Euthanasia

[Bonam]

I don't know if assisted suicide is really something that should be done by doctors. Doctors enter their profession to heal people, not to help them die. While I agree that there are situations in which an assisted death may be preferable to the alternatives, I don't think this is a duty that should necessarily be placed upon doctors or our healthcare system in general. I know several medical professionals and all of them have expressed the opinion that they would not want to be in the position where they have to help someone end their own life, they don't feel comfortable with it. Doctors are already heavily burdened with major duties and responsibilities, adding one like this seems like a lot.

Some doctors I'm sure would be fine with it, and perhaps there should be special clinics where this kind of care is provided, but it should not be something that an average doctor might encounter. Or perhaps this is simply a task that should be carried out by family members in the appropriate circumstances, and the laws changed to allow for that. Some people here mention that it would have been better to have a severely ill relative euthanized rather than prolonging their suffering... but would these same people have had the ability to commit the act with their own hands? If not, if it is too difficult for you, why should this burden be placed on a doctor, who would have to carry any emotional baggage that may result just as much as you would? Killing someone, even someone who is terminally ill and in great pain, even someone who asks for it, is no easy task and not easy to get over, for a typical human being.

[eyeball]

In typical fashion this is an issue that's forever destined to circle the drain of right-wing/left-wing acrimony.

Maybe we need two completely separate justice systems in this stupid country.

[scribblet]

I haven't had experience with any of it myself so can't speak to the issue from a personal viewpoint, but do feel for someone who has, and the person who is terminally ill needing help. However, there is enough out there telling us how the system is abused and how the most vulnerable could be at risk. I have a number of links here is one of them.

How do we safeguard against this type of thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.

[BubberMiley]

Slippery slope arguments never make any sense whatsoever. Laws can be easily written to avoid such situations. I think you could start with requiring consent from the affected party.

[scribblet]

I have no problem with informed consent, but that is the problem, consent in some cases is not being required. There is a large increase in euthaniasias there are falsified death certificates but now Holland even has mobile euthanasia units They are launching an investigation into the increase and a more liberal interpretation of the laws.

We have a euthanasia on a person in his 40s who was depressed over a failed sexchange operation. A double euthanasia on deaf twins and a woman who was depressed. How many other border line cases are there… The slippery slope is allready here.

[waldo]

I fail to see the Liberal’s point of public consultation when their own resolution has a predetermined outcome………and from your quoted Trudeau passage, it appears he also has reservations on the file.

your described "predetermined outcomes"... aren't. Perhaps you should re-read those resolutions and pay attention to the conditionals. Yes... I purposely included the Trudeau quote to express that reservation - that over a concern for the lack of quality pallative care... that euthanasia might be looked as (by some) as a resort given the existing pallative care deficiencies.

.

Have the Liberals actually adopted doctor assisted suicide, or like the majority of their policies, keeping their actual stance close to their chest until the writ (and further polling) has dropped?

yes - the Liberal Party of Canada has adopted the policy I quoted... you're confusing official party policy with what might appear as a part of an election policy platform... in that latter regard, time will tell if it is adopted.

.

[waldo]

It seems Doctors too share reservations on the subject.

per the days old Canadian Medical Association's General Council meetings:

Delegates to the organization’s general council decided Tuesday that the CMA now “supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying.”

The carefully crafted position is an acknowledgment that, while assisting death is still a crime in Canada, the attitudes of Canadians, including those of physicians, are changing quickly, and so is the law.

While the group’s official policy has not changed, “it’s only a matter of time,” said Louis Francescutti, outgoing president of the CMA. Dr. Francescutti said the “conscience” resolution, which was adopted by an overwhelming 91 per cent of delegates, means that the CMA supports a doctor’s right to refuse to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient, but it will also support a doctor’s right to hasten death if the law allows.

.

[waldo]

However, there is enough out there telling us how the system is abused and how the most vulnerable could be at risk. I have a number of links here is one of them.

How do we safeguard against this type of thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.

do some actual research, hey! Your first clue should have been the journal moving the paper from it's ethics category to it's opinion category! Have a read of this counter paper to your links reference: Pereira’s attack on legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: smoke and mirrors

Objective

To review the empirical claims made in: Pereira J. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Curr Oncol 2011;18:e38–45.

Design

We collected all of the empirical claims made by Jose Pereira in “Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls.” We then collected all reference sources provided for those claims. We compared the claims with the sources (where sources were provided) and evaluated the level of support, if any, the sources provide for the claims. We also reviewed other available literature to assess the veracity of the empirical claims made in the paper. We then wrote the present paper using examples from the review.

Results

Pereira makes a number of factual statements without providing any sources. Pereira also makes a number of factual statements with sources, where the sources do not, in fact, provide support for the statements he made. Pereira also makes a number of false statements about the law and practice in jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Conclusions

Pereira’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence he provided. His paper should not be given any credence in the public policy debate about the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada and around the world.

[waldo]

as a follow-up to (some) of the failed reference's claims concerning the Netherlands... per Radio Netherlands - 2012: Nine myths about euthanasia in the Netherlands

Myth 1: Euthanasia is really easy is in the Netherlands
Myth 2: Elderly Dutch people prefer to go to hospitals abroad for fear of being murdered by doctors in hospitals in the Netherlands
Myth 3: Children can use euthanasia to get rid of their elderly parents in order to get their hands on the inheritance
Myth 4: A Dutch clinic is to open where you can end your life
Myth 5: One telephone call and a mobile team turns up to end your life
Myth 6: Dutch people go around with wristbands saying they don’t want to be euthanised
Myth 7: Ten percent of Dutch deaths are down to euthanasia and many people are forced into it
Myth 8: Everyone can come to the Netherlands in order to have their life terminated
Myth 9: Parents can get rid of their handicapped child

[jbg]

Slippery slope arguments never make any sense whatsoever. Laws can be easily written to avoid such situations. I think you could start with requiring consent from the affected party.

I see the "slippery slope" argument but in the case of end of life decisions am not bothered by it.As I explained earlier in this thread (link to post) before this was even an issue out in the open, hospitals commonly moved for an early end to a life that was effectively over. I loved my father dearly but I do not see a role for formal statutes or court rulings. At most, I could see rules laying out the order of family members who have something to say in a decision to avoid situations where, in my father's case, his siblings' input and interference was not constructive.

[Big Guy]

An interesting take on the slippery slope argument;

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Wilber]

I can understand how things might be abused but for starters, I don't understand what the hell is the matter with someone who is terminally ill deciding how and when they die.

[scribblet]

I can understand how things might be abused but for starters, I don't understand what the hell is the matter with someone who is terminally ill deciding how and when they die.

There isn't really, but it is what can happen if laws become too liberal as in Europe and how the most vulnerable could be at risk. We have to be very careful - should we allow someone to be put down because they are depressed over a sex change operation?

[BubberMiley]

A sex-change operation? Does that make the depression more trivial?

[Wilber]

There isn't really, but it is what can happen if laws become too liberal as in Europe and how the most vulnerable could be at risk. We have to be very careful - should we allow someone to be put down because they are depressed over a sex change operation?

Only if you consider sex change operations or depression to be terminal illness.

[Big Guy]

Our society abhors the idea of intentionally snuffing out a life.

We then run into a catch 22 situation; A person wants to end their lives. Some of us feel that we must make sure that the people wanting to do this are in their right mind. Many of us believe that the mere fact that someone wants to end their lives indicates that they are not in their right mind. and so we go in circles.

While attempted suicide is not a crime in Canada, a person seriously attempting one is temporarily "detained" and forced to have a psychiatric evaluation. We still believe that the will to die is a mental disability.

[Derek 2.0]

your described "predetermined outcomes"... aren't. Perhaps you should re-read those resolutions and pay attention to the conditionals. Yes... I purposely included the Trudeau quote to express that reservation - that over a concern for the lack of quality pallative care... that euthanasia might be looked as (by some) as a resort given the existing pallative care deficiencies.

.

From your prior post:

BE IT RESOLVED that voluntary medically-assisted death be de-criminalized after a public consultation process designed to make recommendations to Parliament with respect to the criteria for access and the appropriate oversight system for medically-assisted end-of-life.

Seems rather clear on it's intent.....with a predetermined ending of course.

Are you suggesting the Liberals will "fix" issues with palliative care, and in turn, "medically-assisted death" won't then be needed?

yes - the Liberal Party of Canada has adopted the policy I quoted... you're confusing official party policy with what might appear as a part of an election policy platform... in that latter regard, time will tell if it is adopted.

So the Liberal Party of Canada has yet to decide if "medically-assisted death" will be part of their 2015 platform?

If not, when will the LPC decide the planks of their platform, and in turn, release it to the public? Like I suggested, do we have to wait until the writ is dropped?

[waldo]

So the Liberal Party of Canada has yet to decide if "medically-assisted death" will be part of their 2015 platform?

If not, when will the LPC decide the planks of their platform, and in turn, release it to the public? Like I suggested, do we have to wait until the writ is dropped?

get a grip! What party has released its 2015 election platform? Should I bother to reach back for a lil' reminder for ya... how about that election where Harper Conservatives didn't release their platform until after one of the leader debates had passed... and only did so then because of the big-time criticism they were receiving for not having released an election platform.

.

[waldo]

Seems rather clear on it's intent.....with a predetermined ending of course.

yes, the intent is most clear... but again, the intent is based on conditions being met. Try to read it again, hey!

Are you suggesting the Liberals will "fix" issues with palliative care, and in turn, "medically-assisted death" won't then be needed?

did you spend a bit too much time on the range today? I didn't suggest... anything. I quoted you a statement... you can choose to infer whatever you want from it.

[Derek 2.0]

get a grip! What party has released its 2015 election platform? Should I bother to reach back for a lil' reminder for ya... how about that election where Harper Conservatives didn't release their platform until after one of the leader debates had passed... and only did so then because of the big-time criticism they were receiving for not having released an election platform.

.

So, like I asked:

Have the Liberals actually adopted doctor assisted suicide, or like the majority of their policies, keeping their actual stance close to their chest until the writ (and further polling) has dropped?

So the LPC has yet to adopt "medically-assisted death" as a 2015 plank....

[waldo]

So, like I asked:

So the LPC has yet to adopt "medically-assisted death" as a 2015 plank....

and as I said, you're confusing party policy with election platforms. And again, what party has released its 2015 election platform? You're a little silent there, hey!

[Derek 2.0]

yes, the intent is most clear... but again, the intent is based on conditions being met. Try to read it again, hey!

Who determines the conditions to the LPC's adopted resolution for “medically-assisted death”? I know it infers public consultation…..but consultation over what?

[Derek 2.0]

and as I said, you're confusing party policy with election platforms. And again, what party has released its 2015 election platform? You're a little silent there, hey!

No I clearly stated:

So the LPC has yet to adopt "medically-assisted death" as a 2015 plank....

Does that leave room for the LPC to not adopt "medically-assisted death" as part of their 2015 platform?

[waldo]

Who determines the conditions to the LPC's adopted resolution for “medically-assisted death”? I know it infers public consultation…..but consultation over what?

I have no interest in playing along with your silly buggar act... infer what you want... make up what you want.

[waldo]

Does that leave room for the LPC to not adopt "medically-assisted death" as part of their 2015 platform?

again, what party has drafted/presented its 2015 platform? That's right... NO PARTY.