’s about it. Otherwise I believe in palliative care, hospice, and keeping patients pain free until that time. With very few exceptions that I think should be decided stringently. Not doing it that way just turns MAiD into a cheap, expedient “deliverable”. Which is disgusting. If it patients want it sooner, and that’s has to be legal - they should pay for it - it shouldn’t be cheap either - and put the money back into hospice and palliative care.
 
Last edited:
Doctors reluctant to facilitate MAiD too soon but have to because they’ve followed orders or risk losing their jobs at at time when we urgently need doctors - should have leniency. Those who’ve several killed hundreds - as many as they could get approval crammed through for - in a “ a most satisfying part of their career” are monsters. And they are informing young generations of doctors about what the new ethics looks like. It risks attracting monsters into medicine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top