Canadian Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY approves Doctor Assisted Suicide

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Good point ... a Death Penalty is the choice of the State
Suicide the choice of the individual

But there are grey areas also ... some who are near death are unable to communicate and may have certain decisions made for them ... this is usually for the immediate family ... The doctor asked if we would like an attempted resuscitation if Dad stopped breathing ... My Mum and brother and I were there ... It was then it struck us that "This is it! ... we all looked at each other and said the same thing "Let him go" ... because we understand Dad's wishes ...

It is "Healthy" to be more open and discuss such things when we alive so that each others wishes are known.

Though my old hippy friend said " He wanted to be taken in his wheel chair out to a cliff top on a starry night" you can guess the rest

a reply to: artistpoet

The SC ruling seems to indicate that they only will want people who can choose for themselves. No Proxy, no power of attorney or anything like that.

Which is exactly what kind of limitations are needed IMO. This removes the whole argument about the elderly and mentally ill being at risk of abuse.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: artistpoet

The SC ruling seems to indicate that they only will want people who can choose for themselves. No Proxy, no power of attorney or anything like that.

Which is exactly what kind of limitations are needed IMO. This removes the whole argument about the elderly and mentally ill being at risk of abuse.

~Tenth

Man, it is nice to see the SC make, and more pointedly, word such a well thought out decision.

It's been awhile for that.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree whole heartedly ...
Good for Canada

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: howmuch4another

Just seems like in my state the same folks arguing for "die with dignity" are on the other hand arguing that lethal injection for the DP is inhumane.

I think the difference is that those people were convicted and given the death penalty. Not a lot of inmates would do that voluntarily if you know what I mean. So there is no way to 'humanly' kill a victim of of the Death Penalty.

As for assisted suicide, well the person involved is making that decision themselves, not the state, or the doctors etc.

ETA: Little know fact, OP's are just that, an opening post and conversations, naturally evolve over the course of a thread. So does the topic in most cases. So, don't be sorry

.

~Tenth

makes sense although some would argue once convicted personal choice is out the window if that particular law exists but I take your point as valid. Thanks for the refresher on OP etiquette also I always thought if it wasn't in the context of the OP it was out out of bounds. Peace.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Important issue, yes. But I can't help thinking that if someone wants to commit suicide they should just go right ahead and do it. Like what's gonna happen? They'll get sent to jail? On the other hand, this ruling looks like a seriously slippery slope to me - there are lots of ways to push people into euthanasia. Saw it happen to my Dad. All legal too. Just hit 'em up with morphine and let 'em die "naturally" of dehydration. Or pull their other supports if they're disabled. And so on. ...The tricky bit is where the rule says people wanting to be euthanized do not have to have a terminal illness - just be a 'burden' on family or the state.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The SC ruling seems to indicate that they only will want people who can choose for themselves. No Proxy, no power of attorney or anything like that.

Which is exactly what kind of limitations are needed IMO. This removes the whole argument about the elderly and mentally ill being at risk of abuse.

Are you kidding? Vulnerable people routinely are manipulated, bullied, intimidated. Won't be hard to push 'em into a corner where their only way out is euthanasia.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Mikeyy

Now let me get this strait, is this ruling only for the elderly sick and dying? Or are Canadian Doctors now offing drug addled teenagers too?

Only the terminally ill.

Cancers, auto-immune, terminal illness etc.

There are no plans to expand the policy to include Depression. I think that would probably go back to the SC as a challenge to the law that will be made in the next 12 months.

~Tenth

Erm. No. The ruling does NOT restrict doctor-assisted suicide aka euthanasia to terminally ill patients. The terms are as follows:

* Competent adult
* Grievous and irremediable medical condition (could be interpreted to include depression)
* Causes enduring and intolerable suffering (also could be interpreted to include depression)

Thing is, many "untreatable" conditions actually are treatable - just expensive - especially, too expensive for nationally funded health care systems. Also, current research shows depression is organic, and likely will soon be treatable by different means than anti-depressants.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The ruling only applies to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering who clearly consent to ending their lives.

Anyone who has witnessed a loved one experience intolerable suffering due to terminal illness as they sit there unable to offer any form of relief (not even through words or hugs help in these situations) and possesses deep empathy towards those who are reeling in constant agony and torture within their daily waking existence will welcome this long overdue right each person should have. To keep them alive when they want to leave is akin to sentencing them to 1000 lashes every hour upon the hour with an invisible whip. This is the impression I got the first time witnessing someone enduring intolerable suffering due to terminal illness. Give those angels peace.

Quality of life over quantity. The best thing about this ruling is that it protects health-care practitioners who have been doing this for years for their patients in Canadian hospitals.

Human decency prevails!

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Or is it suicide assisted doctoring?

"Take two of these little black pills and don't see me in the morning... and please pay your bill on the way out. Next..."

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
This is a very important decision for Canadians to pay attention to today. It's about time we give our dying some dignity, to choose when to leave this life, on their own terms. And there's no reason doctors, who support those actions, should be held liable for their deaths.

The Supreme Court will rule today on a question it last considered more than 20 years ago: should it be legal for doctors to help dying patients kill themselves?

The case that will be decided Friday was brought by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on behalf of two women, Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, both of whom have died since the legal battle began. Both women had degenerative diseases and wanted the right to have a doctor help them die. Carter went to Switzerland with her daughter, Lee, to die. Taylor died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

A lawyer on behalf of Carter and Taylor argued that they were being discriminated against because their physical disabilities didn't allow them to kill themselves the way able-bodied people could. Further limiting their options, as degenerative diseases progress further, patients can lose the ability even to swallow.

What say you ATS?

~Tenth

I think this is great. I think Oregon allows assisted suicide.

a reply to: Leonidas

Human decency prevails? How 'bout eugenics makes a comeback? From a global perspective this slippery slope is getting mighty dangerously steep.

Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will






Also see:
Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Genealogy Sites: Collecting Medical Information for Eugenics Programs?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Leonidas

Human decency prevails? How 'bout eugenics makes a comeback? From a global perspective this slippery slope is getting mighty dangerously steep.

Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will






Also see:
Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Genealogy Sites: Collecting Medical Information for Eugenics Programs?

Eh? That isnt even remotely similar to assisted suicide of someone that's terminally ill and cant endure it anymore.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Leonidas

Human decency prevails? How 'bout eugenics makes a comeback? From a global perspective this slippery slope is getting mighty dangerously steep.

Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will





Also see:
Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Genealogy Sites: Collecting Medical Information for Eugenics Programs?

Thank you. I was beginning to feel like an alien in this world. I see this as you do. Slippery slope indeed.....

Also, when my sister was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer the doctors and nurses were all too willing to assist her in offing herself.....A little too enthusiastic to hasten her demise if you ask me.

People are ghouls

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Is that a Banksy?

Yes, heard on CBC while driving to work. Thank-you Supreme Court. Makes me wonder if we should just forget about Christian fundamentalist PMs and let the courts handle things from now on.

In New Zealand last year a NZ Labour Party MP introduced then withdrew a Dying with Dignity bill because 2014 being an election year it would have become an political football and would not have been really debated instead being tossed around instead between the parties.

a reply to: merka

RE:

....someone that's terminally ill and cant endure it anymore.

This legislation is for those with "irremediable" medical conditions, meaning it's not restricted to -or about- the terminally ill. And the legislation seems to replace Canada's promised Federal Suicide Prevention Strategy, which was scheduled for 2014 but has not materialized.

FYI - The target "beneficiaries" of this legislation are people who are debilitated and disabled by non-terminal chronic disease, now referred to as Non-Communicable Disease (NCD's). Note that most, if not all NCD's result from environmental contaminations, including internal contaminations/side effects from common OTC and prescription medications (although there has been a successful communications strategy to "blame the victims").

2011: NCD Pandemic Killing Over 37 Million This Year

In 2011, the NCD Pandemic will kill over 37 million people - more than all other causes combined. Up from 36 million in 2008, the death toll is still climbing; 44 million NCD-caused deaths are expected in 2020, 52 million by 2030. Over 12 million NCD fatalities this year are under the age of 60, at 33% of the NCD death toll - up from 9 million at 25% in 2008. The death toll in people under 40 is rising rapidly. Children are being diagnosed in record numbers, and kids born after 2000 are the first generation expected to die before their parents.

NCDs are incurable, progressing systematically from degeneration to disability, and slowly to death. ....

The soaring NCD disability rate in relatively young people is a global crisis. Few countries have disability programs; in those that do, about .5 Billion people are classified as NCD-disabled and qualify for help. However, uptake stats from disability programs are misleading; most countries have been tightening their criteria regularly since the 1970's, just to cut costs. As a result, many functionally disabled people do not qualify for support, are not classified as disabled, and are not counted. Rough estimates show 3.5 Billion people suffer from NCDs -half the world's population- and the numbers are growing.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks the NCD Pandemic as one of the top global threats to economic development, describing the Pandemic as an economic issue, "not a health issue." ...Reports conclude the NCD Pandemic is threatening every nations' productivity, decimating the world's labour force, and draining government coffers to cover escalating costs for healthcare, disability, and more. According to the WEF, the NCD Pandemic will cost $47 Trillion between 2011 and 2020.

Originally called "diseases of civilization" because they go hand in hand with industrial development, NCDs have now spread around the world. NCD stands for Non-Communicable Disease but no gender, age or country is immune; historically, nothing ever has spread so far and fast without an infectious component.

i say good. if a person wants to end their life it is their right to do so.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
if a person wants to end their life it is their right to do so.

Absolutely. As it happens, suicide is NOT illegal in Canada but even if it were, what's done is done.

....Doctor assisted suicide is NOT going to happen at home although it would be nice if we could just pick up our painless happy death packet and relax at home to do the deed. But no. These acts are going to occur in sterile bright-lit ugly hospital rooms and will just normalize the idea that it's okay to put people down if doctors run the show. Eeuuuwww. Some of the most biased, scientifically misinformed and power-hungry people on this planet are doctors. Not who you want to be making decisions about your right to life or death. Personally, I can't think of anyone (individual or class) I'd abdicate my power to.