The right to die with dignity

MegB wrote:

The fact that a small pocket of mostly white right-wing fundamentalists can control social policy while an elite of tar sands lobbyists can undo our environmental protections and threaten the entire planet is just plain ludicrous.

What she said.

Kind of highlights how dysfunctional our entire political system is.

Well, fortunately here in Québec at least, that will soon change. Palliative care does NOT work in every instance. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it leaves dying people, or people with uncontrollable pain, in agony. As with women's right to choose, we tell the fundies (of whatever faith) to keep their bloody hands off our bodies.

Iagatta may be a youngster. I’m not and I don’t want the State to force on me a choice I don’t want.
1. Receive expensive palliative care and be a burden on the state and society and your family.
2. Ask the state-appointed doctor to give you a lethal injection (used by the death penalty in the US) and save us all the cost of caring for you. (dying with dignity)
You will not be a burden on society. Many dying people are very afraid of this.

Why not universal palliative care? In the past doctors and the church felt that suffering was natural and narcotics not. Is it undignified to die under palliative care? Why does dying-with-dignity means euthanasia?

I’m lucky enough to be able probably to afford private palliative care so I won’t be a burden on our cash-starved health system.

Ricardo, no choice is being forced on you. If you have a terminal illness and prefer to receive palliative care, you are welcome to do so. Whether it makes a person a "burden" or not isn't affected by the existence or not of having the option to end your life. Not having the option, though, means that you've already decided, across the board, what is best not only for yourself but for everyone else. Palliative care is a good thing and it's availability should be a priority, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that narcotic comas are peaceful or dignified deaths. I've witnessed it. Having the option to end ones life before that pass would be a great comfort to some people, but it should never be treated as a mandatory choice (which would render it no choice at all).

I rather expect that doctor-assisted suicide (euthanasia) will become the norm with health costs exploding with the Boomers dying. It will possibly be the responsible choice, the unselfish choice, the choice of a good citizen, who doesn’t want resources wasted on him/her. The State has nothing to lose and everything to gain with this trend. Why such a massive movement for a handful of Sue Rodrigues that could jump out the window or take sleeping pills or poison from a friend.
No, we want the State to kill us, that is state doctors. With so many dying around the world of Aids or TB or bombing, why is this such a cause in Canada? Strong narcotics are already used and doctors have a code not to revive dying patients. My sister-in-law who died peacefully, drugged, didn’t have to choose. In the future everyone will have to choose and many will choose poison to save us all money.

Rikardo wrote:

I rather expect that doctor-assisted suicide (euthanasia) will become the norm with health costs exploding with the Boomers dying. It will possibly be the responsible choice, the unselfish choice, the choice of a good citizen, who doesn’t want resources wasted on him/her. The State has nothing to lose and everything to gain with this trend. Why such a massive movement for a handful of Sue Rodrigues that could jump out the window or take sleeping pills or poison from a friend. No, we want the State to kill us, that is state doctors. With so many dying around the world of Aids or TB or bombing, why is this such a cause in Canada? Strong narcotics are already used and doctors have a code not to revive dying patients. My sister-in-law who died peacefully, drugged, didn’t have to choose. In the future everyone will have to choose and many will choose poison to save us all money.

I'm glad your sister in law's death wasn't traumatic.

I wish I could say the same for my best friend.  She has the same kind of palliative care, and it was not entirely peaceful in spite of the drugs.  There were moments on the verge of surfacing that were agony and it took her 11 days to die.  11 days for her husband, the love of her life, to watch her die by inches, able to do nothing but moisten her lips.  She would have been horrified - was horrified that it would likely be the case.  The drugs aren't perfect, and it is, to some of us, a truly barbaric way to treat a human being. 

Now, you say that you "rather expect" will become the norm.  I wonder why that is?  Do you have any data?  I've noticed that jurisdictions where doctor-assisted suicide is permissable have not seen this happen.  Are you relying on any sort of information, or are we just exercises suppositions and imagination?

It still sometimes surprises me that there's somehow debate about this.

If I don't own my own life, exactly who DOES then?  Everyone who's not me??

God, you are being flippant about people's suffering.

I suspect a certain "fear of dying" is hardwired into us as part of a survival instinct, but at the same time, humans may be the only mammalian species to know that we will inevitably die. (Some other mammals do clearly demonstrate an awareness of death).

For me, the issue is remnants of doctrinal religious control over our lives and self-determination. We've won a lot of victories, but there are still meddling busybodies like Margaret Somerville who are against abortion, against same-sex marriage, against assisted suicide...

I can see the reason for some to honestly fear this, meaning some people with disabilities, or in othe rvulnerable positions. Though even that community is split, if you look at Steven Fletcher's support, or the recent poll which showed significant support for the right to die among people with disabilities.

But really, the question of "if" is moot. People already make that decision, sometimes desparately and prematurely. The medical community makes that decision too, either under the table, or slowly, by withdrawing treatment (a friend of ours chose death that way not too long ago, and had to wait until the poisons built up in his system). The question is when society is going to catch up and allow that to happen in a humane way. The notions that we can't have safeguards, or that it is some sort of plot out of soylent green, are simply ridiculous.

Timebandit wrote:

Fear of dying seems like a very sensible fear to have. 

At the risk of writing while large objects zoom over my head... I do not think the fear of dying is as widespread as some believe - fear of pain and suffering on the other hand is very common.

Are we seriously going to talk about death panels? Fuck off.

I've seen the ravages of dementia and Alzheimer's and I'm well aware of other debilitating agonizing diseases.

I want the right to be put to sleep in the same 'humane' manner as a dog or a cat.

Those standing in my way to die with dignity and in a humane manner can go FUCK THEMSELVES.

Stay out of my life,my body and my free will.

I don't think anyone is implying that grandma will put to sleep to save some money. That's the same crap you hear from whack jobs like Sarah Palin.

If today,in sound mind and consciousness I sign a paper notarized or undersigned by an attorney to put me down when I can no longer function as a human being,case closed,end point.

Who the hell are you (not to point the finger directly at you,Smith but in general) to make decisions and choices for me? Clearly if you don't want to be put to sleep,that is your personal choice as well.

Letting someone suffer drooling into a cup,a virtual vegetable is inhumane and just plain sick.

Like any other last will or testament,the right to die should be respected.

I don't think anyone, besides the assholes who want to make decisions for everyone else, are talking about killing grandma because they don't want to take care of her.

It's about personal choice. How could any progressive argue against that?

Quote:

Won't that just become the impossible condition that prevents any kind of change?

Obviously not. Impossible how? Even states that have well-established physician-assisted death still have a process. As I said, none of this is going to happen without some sort of oversight, especially if doctors and nurses are expected to do the job.

Besides, the court ruling is there, so it is recognized as a right. To try and paint this as black and white is not only way out of proportion, it ignores the serious concerns that need to be balanced.

I support this right, and I think anyone who really wants it should be able to make this choice without any grief. I still think it would be foolish to not let people know their options, and make sure there is no coercion.

Magoo, fun doses, but also a lot of lovelorn youth deciding to end it all. That is NOT the purpose of the right to assisted suicide (though of course people do have the right to kill themselves, whatever their reason).

Quote:

Magoo, fun doses, but also a lot of lovelorn youth deciding to end it all. That is NOT the purpose of the right to assisted suicide (though of course people do have the right to kill themselves, whatever their reason).

I agree.  In terms of process, I think some sort of waiting period might not be unreasonable, as an attempt to prevent impulsive choices like that.

Quote:

Well no system is perfect if you want to beg the question.

Personally, I'm OK with the system being imperfect (and I'm OK with there being a process and safeguards too).  At the same time I can picture opposition taking the form of "With lives at stake we NEED a perfect system!"

The other point that needs to be addressed in this thread is that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are being conflated at times, and they are distinctly different. Euthanasia is not currently up for debate.

I don’t want to be in the position to have to choose costly palliative care over doctor-assisted suicide (low-cost, thus responsible and “dignified”). Euthanasia (doctor applied poison) will free up money for child-care, etc. Which is more important to society, a few more weeks/months of life (without pain) for some old gent OR resourses for people who really need them?

Both,… is a great answer. Get real! We’re not living in the perfect society so many on the left love to imagine, and work for. Why not universal palliative care so almost no one suffers as they certainly did before palliative care became available? (Imitation of Christ?)

Timebandit wrote:

Euthanasia is not currently up for debate.

Very true, and for that reason I was alarmed to hear the media go to Robert Latimer for a comment on this the day after the Supreme Court ruling.

And this 'imitation of christ" nonsense begs the question of whether people actually want to go back to a natural lifespan and natural suffering like we had before the advent of modern medicine, or whether they just want to balk at the responsibility of a conscious decision. I haven't read of any religious organizations lobbying against dentistry on those grounds.

Rikardo wrote:

I don’t want to be in the position to have to choose costly palliative care over doctor-assisted suicide (low-cost, thus responsible and “dignified”). Euthanasia (doctor applied poison) will free up money for child-care, etc. Which is more important to society, a few more weeks/months of life (without pain) for some old gent OR resourses for people who really need them? Both,… is a great answer. Get real! We’re not living in the perfect society so many on the left love to imagine, and work for. Why not universal palliative care so almost no one suffers as they certainly did before palliative care became available? (Imitation of Christ?)

what makes you think that a universal palliative care will ensure no one suffers?

Unionist wrote:

Pardon the satire, but I'm with alan smithee on this one.

I'm not.

That is to say I agree with both of you about the supreme court ruling being a good thing. And absolutely on the idea that those who want to choose assisted end of life should be able to do so without a bunch of roadblocks.

Not so much about the chip on the shoulder and the attempt to spin this as black and white, and those who have concerns as being the equivalent of anti-abortion choice. Seems to me there might be a less confrontational way of making this happen.

Like I said a few times, I don't agree with the spin some disabled activists are putting on this, but I have heard, first hand,  the experience of a couple of people about the difference in care they can receive - being told "you've had a good run, maybe you have had enough". I have also seen an elder robbed blind and made to believe she was the imposition and not in her right mind. 

So yes I strongly support a person's right to choose end of life, but I also see that those who are concerned about vulnerable people being abused have a point. And if we want to have something that really works and has broad support I think it is worth the time to balance those needs and concerns, rather than just grandstanding.

The work is all done, Smith. Québec has a law, since last year. It's available on the internet (until Bill C-51 is passed, at any rate). Harper doesn't need to spend 2 seconds, let alone one year, obsessing over how to undermine human rights and the Supreme Court.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sure. And it is a good thing. But that law also has pretty clear conditions under which a person may take advantage of those services. Even Quebec realizes it is not as simple as "keep your hands off my body".

Yes, so did the Supreme Court put very strict conditions. We all get that. What straw man are you fighting here? Has someone said that anyone should be able to administer lethal injections to anyone anytime, with "consent"? Haven't heard that.

This is about assisted suicide. If someone simply wants to commit unassisted suicide, are you aware they have been allowed to do that, without fear of criminal prosecution (if for example they try and fail), since 1969? Pierre Elliott Trudeau? Or do you think we should revisit that open-ended right to die and balance some concerns?

I don't think anyone is objecting to putting safeguards in place, Smith.  Switzerland has a process that one has to go through before a physician-assisted suicide can take place, as does the Netherlands.  I think we're getting more of a reaction to Rikardo's position, which is that allowing PAS will equal euthanasia and should not be one of the options available to people at the end of life.

This was legally very predictable - but it's still shocking:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-end-of-life-care-1.3345572... end-of-life law contradicts Criminal Code and can't take effect, court says[/url]

Quote:

A Quebec Superior Court justice has ruled a provincial law allowing some terminally ill patients to end their lives with medical help cannot take effect on Dec. 10, as planned. 

Justice Michel Pinsonnault said key articles in the new law contradict provisions of Canada's Criminal Code on medically assisted suicide – provisions that are still the law of the land until February 2016. [...]

It was the federal attorney general, who was an interlocutor on the case, who raised the question of whether federal law must take precedence over provincial law until the necessary Criminal Code amendments are made.

"The doctrine of federal preponderance applies in this case and continues to apply until the incompatibility with sections 14 and 241b) of the Criminal Code disappears," Pinsonnault wrote.

Article 14 states that "no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him" and Section 241b) forbids anyone from counselling, aiding or abetting someone to commit suicide.

Pinsonnault issued a revised ruling Tuesday afternoon after several reports that the injunction had been granted making it clear that while the court found that the Quebec law must be put on hold, it was because of its incompatibility with federal law and not because the court had approved the request for an injunction.

Within an hour of Pinsonnault's ruling Tuesday, the Quebec government announced it would appeal the decision.

Speaking to reporters at Quebec's National Assembly, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée and Health Minister Gaétan Barrette couldn't say for sure whether Quebec's end-of-life law would come into effect Dec. 10 as planned.

It's unfortunate that the Trudeau government decided to intervene in this matter - even though Trudeau has supported the Québec legislation, which was approved by all four parties in the National Assembly - and even though the Supreme Court has said the Criminal Code provisions are unconstitutional.

Parliament had better move fast to amend the Code - and particularly not request an extension of time from the Supreme Court. As it stands, the suffering of terminally ill persons in Québec - and throughout Canada - is now on their heads.

Slumberjack wrote:

Whether Trudeau supports it or not, didn't the existing federal law compel the intrusion? 

No.

Quote:

On what basis could the government not have intervened?

On the basis that the law offends against the Charter - and that people's constitutional right (as upheld by the Supreme Court) to avoid unbearable suffering in the context of a terminal disease should not have to await lazy federal legislators, when Québec has already worked on this issue for six years and is ready to go.

Quote:

Wilful ignorance of a law they're legally supposed to uphold?

Absolutely not. Where do you read that every violation of the Criminal Code has to be prosecuted? And the job of prosecution is up to the provinces, not the federal government. Québec (and the feds) ignored Morgentaler's illegal abortions for 10 years, when it was clear that no Québec jury would convict him. And that was [b]BEFORE[/b] the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional.

Quote:

Which other ones could we ask them to ignore?

For starters, any law which has been ruled as unconstitutional. Like, the Bedford decision, during the year it took to draft new legislation. Was anyone charged with living off the avails, running a brothel, etc.? I think the justice system simply ignored all that.

Quote:

The legal 'what if's' for many departments in the event that an actual assisted suicide was successfully challenged after the fact, as it very likely would be in light of the federal law, is probably the motivating factor here.

How could an "actual assisted suicide" be successfully challenged after the fact? Who would challenge it - some crown counsel somewhere? And if they did, which court would find guilt, knowing that on appeal, the basis of conviction would [b]necessarily still[/b] be held to be unconstitutional?