UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying

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
It wasn't meant to be. You're a terrible advocate for what you hold dear. Never, ever, fight on my side for anything.
 
chansen said:
Where are any mistakes? What constitutes a "mistake" to you?

If you want to argue this effectively, you need to realize that most people want this option and focus on safeguards for the disabled that do not otherwise impede access. You're emotional about this because disabled rights are important to you. I'm emotional about this because I signed a DNR for my son, in case of a further cardiac arrest that would lead to further brain injury. No one wants to be signing a DNR for their child, but it was the compassionate thing to do, just as a medically assisted death would be in certain situations.

As soon as you make hard and fast rules, someone is going to get caught up in that red tape. And they are going to suffer needlessly. I don't see doctors looking to clear beds by killing patients. If they are, that's a different problem than allowing MAiD. We need to set simple guidelines, and give doctors the latitude they need.
Click to expand...

@Kimmio - you have every right to be passionate and emotional about the issue of MAID. It is, at least in part, an emotional issue. We are discussing dying. Honestly, I feel more concerned about those who can non-emotionally advocate for the pro-choice side.
 
Kmmio stated, "what about adapting and accepting their states"

Okay. Just to note that if we simply "accepted" my son's state (to use your words) he would die. It is medical intervention, and a crap load of it, that keeps him alive, and for the most part these days, comfortable and pain-free.

Medical science is an excellent tool and can be used to alleviate suffering. In some forms that means we area able to preserve and sustain life. However, there are very real limits to what medical science can do, and sometimes that means we humanely help someone die.
 
DaisyJane said:
Kmmio stated, "what about adapting and accepting their states"

Okay. Just to note that if we simply "accepted" my son's state (to use your words) he would die. It is medical intervention, and a crap load of it, that keeps him alive, and for the most part these days, comfortable and pain-free.

Medical science is an excellent tool and can be used to alleviate suffering. In some forms that means we area able to preserve and sustain life. However, there are very real limits to what medical science can do, and sometimes that means we humanely help someone die.
Click to expand...
I meant accepting that the person has a disability (and self acceptance) and needs assistance and/ or accommodations.

And you are discussing that edge of that slippery slope that...I'm not sure about. I said years ago I disagreed with Robert Latimer's choice, and still do. I wouldn't feel any differently if a doctor had put Tracey to death instead. And those who fought it when it happened and still feel the same way are not "extreme". I worked in an advocacy office run by all people with disabilities of all types...capable people and working in an accommading environment...one woman with severe MS working there, wore a Latimer protest button, that was a decade old - in memory. When it is cases even less severe than hers...and it will be...it has already...we've gone way too far. I have a right to my opinion.

Take that woman who wore that button...she had severe MS. She used a wheelchair. She was on disability, worked a few half days a week and lived in subsidized housing, and had home care. If it were legal at the time...it might not have been denied to her...and suicide prevention likely wouldn't be offered to her (at the advocacy office it sure would...but not necessarily by a doctor). she worked tirelessly with everything she had to fight for better conditions for people with disabilities! If there are no more like her...apathy will set in.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely agree that you have a right to your opinion. But I have a right to mine, and those who wish to die have a right to have their opinions heard. If you would never agree to a medically assisted death then don't. Simple. But allow others the same self-determination.

And bringing Latimer in is a red herring. You are using it to create a sense of a slippery slope where none exists because the issues are not the same. Latimer seems related, but it isn't. Latimer's situation was not a case of a competent adult choosing to end their suffering in light of expected death. It was of a parent choosing to end the suffering of their non-verbal, never to be competent child. Huge difference. And for the record, parents make those choices ALL THE TIME about their profoundly disabled children, they just don't put their kids in cars and use CO to kill them because it happens in a hospital. If anything, MAID conversations will hopefully move these sorts of situations into the forefront and promote dialogue and better medical care for those who suffer. A good thing in my view.

I don't agree with Latimer's choice. But I have read a great deal of information about the "case" (I wrote a paper on Latimer) and I can understand why he did what he did. Completely. My son looks a heck of a lot like Tracey. Matthew spent the better part of two years with poorly managed pain. We worked with the chronic pain team but the pain continued. HIS LIFE TOTALLY SUCKED FOR THOSE TWO YEARS. He had no QOL and everyday was just 24 hours of poorly managed pain that he could not control and could not understand. I asked myself often if keeping him alive was in his best interests, and there are days that I truly thought a terminal situation might a be relief to him. It was HELL and no parent should have to live through that. But because my son will never be competent this legislation will never apply to him.

In a perfect world we would have excellent palliative care and pain control. It isn't a perfect world and as result many people suffer, so at least for now we need MAID.
 
DJ, what you write on this subject should be in national newspapers, not hidden in this little corner of the web. You have such a level-headed way of explaining the worst possible heartache that I know we've had in common. I can't be that calm about it in this context, or write that well about it. Thank you.
 
DaisyJane said:
I absolutely agree that you have a right to your opinion. But I have a right to mine, and those who wish to die have a right to have their opinions heard. If you would never agree to a medically assisted death then don't. Simple. But allow others the same self-determination.

And bringing Latimer in is a red herring. You are using it to create a sense of a slippery slope where none exists because the issues are not the same. Latimer seems related, but it isn't. Latimer's situation was not a case of a competent adult choosing to end their suffering in light of expected death. It was of a parent choosing to end the suffering of their non-verbal, never to be competent child. Huge difference. And for the record, parents make those choices ALL THE TIME about their profoundly disabled children, they just don't put their kids in cars and use CO to kill them because it happens in a hospital. If anything, MAID conversations will hopefully move these sorts of situations into the forefront and promote dialogue and better medical care for those who suffer. A good thing in my view.

I don't agree with Latimer's choice. But I have read a great deal of information about the "case" (I wrote a paper on Latimer) and I can understand why he did what he did. Completely. My son looks a heck of a lot like Tracey. Matthew spent the better part of two years with poorly managed pain. We worked with the chronic pain team but the pain continued. HIS LIFE TOTALLY SUCKED FOR THOSE TWO YEARS. He had no QOL and everyday was just 24 hours of poorly managed pain that he could not control and could not understand. I asked myself often if keeping him alive was in his best interests, and there are days that I truly thought a terminal situation might a be relief to him. It was HELL and no parent should have to live through that. But because my son will never be competent this legislation will never apply to him.

In a perfect world we would have excellent palliative care and pain control. It isn't a perfect world and as result many people suffer, so at least for now we need MAID.
Click to expand...
I brought it up Latimer not as a red herring...that it is relevant to your own experience, that you understand him, suggests not. So...why all those people, many with severe and degenerative disabilities, who have chronic pain...why were they so adamant that he did wrong? Are they all "extreme" to be upset? And I don't think a single one of them was thinking it would be okay if a doctor did it instead.
 
Kimmio, what is clearly, clearly different is that MAID would never apply to Tracy Latimer. It's a choice made by a competent adult. for themselves.

Nice to 'see' you, DJ. Yes, we need more outside infusions of new opinions. ;-)
 
DaisyJane said:
In a perfect world we would have excellent palliative care and pain control. It isn't a perfect world and as result many people suffer, so at least for now we need MAID.
Click to expand...

Amen, in a perfect world.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Kimmio, what is clearly, clearly different is that MAID would never apply to Tracy Latimer. It's a choice made by a competent adult. for themselves.

Nice to 'see' you, DJ. Yes, we need more outside infusions of new opinions. ;-)
Click to expand...
And competent adults with disabilities objected not only because she was a kid but because as adult people with severe disabilities - they know that life with a disability still has value and that when society starts excepting euthanasia on compassionate grounds - it is a slippery slope than can have the effect of devaluing the lives, and diminishing the support for, people living with them.

Does anyone still believe that MAID is always going to be given as compassionate action, and not out of some underlying disgust or hate for weakness - that never gets mentioned - that it isn't possible? All doctors are going to be ethically motivated?
 
Kimmio said:
Does anyone still believe that MAID is always going to be given as compassionate action, and not out of some underlying disgust or hate for weakness - that never gets mentioned - that it isn't possible? All doctors are going to be ethically motivated?
Click to expand...
At the present time - and really that is all we can deal with - doctors do not make any of these decisions or take any of the associated actions in isolation or as individuals. There are specific teams appointed to review requests, determine capacity, and render decision on whether to proceed or not. To me this is a responsible and reasonable approach. Getting yourself all distressed with "what if" thinking is not useful.
 
Carolla said:
At the present time - and really that is all we can deal with - doctors do not make any of these decisions or take any of the associated actions in isolation or as individuals. There are specific teams appointed to review requests, determine capacity, and render decision on whether to proceed or not. To me this is a responsible and reasonable approach. Getting yourself all distressed with "what if" thinking is not useful.
Click to expand...
How did they arrive at the decision that the two people who had somatic disorders, classified as mental illness - had reasonably foreseeable deaths, enough to grant them MAID? I suppose most here are on side with the family and others advocating for the option to be available to people with mental illness? For those who have good support in place, it's more of a choice, I suppose. And their choices are going to end up driving the decisions of those not left with much of a choice. If you can't see that economics have anything to do with that, even if people may not realize it when they make the decision and facilitate it, your blind spot isn't helpful either.

It's frightening how quickly people are willing to embrace unethical behaviour as altruistic - and we should be keeping an eye on it, not be getting more lax.
 
Kimmio said:
That's not funny.
Click to expand...
I like how you flag my post as something a moderator has to act on, while simultaneously quoting the post that was so terrible that it needed to be deleted. That's hypocritical bulls**t. You just don't like my post and you want moderators to empathize with you. If you really thought my post was so terrible, you wouldn't have quoted it so people would read it again. You're out to kill any goodwill toward the disabled community, and I'm making a rhetorical point. Only one of us is actually murdering anything.
 
Kimmio said:
How did they arrive at the decision that the two people who had somatic disorders, classified as mental illness - had reasonably foreseeable deaths, enough to grant them MAID? I suppose most here are on side with the family and others advocating for the option to be available to people with mental illness? For those who have good support in place, it's more of a choice, I suppose. And their choices are going to end up driving the decisions of those not left with much of a choice. If you can't see that economics have anything to do with that, even if people may not realize it when they make the decision and facilitate it, your blind spot isn't helpful either.

It's frightening how quickly people are willing to embrace unethical behaviour as altruistic - and we should be keeping an eye on it, not be getting more lax.
Click to expand...
I can't possibly speak to how others may have arrived at their decisions. There is too much unknown and assumed. to me it's not about taking sides.
 
You said it. I was shocked by it. It was probably the worst comment I've read from you, and hurtful and disconcerting. It wasn't okay. I was just going to quote it thinking maybe it was a dark joke - but then I quickly decided it was worth flagging - and it was removed, which was a good decision. I really don't do that often.

I'm not out to kill goodwill toward the disabled community. Why is it my responsibility to create goodwill for the disabled community by agreeing with MAID? Why do we have to earn goodwill among the able-bodied just to live our lives with needs met? If you take my views on this subject that way, as harming goodwill, that's your problem. And if others have that same problem, where was the goodwill in the first place?

Interesting, rather than apologize, you throw more shade at me. It was a horrible thing to say to me, and not only me, and if you didn't mean it then just apologize. @chansen
 
I don't agree with the removal for the very reason that the post above is. Now, no one knows what the post is, or was, and you two can go back & forth on it for ever.

I find the flagging ridiculous, as it didnt' allow for a dialogue on if it was a sarcastic point that was being made or it was being truly meant.
I find the lack of awareness on Chansen's behalf, that Kimmio wouldn't respond to it equally ridiculous.
 
Kimmio said:
And competent adults with disabilities objected not only because she was a kid but because as adult people with severe disabilities - they know that life with a disability still has value and that when society starts excepting euthanasia on
Click to expand...

Two thoughts.

1) If you had read any of the material about Latimer you would know that her parents deeply valued her life and it was that deep value for her life that led her father to his actions.

2) With respect to people with disabilities thinking they have a say in decisions about Tracey - As a parent of a child like Tracey I would take significant exception to anyone suggesting they know my child better than I do. My guess is that the Latimer's might as well. When it comes to decisions about my child some disconnected person with a disability doesn't get a say. Me, his physicians, his care providers, and so on - they are actively involved in decisions, including the tough ones. I have had to say that in "x" situation discontinue care. Thankfully "x" didn't happen. Decisions about Matthew's care are mine, not the disability community's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top