Canada to allow doctor-assisted suicide

245

Comments

  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    oftenreading said:

    hedonist said:

    It strikes me how we're free to inject silicone and other shit into our bodies, have an abortion, increase the size of one's tits that'd that make triple-D's look like mosquito bites, fork our tongues, have "horns" implanted, do that hook-in-the-skin thing which I'll never get but hey, have at it! Jump from a plane, climb a dangerous mountain, shoot paint out of your ass to create art.

    ...but THIS is a no-no in so many places?

    That's quite a mixed bag of actions, and none of them (with the possible exception of abortion, depending on your viewpoint) involve one individual directly causing or facilitating the death of another individual.
    True, but what if it's that person's choice? One made with lucidity, sound mind, etc. To me, it's more about compassion and ending pain, vs. death (in the non-willing sense, that is).
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Tits or death?

    Not quite cake or death, but I still submit there's a difference.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    oftenreading said:

    Tits or death?

    Not quite cake or death, but I still submit there's a difference.

    Who would want death over tits?
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    oftenreading said:

    Tits or death?

    Not quite cake or death, but I still submit there's a difference.

    Patrick Henry may or may not agree with you ;)
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    hedonist said:

    oftenreading said:

    Tits or death?

    Not quite cake or death, but I still submit there's a difference.

    Patrick Henry may or may not agree with you ;)
    "Give me mammaries or give me death!"
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    rgambs said:

    We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    Yep.
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:



    Last-12-Exit said:

    I know. I was nit picking with that one.

    image
    Nitpicking is still better than trolling.
  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    edited February 2015
    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    It's so hypocritical.
    It reminds me of when we were discussing prostitution and I think it was Hedo who brought up the fact that People in the porn industry can fuck for $$$ and its legal but if the same two people (actors)went outside and the guy paid the girl 50$ for the same sex they just had,he is now breaking the law.Absolute stupidity.I mean everyone can pay to watch them screw and that's ok also.smfh

    We need common sense,non religious influenced laws.Gay marriage,Legalization of Marijauna(at least medically).Drug tests and contraception for people living off entitlements(I know a lot of the more liberal here will frown on that one)Prostitution.Right to die with dignity.etc,etc,etc.....
    Post edited by rr165892 on
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,758
    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited February 2015
    paulonious said:

    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    This law will certainly bring Private Medical Companies to the forefront in this country.
    I don't think it will be long before Medical Insurance companies will alter their wording so that it will exclude funding to Doctors that perform the assistance. They will also rewrite coverage policies to deny a person coverage if doctor-assisted suicide is chosen.

    We all ready have non-medical insurance companies that deny some claims because it was considered "an act of god".

    So basically, eventually if you want to die with the assistance of a Doctor it is going to be very, very expensive.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • TalonTedd
    TalonTedd Toronto Posts: 835
    Is there a waiting list or do i need to answer a skill testing question?
    I remember when, yeah. I swore I knew everything, oh yeah.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    paulonious said:

    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    Thanks paulonius; that's what I was trying, but failing, to get at.

    I would also add to your comment: " there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue" that have nothing to do with religion. Plenty of people have valid concerns about this without it being due to religious beliefs, so let's not reduce it to that.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    paulonious said:

    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    I see what you're saying, but in the end (to me) it's about freedom - including the freedom to have that assistance with compassion and a much smaller chance of something getting botched, or the means not being effective enough, etc. Someone that sick, to take it upon themselves to end their suffering, how could they reasonably do it alone?

    That film from years back that showed Kevorkian assisting someone...we should all have that aid available should we need / desire it.

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    It may be about freedom, but it can't just be about freedom; it needs to be done with proper safeguards and procedures. You need to be clear on who is potentially eligible and who is not, and how the individuals make their wishes known. Some jurisdictions seem to have gotten it right while there are significant concerns about others. The potential for "something getting botched" then goes up, not down.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited February 2015
    oftenreading said:

    It may be about freedom, but it can't just be about freedom; it needs to be done with proper safeguards and procedures. You need to be clear on who is potentially eligible and who is not, and how the individuals make their wishes known. Some jurisdictions seem to have gotten it right while there are significant concerns about others. The potential for "something getting botched" then goes up, not down.

    Your concerns and points are all exactly the red tape that people want to avoid if they ever were in a position to make the choice of doctor-assisted suicide.

    Private medical clinics catering to these people are going to be more visible now that it is legal. There will be financing O.A.C, cash, debit, Visa or MC.
    Rest assured though as soon as the business end is taken care of so will you.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    paulonious said:

    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    This law will certainly bring Private Medical Companies to the forefront in this country.
    I don't think it will be long before Medical Insurance companies will alter their wording so that it will exclude funding to Doctors that perform the assistance. They will also rewrite coverage policies to deny a person coverage if doctor-assisted suicide is chosen.

    We all ready have non-medical insurance companies that deny some claims because it was considered "an act of god".

    So basically, eventually if you want to die with the assistance of a Doctor it is going to be very, very expensive.
    I really doubt it.

    The biggest reason being that it will be far cheaper to assist your death than keeping you alive for x number of years.

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    dignin said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    paulonious said:

    rgambs said:

    I think Hedo's point is a valid one. There is a litany of risks a normal person can take which have dubious benefit, but we allow a person to decide fot themselves if they want to look like an inflatable doll, lizard, or walking tattoo/pincushion. Likewise, we allow people to subject themselves to pain, again for dubious reasons, but we don't allow them to ameliorate pain for totally credible reasons? We decide when it's time for our pets to stop suffering, but we require humans to suffer to the very last breath? Which, btw, does not come easily or peacefully, in case you have never seen a death rattle.

    I support the right to die, but hedonist lists actions that are RISKS. choosing death is not a risk, it's a certainty. and what I think people are missing here is not that it was illegal to take one's life; it was illegal for a doctor to help you do it. massive difference. there's a whole shitload of reasons this is a lightning rod of an issue.

    it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential downside. this is an issue that will require legislation that needs to be intricately worded for it not to be a total clusterfuck.

    This law will certainly bring Private Medical Companies to the forefront in this country.
    I don't think it will be long before Medical Insurance companies will alter their wording so that it will exclude funding to Doctors that perform the assistance. They will also rewrite coverage policies to deny a person coverage if doctor-assisted suicide is chosen.

    We all ready have non-medical insurance companies that deny some claims because it was considered "an act of god".

    So basically, eventually if you want to die with the assistance of a Doctor it is going to be very, very expensive.
    I really doubt it.

    The biggest reason being that it will be far cheaper to assist your death than keeping you alive for x number of years.

    Not if our national coverage is paying for it. Private clinics will charge the equivalent to what it would cost insurance companies to keep you alive for x number of years. Only they will collect up front.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    oftenreading said:

    It may be about freedom, but it can't just be about freedom; it needs to be done with proper safeguards and procedures. You need to be clear on who is potentially eligible and who is not, and how the individuals make their wishes known. Some jurisdictions seem to have gotten it right while there are significant concerns about others. The potential for "something getting botched" then goes up, not down.

    I think we're on pretty close pages here. The safeguards you mention should include the right to make provisions for this. And yes on not only advising but documenting your desire for treatment, or lack of it (this from hypocritical me, as we have yet to put our wishes on paper).

  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    dignin said:


    I really doubt it.

    The biggest reason being that it will be far cheaper to assist your death than keeping you alive for x number of years.

    And this. Sad but true - it's a business.

Categories