blackbird

I think the reason Ukraine was not brought into NATO was because it would have resulted in WW3. NATO is trying to avoid an all out WW3 between Russia and the west. Not bringing Ukraine into NATO was just a calculation to avoid world war. The basic rule in NATO is if any NATO member is attacked, all members must defend the aggressor. That would have meant WW3. NATO made the right decision.

Do you not believe in any kind of moral authority? What is the basis of your morality or do you have any? If you don't have any moral basis what are you doing promoting something which is a moral matter?

Canada is going too far with medical assistance in dying (thestar.com) "Extending MAID to those with mental illnesses carries obvious risks, given that suicidal thoughts can be part and parcel of some psychological conditions. Advocates for the disabled warn that widening the MAID criteria makes their lives seem more disposable than others, and worry people with disabilities will feel pressure to go that route. We’re hearing about more and more cases of people driven to despair by poverty and chronic illness, who can’t get the help they need from a badly stressed health system. Will some turn to MAID as a way out? In February, a 51-year-old Ontario woman chose to die because she couldn’t find affordable housing that wouldn’t aggravate her chemical sensitivities. Global News reports on the case of a 65-year-old man named Les Landry who’s considering MAID because he’s fallen into poverty and doesn’t see another solution." MAID law is a slippery slope.

Is it too easy to die in Canada? Surprising approvals for medically assisted death -The Fifth Estate Bing Videos

Of course I don't have the actual data and individual reports because that is kept confidential. The whole thing is being done behind closed doors and in secret. But if there are a few reports of protocols not being followed, you can be sure that is only the tip of the iceberg.

'Nothing about this felt OK': The troubling debate over a 'good' death for all As a doctor, killing patients has long been taboo. Ferrukh Faruqui examines the ethics of extending eligibility for euthanasia — MAiD — to those who are not dying 'Nothing about this felt OK': The troubling debate over a 'good' death for all | National Post

Obviously there are reports that many people did not get a say in the matter. Protocols were broken or not followed in many cases apparently. RCMP called to investigate multiple cases of veterans being offered medically assisted death | CBC News Medical assistance in dying: Police investigating B.C. case | CTV News

It is in this article. Obviously I don't have access to the records. I don't think anybody can access the actual records. It is not something the government would want to release because it would expose the government. Such violations of the protocols would not be written down anyway. But there likely have been many individual reports by relatives and friends of people who died in MAID and who felt their death was contrary to the protocols. What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca)

As just an ordinary citizen, I obviously don't have access to the records of individual cases. I doubt if anyone would be able to obtain access. It would be denied on the basis of confidentiality just as everything else in government or the health care system is. Also, I doubt if the records would give you the facts in written form. Who is going to record the violations of protocols? If you still support MAID, then your support and other's support of it is the reason why many continue, who have not requested it, to be put to death. So you cannot claim it's your choice any more if it is causing the death of countless others.

Some of the reported flaws are: " protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage." Obviously people do not follow the protocols set by the government. That would seem to indicate that would be impossible to fix. How do you make people follow the protocols, obtain consents, stop pressure from families and others if they have already proven they are not willing to do so? This is a direct result of the flaws of human nature, not necessarily the protocols. If people are not willing to follow the system protocols, then I don't see how it can be "fixed". Many people who do not explicitly request MAID will continue to die.

The government and society has proven they are not capable of "fixing those flaws". Likely the whole system does not lend itself to fixing.

If the system has proven to put to death people who have not asked to die, why would you support such a system? I understand you said repeatedly that you want to have the freedom of choice. But if that means many others are being put to death against their wishes, would that be enough for you to reconsider the whole thing? This article has just come to my attention and adds a whole new perspective. You probably were not aware of it either.

"The experience of the few countries that have taken the route of euthanasia and assisted suicide shows that these practices soon become ungovernable despite the controls and guidelines put in place: protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage. People who have not asked to die are put to death." What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca) This means your demand to have the choice has far-reaching consequences and means many who have not asked to die are put to death. This is the natural outcome of the system. MAID becomes ungovernable and unmanageable. Be careful for what you wish for.

"Nine Reasons why Euthanasia (killing the patient instead of killing the pain) Is Always Wrong When the patient and the family get proper support, demand for euthanasia disappears. Medical practice teaches us that patients who express the wish to die usually do so because they are in need of comfort, they are depressed or their pain and symptoms are not being well managed. For the great majority, good medical care, treatment for the depression and a palliative approach are the solutions. Patients who ask to die often change their mind with time. Often the request comes not from the patients but from their exhausted families; the patients themselves have not asked that their death be hastened. Mostly, when the families get more support, the demand disappears. In the face of suffering, it is far better to look for meaning in the life that remains, develop strategies to face existential questions and strive for optimal care, than to seek shortcuts to death. There is always a way out without euthanasia, even in the most complex cases. Ending the patient’s life is not a humane solution to tragic situations of pain and suffering: the physician’s duty is always to kill the pain, not the patient. Proposing euthanasia shows a lack of confidence in the progress of medical science. There are no limits imposed on the physician’s means of relieving pain. The means are many, accessible, increasingly sophisticated and constantly developing. In extreme cases, heavy sedation that puts patients to sleep can even be a last resort to sustain them through their suffering, until death takes place from natural causes. In treating terminal cases, there are no obstacles to ending or foregoing treatments considered useless or disproportionate by the patient or the physician. There is always a way out, even in the most complex cases. There are no taboo issues about death in the medical profession. The questioning of life-prolonging treatment, the withdrawal of useless or disproportionate treatment and the refusal of treatment by autonomous patients are daily events in clinical practice, addressed calmly and openly by practising physicians and in training programs. Doctors clearly understand the line between pain relief and euthanasia. People who have not asked to die will be put to death. There are individuals who seriously or insistently ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide. They are very few in number. These requests are usually rooted in their personality and the need they feel to control their life—and their death. The vast majority of people in similar situations do not ask for life-shortening intervention. Individual freedom and autonomy end where they impinge on the freedom of other members of society. Changing the law to satisfy the demand of such a small number of people would imperil the lives of a much greater number who initially were not even aimed at. The experience of the few countries that have taken the route of euthanasia and assisted suicide shows that these practices soon become ungovernable despite the controls and guidelines put in place: protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage. People who have not asked to die are put to death. Accepting that giving death could be a solution to one problem opens the door to giving death to a hundred others. Decriminalization of euthanasia is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to a much steeper slide, hard to control. Physicians in countries where euthanasia is legal know this from experience. Once it is accepted that patients in a terminal state who so request can be put to death, physicians find themselves confronted with the requests of the disabled and the chronically ill, then with the requests of patients with psychological problems and then with the fate of severely handicapped new-borns—who have not asked to die. Even young people who are chronically ill invoke anti-discrimination laws to support their request for assisted suicide. Accepting that giving death could be a solution to one problem opens the door to giving death to a hundred others. Euthanasia becomes a “treatment option” that people can turn to to relieve their suffering, when in fact there are many other options. Decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide would create unwarranted pressure on the chronically ill, the severely disabled and those who require a lot of assistance or expensive treatments: they could begin to think that they are an undue burden on their loved ones or on society and that they should consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. The possibility of euthanasia would distort social attitudes toward the seriously ill, the disabled and the old. A person is not valuless because he or she is chronically dependant or dying. Neither disease, nor physical or mental decline, nor pain, nor suffering, nor loss of autonomy can undermine the fundamental value of the human being. A person is not valueless because she or he is chronically dependent or dying. The solution to ensure “dying with dignity” remains first and foremost a competent palliative approach, respect, support and tenderness. Giving patients the right to die means giving doctors the right to kill. Decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide depends entirely on the participation of the medical profession. Ultimately, it is doctors who are asked to decide whether it makes more sense to preserve a life or to end it: physicians find themselves put in the position of arbitrator. The result is a loss of patients’ autonomy and a corresponding increase in the power of the medical profession over the individuals in its charge. Giving patients the right to die means giving doctors the right to kill. An erosion of the doctor-patient relationship must follow if the doctor is not simply the person who cures, relieves or comforts, but becomes as well the person who gives death. Putting to death becomes just another treatment option available to the profession, along with various medical or surgical alternatives; this would erode people’s bond of confidence in the profession as a whole. Euthanasia promotes suicide. Even though it is sometimes asserted that suicide is a freedom, it is above all a personal tragedy that is fundamentally contrary to human nature and a failure on society’s part. Suicide is never without repercussions on other people and society as a whole. The medical response to a person’s attempted suicide has always been to come to the person’s aid; it should remain so. The physician who participates in suicide is promoting suicide at a societal level. Euthanasia has been prohibited by the medical profession for more than two thousand years. The Hippocratic prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide is more than a millennial tradition. It has been a core value for the generations of physicians who have adhered to it. It is imbued with wisdom and compassion and deserves to be vigorously defended. (These 9 arguments are taken from a brief presented to the Collège des Médecins du Québec, on August 30 2009, by Joseph Ayoub, m.d., André Bourque, m.d., Catherine Ferrier, m.d., François Lehmann, m.d. and José Morais, m.d.. The brief --which is attached below--has also been endorsed by a significant number of physicians in the province of Québec.)" What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca)

When people are depressed or suicidal, offering them MAID is not giving people choices. It is just killing.

MAID does not "eliminate" suffering; it eliminates the sufferer. Where is the compassionate care that society should be providing? There is little or no difference between Naziism and a government that legalizes and uses MAID as a solution for people. The people that are particularly vulnerable are the older people, the infirm, the handicapped, and the mentally ill or depressed. Most people are depressed at one time or another in their lives. For the government to offer MAID to these people is reprehensible. Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying Kills THOUSANDS The hypocratic oath clearly rules out MAID. This short 6 minute video gives a good overview. Video | Facebook

Pure fiction. Ask the 80,000 or 100,000 unborn babies who were aborted in Canada per year? Seems liberals and NDP are ok with killing innocent people or unborn babies, but don't believe in justice for the real murderers who kill police officers who by the way are just doing their job to defend people like you.

Obviously such people need help in other ways, not offering them MAID. Where is the compassion for people who have mental problems? There is none. Just give them death. That doesn't show compassion or caring for people. They obviously need help which is not being offered in a lot of cases.

You are inventing all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the subject. False allegations much.

That is pure fiction. It is the Nazi MAID talking point but no truth in it. Death by suicide or deliberate killing is not "dignity". It is the complete opposite. That is truly sad. You obviously don't believe in justice. If you think capital punishment for murdering a police officer is barbaric, what do you think killing a police officer is? You evidently don't see the difference?

So you can't see the difference between euthanasia and capital punishment for the murder of a police officer? That is sad. Euthanasia or MAID is killing someone who has committed no crime and capital punishment for killing a police officer is justice. You should understand the difference.

You assume everyone who applies for MAID will suffer unimaginably, which is just an assumption and is not factual. The medical profession has many medications they can give people and not everyone applying for MAID is suffering. So it is a kind of myth and disinformation. There are all kinds of reasons why people apply for MAID.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom to do whatever you want. You do not have freedom to kill someone you don't like. Neither should the state be playing God and killing people. Now you are lying. I never said that. I said the medical profession removes extraordinary life supports from people in certain circumstances if the situation warrants it.

Sometimes, people in serious medical condition, when there is no hope of recovery, have their extraordinary support systems removed which ends their life. This is not considered as murder. The medical profession does this all the time. That is totally different than injecting something into a person to kill them. That is murder. Man should not be actively killing people.