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
Kimmio said:
What if the free choices of others impact how groups are viewed, prejudicially, in society? I realize a lot of people do not think that if they were diagnosed with a serious chronic disabling condition, that if they chose MAID, that it would affect anybody else, but I disagree. Over time, it will. It will culturally impact how disability is viewed and it is not progressive. It impedes progress in the area of disability and inclusion - as per UN principles that we are signatory to. Especially if the budget shows that MAID is a cheaper option, than the resources required to live as well as possible. I'm so annoyed that this issue has been championed as a darling of free choice by "progressives". Culling the herd - even if it is done painlessly and rather silently - is still archaic. And that's where, if it's not family pressure of being a burden - then societal pressure of being a burden will be felt. And that is an unecessary layer of "suffering" added to the issue. That, I think, is a shameful reflection on how our society values life. In dollars and cents and inconvenience of caring. I knew from the get-go that if government was passing this - economic factors were drivers of it. Nobody believed me and still don't want to but there have already been reports and articles written about cost savings. That will only get worse if it is not recognized. That is not a faithful choice. But I can anticipate that it could be spun that way.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but do you not think that safeguards could be built into legislation to accommodate all sides with respect?
 
Carolla said:

I have to say I am stunned that you think making such choice is "easy". In my experience it is quite the opposite for all involved.
Click to expand...
Don't be too stunned. It's "easier" on the system's resources. It is easier on the family if the party making the choice believes it will be easier on the family if they were not a burden (and the family doesn't even have to know that - and the patient has a whole 10 days, which is abysmal). It's "easier" according to several voices here, than living with the "suffering" of a disability that doesn't allow them to do the things they used to do, or at least do them with ease and without help. Those things are going to be determinants in a person's "faithful choice" are they not?

But because these are "personal healthcare decisions" it's not seen as society's business as to the ethics of their choices - either the patient or the practioner enabling their choice - over time - and the law being written to view MAID as "a personal right"I find that disturbing.
 
Last edited:
I consider it a personal right and I look unfavorably upon people who would enforce prolonged suffering on others, whether because their idiot God says so or because they think they are saving the medically or mentally vulnerable from.some form of assembly line death squad.
 
I look unfavourably on a law that lacks cultural foresight and impedes equality for people with disabilities. I haven't drunk the "dignity" koolaid. If there's any indication at all at how quickly attitudes can change and how fast they can go south - look south.

Remember the woman who gave a speech at the democratic convention and said she was "Living boldly"? That was from the movie "Me Before You". There was a reason she said that. Ironic title. Could be today's mantra. Meanwhile Trump's disability rep at the convention came at things from the perspective of being a hero, who overcame the odds (with the help of pro football players, cuz everybody has those to help them) and walked...not a regular person.

I fear that eventually...like civil rights is at risk...disability rights are at greater risk down the road...and that the aging population is going to sell the younger generations down the river - especially younger people with disabilities - in yet another respect, because they run the world still and are used to having things their way. This is like their last stand for their own "rights". And I am not alone in that. I don't hold people who deny that possibility - and disrespect what disability rights advocates for inclusion have and continue to work for and have to say about it - in the highest regard - not on that issue, anyway.
 
Last edited:
That woman was giving a shout out to disability rights advocates who were protesting that movie, at that time. That message probably went over a lot of heads, but I was happy she said it.

Now, Neil Gorsuch and Jeff Sessions probably claim to be against it...but they are not for the poor and the marginalized...so keep an eye on that because hypocrisy is not foreign to this new government and if they are against euthanasia - they are probably for cutting corners in ways that benefit the wealthy, even more.
 
In the opening post on this thread GordW commented -
WE have discussed the issue before, with various concerns raised about the legislation both before and after it was released. What do folks think about this statement from the church?
​
Seems the discussion is going down the well trodden road of debating the MAID issue yet again, when Gord was asking more specifically for comments on the position statement from the church. Any more thoughts from others about that?
 
Sorry... But it's an important issue and if people are thinking about the church's statement...you can't address the statement without talking about the issues it addresses, or fails to address. I would say, it's so ambiguous, it doesn't address much except that it recognizes there's a law, and that it's a difficult issue.

I was really disappointed in the UCCan's earlier seemingly full support of MAID. It was all the rage - discussion in the Observer etc. Now, at least they've toned it down to ambiguous. But I am still disappointed. I think it just represents a big blind spot in mainstream society.
 
I like our statement. The UCC supports ...
The UCC isn't like some otheer churches where there is a definite ruling. ie the RC church condemns birth control; it doesn't matter what your individual conscience says, or what your parish priest might tolerate, if you practice birth control you are going against your church.
The UCC considers the issues from all sides, the pros and cons, and makes a statement.
For myself, I have been thinking about how I will manage the final stages of my life for several years - whether passive (ie refusing treatment) or something more active. I have broached the subject with several UCC clergy and introduced it in discussion at my church. In each case I have felt I've received their understanding and blessing.
Don't worry - it's a few years off for me now; I've still got a lot of living to do.
But I'm glad to have the 'church' support me in my decision, whatever it will be at the time.
 
I had a really painful conversation with an old friend yesterday. Her father is palliative. He has advanced Parkinson's and end-stage terminal cancer, He actually died last year, but despite a DNR, her mother (who has dementia) overrode that DNR, he was resuscitated, and suffers on. There's no hospice beds open, and even if there were, he might still linger months. So he's stuck in a hospital bed, confused, depressed, super-medicated (but still with his faculties largely intact), while "discharge planners" try and find an appropriate place for him to die, "circling the drain", as my friend says.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I had a really painful conversation with an old friend yesterday. Her father is palliative. He has advanced Parkinson's and end-stage terminal cancer, He actually died last year, but despite a DNR, her mother (who has dementia) overrode that DNR, he was resuscitated, and suffers on. There's no hospice beds open, and even if there were, he might still linger months. So he's stuck in a hospital bed, confused, depressed, super-medicated (but still with his faculties largely intact), while "discharge planners" try and find an appropriate place for him to die, "circling the drain", as my friend says.
Click to expand...

Sad, sad, sad. This is exactly what I'm hoping to avoid.
 
There are those however that fear misappropriated application of the royal flush!

Realize if it can be done ... someone will feel the right to do it ... especially if there is some capital to be supported!
 
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.
 
The problem with giving latitude to doctors is that can be abused. The problem when this is an institutionalize do norm, is that it will be abused.

Nobody thought Trump could happen. Nobody thought we'd see the rise of the far right in our time. Be careful in assuming the push to relax MAD rules to include more people has anything to do with compassion. There are people who might feel like they want it who should be getting suicide prevention (including disabled people), not being killed. It's a convenient "choice" for the budget - and people will be walking right into that trap. And those who made the laws and do the deed are above reproach.
 
No I'm not out to lunch.

Originally this was only to be for those who are terminally ill.


The majority of people doing it and having it done are going to believe it's right. But there is a darker, monetary reason for the push originating somewhere - it's opportunistically being driven by the fact that baby boomers are aging and will want this (but so will people suffering as resources are nowhere to be found) . The dignity factor is a pre-disability rights attitude, almost Victorian - throw that into the mix and it's easy to get people to buy in -that is what has propagandized this making people think relaxing the rules to include more people is the just thing to do. Maybe you are out to lunch.

Although I could say this until I'm blue in the face - it wouldn't matter.

I'm sad more people can't see it - and have fully embraced the idea.

Ask your younger self if you believed any of what's going on today, geopolitically, could happen.
 
Last edited:
Is birth in many cases a mistake?

One cannot tell for who would tell the truth about a mistake nin Terre course ... even at a time when speech was near impossible due to emotional override ... psyche gest?
 
In the last couple of decades the push for inclusion - "full citizenship" is what it was also called - of people with disabilities, the UN convention - much of that was also piggybacking on the fact the baby boomers are getting older and it would be a win-win. That is a fact. It was reasonably factored into arguments for why things need to be more accessible going into the future. I see MAID as a competing political ideology that's taken hold - and was economically embraced by our previous government (the argument was made by Fletcher that if people with disabilities needs are not being met they need the option. He made that argument...and people didn't hear it fully - what was between the lines! They used him to make it.) That is very ugly for the future of disability rights proponents - as living persons being included in society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top