The right to die with dignity

Rikardo wrote:

So palliative care (drugs to ease suffering) is to become an option.  The more people who choose euthanasia (doctor-kill me) the more the STATE will save in medical care.  It will be the responsible choice.  I'm lucky I have some savings to pay for care some day.  Maybe we'll have suicide/euthanasia clinics

This is quite possibly the most idiotic post I've read in a really long time. And I read A LOT of posts.

Unionist wrote:

MegB wrote:

Rikardo wrote:

So palliative care (drugs to ease suffering) is to become an option.  The more people who choose euthanasia (doctor-kill me) the more the STATE will save in medical care.  It will be the responsible choice.  I'm lucky I have some savings to pay for care some day.  Maybe we'll have suicide/euthanasia clinics

This is quite possibly the most idiotic post I've read in a really long time. And I read A LOT of posts.

Scary to think that the Supreme Court understands human rights better than some progressive folk (abortion, sex work, assisted dying... I"m sure I'm forgetting many other examples). 

Scary? I'm not so sure. The SCC curbed some of the Harper government's worst excesses, so I don't think their assisted dying decision was unusually progressive. 

 

ETA: It may well be the Supreme Court that kills C-51 via a constitutional challenge.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rushed-assisted-dying-legislation-senate...'Rushed' assisted-dying legislation to face strong opposition in the Senate: Liberal, Independent senators signal they cannot support Bill C-14 in its current form[/url]

 

Rikardo wrote:

Saturday's Devoir warned of rising costs for palliative care in Quebec.  A dear friend recently died in palliative care.  She didn't have the option of choosing a quick death and saving the state money for younger people's health care.  Maybe her doctor would have refused to kill her.  Some palliative care doctors who regularly ease pain and let people die don't want to have to kill them.

Where is the urgency ?

I'm sorry for your loss, Rikardo.

You seem to be unaware that medically-assisted dying has been legal - and available - in Québec since December.

And it doesn't matter if "her doctor would have refused to kill her". If she wanted to die, and qualified under the Québec legislative criteria, she would have the unquestioned right to be referred to a doctor who would perform the procedure.

Just realized we were having exactly the same "discussion" in February 2015, with the same protagonists.

Fortunately, society has moved on - as it did for the decriminalization of abortion, and the legalization of same-sex marriage (which apparently the Conservatives have now sort of almost recognized - why the rush, I don't know).

The only issue now is that the Trudeau regime, probably in order to keep votes of some religious fundies or others, is trying to push through a bill which falls far short of our Charter rights, as described by the Supreme Court, or even the in-force Québec legislation (which could actually be less restrictive, but that's a debate for another day).

As in the case of abortion after 1988, it may well be the Senate which saves the day here.

 

Yes, I thought that was strange as well, given Karl's strength on how a Parliamentary system operates.

pookie wrote:

Also irritates me to no end when people say that unless Bill C-14 passes, there will be "no law" after June 6.  Again, utterly false.

It's just Liberal blackmail to get their bill through. Shamefully, not many are challenging their PR on this. My hope, as often before, is with the Senate. When Mike Duffy returned, his first statement was to the effect that: "It's well and good to pass assisted dying legislation, but will the federal government use its powers under the Canada Health Act to ensure access - in a way that it hasn't for abortion services." Not an exact quote, but he was good. Better than this Liberal minister Jody Wilson-Raybould who is drunk with power and reading from some script prepared by Liberal back-room hacks.

takeitslowly wrote:

will the supreme court kill the bill if it doesnt pass on time?

No. The time is irrelevant, although all the media is lying about that. The Court might kill it if it considers that it still unduly restricts people's rights under the Charter.

Quote:

i dont want this garbage, i want to die when i want to.

Makes two of us.

Rikardo wrote:

This new law will make death even more traumatic for many of us.  When we get the  bad news that we're dying we'll now have a terribly difficult decision to make.  Do I ask my doctor to kill me, thus save the state a lot of money for more deserving younger patients.  It will be quick and simple and somehow "dignified".  It will  be a responsible decision.  It won't have the stigma of a suicide like  shooting yourself or overdosing on sleeping pills.  In Canada there are fewer and fewer people suffering painful death but an activist minority of self-styled "humanists" have forced this painful decision on all of us.

You're slightly mistaken. It's not this "new law" which will inflict this painful decision on you. It's that pesky Charter of Rights and the Supreme Court of Canada.

But I do see your point, and I think I can offer a solution.

Why not lobby for the legislation to allow for "advance directives" (which it doesn't now)? That way, you (and others) could make your decision right now. Before it becomes painful. And make sure you clearly state that this decision is "irrevocable" (lawyers will help with that), so you're not tempted to go back on it.

Don't thank me. I'm here to help. Will there be anything else?

 

Rikardo, no one is required to take advantage of medically assisted suicide. 

I don't think anyone stops to thinks about saving "the state" money when they consider whether to take extraordinary measures should they stop breathing or to put a DNR order on their chart when catastrophically ill, and this will be no different.

On the other hand, I've had conversations with two important people in my life after they'd received terminal diagnoses about the feasibility of "checking out early". One of those two would have had it been available. Instead, we watched her languish for days in agony under palliative care. Now *that* was traumatic. You deciding you don't want to opt out? I can't see how that's traumatic in the least.

What this law represents is choice. You want to make the choice to let nature take its course? That option is open to you. It's to those who would make the choice not to - they aren't offered a choice. And what they decide or not is none of your damned business.

A population that considers medical care a right is unlikely to view this issue in that way, despite your quirks of mind. I doubt "many" will think that way. Even if they do, how they feel or what they worry about is insufficient reason to deny another individual the right to end their life if it is no longer bearable.