Canada to allow doctor-assisted suicide

brianlux

1ThoughtKnown said:

<

We do a lot of other stuff you wouldn't like: open pit coal mining, pulp mills, saw mills, natural gas drilling, building hydroelectric dams, fracking for condensate, open pit copper mining, digging for gypsum, salt mining, iron/ore mining, nuclear power plants, manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec, fish the ocean, fish the lakes, bury our garbage in landfills, use plastic bags at Safeway and Walmart, and on and on. All the same stuff the U.S. does.

Duly noted.

HughFreakingDillon

brian, look back. 1thought was responding directly to something you said about "besides such and such....Canada has its shit together". 1thought was just pointing out that actually, we don't.

Last-12-Exit

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

Finally, some good news here.



Other than their insane practice of scraping the landscape for that dirty tar sand, Canada sure has it's shit together. Legal hemp crops and legalized doctor assisted suicide. Good show, Canada! " alt="" />

We do a lot of other stuff you wouldn't like: open pit coal mining, pulp mills, saw mills, natural gas drilling, building hydroelectric dams, fracking for condensate, open pit copper mining, digging for gypsum, salt mining, iron/ore mining, nuclear power plants, manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec, fish the ocean, fish the lakes, bury our garbage in landfills, use plastic bags at Safeway and Walmart, and on and on. All the same stuff the U.S. does.

Digging for gypsum? Gypsum is a byproduct of scrubbing emissions. I was not aware that it is a natural product that could be mined. Unless you are talking about something completely different.

When you say fish the lakes and ocean, do you mean over fishing?

PJ_Soul

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

Finally, some good news here.



Other than their insane practice of scraping the landscape for that dirty tar sand, Canada sure has it's shit together. Legal hemp crops and legalized doctor assisted suicide. Good show, Canada! " alt="" />

We do a lot of other stuff you wouldn't like: open pit coal mining, pulp mills, saw mills, natural gas drilling, building hydroelectric dams, fracking for condensate, open pit copper mining, digging for gypsum, salt mining, iron/ore mining, nuclear power plants, manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec, fish the ocean, fish the lakes, bury our garbage in landfills, use plastic bags at Safeway and Walmart, and on and on. All the same stuff the U.S. does.

Don't forget the asbestos export industry, alive and well and being promoted by Harper.
But Canada has some good shit going on too. And btw, I'm not sure I qualify hydroelectricity as a negative in the grand scheme of things. We do need electricity, and that's as good as anything else, really. What would you prefer? Nuclear plants? (I would not be against that).

1ThoughtKnown

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

Finally, some good news here.



Other than their insane practice of scraping the landscape for that dirty tar sand, Canada sure has it's shit together. Legal hemp crops and legalized doctor assisted suicide. Good show, Canada! " alt="" />

We do a lot of other stuff you wouldn't like: open pit coal mining, pulp mills, saw mills, natural gas drilling, building hydroelectric dams, fracking for condensate, open pit copper mining, digging for gypsum, salt mining, iron/ore mining, nuclear power plants, manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec, fish the ocean, fish the lakes, bury our garbage in landfills, use plastic bags at Safeway and Walmart, and on and on. All the same stuff the U.S. does.

Don't forget the asbestos export industry, alive and well and being promoted by Harper.
But Canada has some good shit going on too. And btw, I'm not sure I qualify hydroelectricity as a negative in the grand scheme of things. We do need electricity, and that's as good as anything else, really. What would you prefer? Nuclear plants? (I would not be against that).

I'm for all of it myself. Until there is a better sloution, onard and upward, with a social and environmental conscious. This was a discussion about doctor assisted suicide, but even here the oilsands are bashed. It boggles the mind.

1ThoughtKnown

Last-12-Exit said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

Finally, some good news here.



Other than their insane practice of scraping the landscape for that dirty tar sand, Canada sure has it's shit together. Legal hemp crops and legalized doctor assisted suicide. Good show, Canada! " alt="" />

We do a lot of other stuff you wouldn't like: open pit coal mining, pulp mills, saw mills, natural gas drilling, building hydroelectric dams, fracking for condensate, open pit copper mining, digging for gypsum, salt mining, iron/ore mining, nuclear power plants, manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec, fish the ocean, fish the lakes, bury our garbage in landfills, use plastic bags at Safeway and Walmart, and on and on. All the same stuff the U.S. does.

Digging for gypsum? Gypsum is a byproduct of scrubbing emissions. I was not aware that it is a natural product that could be mined. Unless you are talking about something completely different.

When you say fish the lakes and ocean, do you mean over fishing?

There is a gypsum mine near Windermere BC. I used to camp near it. It is to manufacture drywall, cement, plaster of Paris, soil conditioning, a hardening retarder in Portland cement.

http://www.cvchamber.ca/business_listing/certainteed-gypsum-canada-inc/

See my comment above on the rest of my quote. It was rather tongue-in-cheek really.

Last-12-Exit

I had no idea that gyp was/is mined. I work at a power plant and we make gypsum and sell it to a wall board facility.

1ThoughtKnown

That is probably why it is rare that it is mined. Most of the time the place was at a standstill when we were camping there. But it is a mineral. Least you will have something for the break room lol

polaris_x

it's here ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/14/ottawa-to-unveil-assisted-dying-legislation-for-canadians-only.html

OTTAWA — The federal government has introduced a long-awaited and controversial new law spelling out the conditions in which seriously ill or dying Canadians may seek medical help to end their lives.

The legislation says there should be a choice of medically assisted death “for adults who are suffering intolerably and for whom death is reasonably foreseeable.”

That’s more restrictive than conditions recommended by the special joint parliamentary committee which had been studying the issue.

That committee had urged the government to minimize the obstacles in front of Canadians who want a doctor’s help to end their suffering.

The bill says those eligible to seek that help must be mentally competent, 18 or older, have a serious and incurable disease, illness or disability and be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

And it says that while death would have to be foreseen, there would not have to be a specific prognosis or timeline associated with when that might occur.

The legislation is the long-awaited response to the Supreme Court’s ruling last year that the prohibition on doctor assisted suicide violates the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The court gave the federal government until Feb. 6, 2016 — later extended to June 6 — to come up with a new law that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable physical or mental suffering to seek medical help to end their lives.

Legal experts and others predict the new bill will inevitably be challenged, both by those who feel the law doesn’t go far enough and those who feel it goes too far.

Consequently, some members of the special committee and some advocacy groups have called on the government to pre-emptively ask the Supreme Court whether the new law complies with the charter of rights — rather than forcing sick and dying individuals to launch their own court challenges.

After some initial confusion, the government confirmed late Wednesday that Liberal backbenchers will be free to vote according to their consciences on the bill. Other parties have said from the outset that they won’t whip their members but Government House leader Dominic LeBlanc initially said Liberals would be required to support the legislation.

lukin2006

Good law for the most part. I never want to see it opened up to under 18 individuals or the mentally ill. I have read that those issues will be studied. I would have like to have seen advanced consent in the bill for people with dementia and other type of disease that might rob you of the ability to make the choice later...

PJ_Soul

This step forward is amazing and I'm so pleased it's happening. HOWEVER, why in the fuck is the legislation more restrictive than the committee recommended? I find that very disappointing. That will result in far more suffering than is necessary unless the individuals in question find doctors willing to kind of bend facts in order to make assisted suicide legal for the person in question. The will mainly affect those who are not technically terminally ill, but in so much in pain that they may as well be. Just yesterday I saw a story about a man who was terribly disabled with a degenerative condition that wasn't considered terminal, but his quality of life was horrifying - he was in constant, permanent, excruciating pain - and he ended up starving himself for 2 months until he was so fucked up he WAS terminally ill so that doctors would assist him in dying. So basically he had to torture himself in order to take advantage of a law that should be helping him.

I absolutely disagree that this legislation should be closed to those who are mentally ill. Just because someone is mentally ill it doesn't mean that they can't make decisions for themselves. I can't even believe it's been suggested that that is not the case. Same with people under 18. I really think these restrictions will lead to a great deal of continued suffering when that should not be happening in this day and age.

lukin2006

Maybe instead of ever opening it up to the mentally ill the government should work toward properly funding programs for the mentally ill...where I live can it take upwards to year to see a pychiatrist, we just lost one because the hospital cut her funding for her receptionist...meanwhile the bureaucrat running the hospital makes 450 g...cut his funding/job...pretty sad.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

Maybe instead of ever opening it up to the mentally ill the government should work toward properly funding programs for the mentally ill...where I live can it take upwards to year to see a pychiatrist, we just lost one because the hospital cut her funding for her receptionist...meanwhile the bureaucrat running the hospital makes 450 g...cut his funding/job...pretty sad.

But wait. The two issues really have nothing to do with each other in the context that you mean. No one is going to be getting doc assisted suicide just because of a mental illness, because a mental illness is not a terminal illness, nor one that causes extreme physical pain and suffering. It's about people who are suffering terribly from a chronic or terminal illness, AND happen to be mentally ill. The legislation seems to suggest (and correct me if I'm wrong) that patients who happen to be mentally ill are deemed unable to make a clear decision about whether or not they want to die with dignity because of a physical illness. That, to me, and huge slap in the face to mentally ill people.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

Maybe instead of ever opening it up to the mentally ill the government should work toward properly funding programs for the mentally ill...where I live can it take upwards to year to see a pychiatrist, we just lost one because the hospital cut her funding for her receptionist...meanwhile the bureaucrat running the hospital makes 450 g...cut his funding/job...pretty sad.

But wait. The two issues really have nothing to do with each other in the context that you mean. No one is going to be getting doc assisted suicide just because of a mental illness, because a mental illness is not a terminal illness, nor one that causes extreme physical pain and suffering. It's about people who are suffering terribly from a chronic or terminal illness, AND happen to be mentally ill. The legislation seems to suggest (and correct me if I'm wrong) that patients who happen to be mentally ill are deemed unable to make a clear decision about whether or not they want to die with dignity because of a physical illness. That, to me, and huge slap in the face to mentally ill people.

Yes you are correct that it is currently closed to the mentally ill...I'm just saying in my opinion it should remain closed to the mentally ill, I'm saying start funding programs for people who are suffering, before the government ever studies expanding this law to cover the mentally ill...just my opinion...so yes it's a good law as written...at least for now. But it's not overly relevant ... The mentally ill usually when the suffering is unbearable find a way, unfortunately.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

Maybe instead of ever opening it up to the mentally ill the government should work toward properly funding programs for the mentally ill...where I live can it take upwards to year to see a pychiatrist, we just lost one because the hospital cut her funding for her receptionist...meanwhile the bureaucrat running the hospital makes 450 g...cut his funding/job...pretty sad.

But wait. The two issues really have nothing to do with each other in the context that you mean. No one is going to be getting doc assisted suicide just because of a mental illness, because a mental illness is not a terminal illness, nor one that causes extreme physical pain and suffering. It's about people who are suffering terribly from a chronic or terminal illness, AND happen to be mentally ill. The legislation seems to suggest (and correct me if I'm wrong) that patients who happen to be mentally ill are deemed unable to make a clear decision about whether or not they want to die with dignity because of a physical illness. That, to me, and huge slap in the face to mentally ill people.

Yes you are correct that it is currently closed to the mentally ill...I'm just saying in my opinion it should remain closed to the mentally ill, I'm saying start funding programs for people who are suffering, before the government ever studies expanding this law to cover the mentally ill...just my opinion...so yes it's a good law as written...at least for now. But it's not overly relevant ... The mentally ill usually when the suffering is unbearable find a way, unfortunately.

I am surprised you think it should stay closed to the mentally ill. Why do you think that? Are you under the impression that the mentally ill - all of them - are incapable of making such a decision for themselves? You know that would include those who have a mental illness under control with medication, right? And most mentally ill people are actually NOT suicidal, and there are all kinds of mental illness, many of which do not preclude the person from making logical decisions about their lives. To say that it's okay because the mentally ill can just kill themselves is pretty cold and brutal, no? This legislation seems to really be relying on a terrible stigma about the mentally ill, which is something I thought we were all interested in combating. I think this mentally ill caveat is absolutely horrifying.

lukin2006

PJ I respect your opinion on subject. I do realize that not all mentally ill people's are suicidal. My Personal opinion is keep it closed...and I have a great deal of sympathy for mentally ill people. I think in this case I am on board with how our government has proceeded. Until we work towards making sure such people's are getting the help they need then maybe my opinion will change...and I hope I am not offending anyone.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

PJ I respect your opinion on subject. I do realize that not all mentally ill people's are suicidal. My Personal opinion is keep it closed...and I have a great deal of sympathy for mentally ill people. I think in this case I am on board with how our government has proceeded. Until we work towards making sure such people's are getting the help they need then maybe my opinion will change...and I hope I am not offending anyone.

Well it's sure better than nothing. It's a groundbreaking move forward on this issue (one that I care very much about), and I'm thrilled about that. It has taken way WAY too long. But still, when a government ignores advice from a committee dedicated to recommending the best possible ideas based on the most carefully considered facts and expertise, I scratch my head and become pretty irritated. And again, I think this is a real blow to the fight for the rights and position in society of the mentally ill. I feel like they are being treated like the mentally disabled here, which is completely inappropriate.
BUT.....


I know that is also inappropriate considering the subject matter. But seriously, I feel actual joy that this HUMAN RIGHT has finally become a reality (for most of us anyway )! I feel such a sense of relief about it....... I just hope I or anyone else I care about and needs to use this right at some point doesn't become mentally ill before that.

lukin2006

Well I never said the law was bad...whatever. Just glad it gives so much pleasure...even though anyone that might have to face this tough personal decision has your support...

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

Well I never said the law was bad...whatever. Just glad it gives so much pleasure...even though anyone that might have to face this tough personal decision has your support...

Pardon? I know you didn't.... I think you might be misunderstanding some part of what I said? Maybe you thought I was arguing with you when I wasn't there, or...? I was actually agreeing with you.

Pleasure? I wouldn't put it that way. Great relief is more like it. I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence of your post.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

Maybe instead of ever opening it up to the mentally ill the government should work toward properly funding programs for the mentally ill...where I live can it take upwards to year to see a pychiatrist, we just lost one because the hospital cut her funding for her receptionist...meanwhile the bureaucrat running the hospital makes 450 g...cut his funding/job...pretty sad.

But wait. The two issues really have nothing to do with each other in the context that you mean. No one is going to be getting doc assisted suicide just because of a mental illness, because a mental illness is not a terminal illness, nor one that causes extreme physical pain and suffering. It's about people who are suffering terribly from a chronic or terminal illness, AND happen to be mentally ill. The legislation seems to suggest (and correct me if I'm wrong) that patients who happen to be mentally ill are deemed unable to make a clear decision about whether or not they want to die with dignity because of a physical illness. That, to me, and huge slap in the face to mentally ill people.

I have read the proposed legislation and I don't see anything in there that suggests that people with mental illness who are still competent to make medical decisions would not be eligible for MAID. The real specifiers are: competency to make the decision, at least 18 years of age, have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" (which is further defined in the proposed act), have made a voluntary request, have given informed consent, and that they are eligible to receive medical services in Canada (i.e. they aren't traveling here just for medical assistance in dying). The media is talking about it not including those with mental illnesses, but that's misleading; it doesn't specifically include a solely mental health diagnosis as part of the definition of "grievous and irremediable medical condition", but it doesn't exclude those with mental illness and a grievous and irremediable medical condition from requesting MAID. The real concern, in my opinion, is that it doesn't allow for advance directives to cover the decision in a condition that will inevitably lead to loss of competency (such as dementia), so individuals may feel forced to choose MAID while they are still competent and before they would wish to, in order not to lose that option.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

Well I never said the law was bad...whatever. Just glad it gives so much pleasure...even though anyone that might have to face this tough personal decision has your support...

Pardon? I know you didn't.... I think you might be misunderstanding some part of what I said? Maybe you thought I was arguing with you when I wasn't there, or...? I was actually agreeing with you.

Pleasure? I wouldn't put it that way. Great relief is more like it. I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence of your post.

Not a problem here...the most important thing is to get this legislation passed by June 6 (I think that's the date the SOC gave the government to change the law). So I guess this is partly on Harper who obviously did nothing after the SOC ruling, and wasted valuable time. I suspect the big hurdle might be the unelected overly useless senate.

lukin2006

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Harper government’s unconstitutional tough-on-crime law

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/supreme-court-of-canada-strikes-down-harper-governments-unconstitutional-tough-on-crime-law

And another SOC rejection of the Harper government...you think he'd have advisors that would have instructed him on if proposed legislation would pass SOC challenges, of course he probably wouldn't have listened anyways...

catefrances

JWPearl said:

rgambs wrote: »

Indeed, criminalizing this has never made sense!

some people are let to die painfully when theres no hope and you call this criminalizing. i call it peace

and yet we have no problem euthanising our dying pets to save them the pain.

PJ_Soul

catefrances said:

JWPearl said:

rgambs wrote: »

Indeed, criminalizing this has never made sense!

some people are let to die painfully when theres no hope and you call this criminalizing. i call it peace

and yet we have no problem euthanising our dying pets to save them the pain.

I think you have misread the post you're responding to. Or someone did. The quoting is all messed up.

catefrances

PJ_Soul said:

catefrances said:

JWPearl said:

rgambs wrote: »

Indeed, criminalizing this has never made sense!

some people are let to die painfully when theres no hope and you call this criminalizing. i call it peace

and yet we have no problem euthanising our dying pets to save them the pain.

I think you have misread the post you're responding to. Or someone did. The quoting is all messed up.

no I didn't misread.. but I did screw up the quoting. lol

PJ_Soul

catefrances said:

PJ_Soul said:

catefrances said:

JWPearl said:

rgambs wrote: »

Indeed, criminalizing this has never made sense!

some people are let to die painfully when theres no hope and you call this criminalizing. i call it peace

and yet we have no problem euthanising our dying pets to save them the pain.

I think you have misread the post you're responding to. Or someone did. The quoting is all messed up.

no I didn't misread.. but I did screw up the quoting. lol

Okay, I don't understand what you meant then. You call keeping euthanasia illegal peace?

hedonist

I think (apologies if I'm incorrect) she means it not being illegal can bring peace of soul, mind, whatever? to the person wanting to end their pain. That, if we do as much for our beloved pets when it's the right thing to do for them, we should even moreso be able to exercise it for ourselves.

My take, anyway.

catefrances

hedonist said:

I think (apologies if I'm incorrect) she means it not being illegal can bring peace of soul, mind, whatever? to the person wanting to end their pain. That, if we do as much for our beloved pets when it's the right thing to do for them, we should even moreso be able to exercise it for ourselves.

My take, anyway.

yep.

how is it we don't want to see our pets suffer, but we seem to be okay with standing by as our human loved ones suffer.

callen

hedonist said:

I think (apologies if I'm incorrect) she means it not being illegal can bring peace of soul, mind, whatever? to the person wanting to end their pain. That, if we do as much for our beloved pets when it's the right thing to do for them, we should even moreso be able to exercise it for ourselves.

My take, anyway.

And the wonderful church is for the PAIN and suffering. Church/God people at it again.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
And here is where it starts to get messy.
Politics and religion trying to decide over a humans free will.
It will never work.