Assisted Suicide in Canada.

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

So a minor with who's suffering from a debilitating and incurable illness has to continue suffering until they reach the age of majority? That makes no sense.

Where have I landed here? Everybody is hard-core for this kid of thing. I think anybody can see the legal problems that could arise if kids are helped die, especially those who are not yet mature minors..

All I am asking you to do is to imagine POSSIBLE problems with this legislation. There are always unexpected problems.

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

So you are in favour of torturing people simply because of it makes you unconfortable to give someone the choice to end the torture? I am quite confused why you think torture is a more ethical approach.

That's your opinion. Whether a particular life is sacred should be up to the individual.

It's quite false to allege I am advocating torture.

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

Well, you may not want to inflict the pain yourself, however, you wish to arbitrarily deny people access to the technology that would allow them to end their pain because you decide they are in a 'vulnerable' group.

The point of my hyperbole was to illustrate how it is impossible to take a position on this issue that does not cause harm in some hypothetical cases. The choice is only about which harm we are prepared to live with.

That is why I think mental competence should be the only test required and properly prepared advance directives should be respected even if the person is no longer mentally competent.

Mental competence is a tricky business and this is a final decision.

Big Guy · March 7, 2016

It appears that the great majority of posters support the idea of assisted suicide if the individual is very, very certain that is what they want and they are making that decision in a rational and informed state of mind.

The difference in points of view are: What is the criteria for establishing that the individual is very, very certain?

What is the criteria of deciding that the individual made that decision in a rational and informed state of mind?

There are no perfect solutions. I trust that the process we use for creating legislation will establish the best possible criteria.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Big Guy

dre · March 7, 2016

So you are in favour of torturing people simply because of it makes you unconfortable to give someone the choice to end the torture? I am quite confused why you think torture is a more ethical approach.

TimG · March 7, 2016

Mental competence is a tricky business and this is a final decision.

Not an excuse to simply deny obviously competent people access to assistance just because they fall into a category you define as 'vulnerable'.

dre · March 7, 2016

Not an excuse to simply deny obviously competent people access to assistance just because they fall into a category you define as 'vulnerable'.

No excuse is necessary. FAS is going to be a taxpayer funded social program with a narrow scope and specific purpose. Moronic hyperbole about "torturing people", or "forcing people to live" is silly and irrelevant. Its also redundant since the ruling by the court says it can only be used when someone has a serious and irreparable medical condition.

TimG · March 7, 2016

Its also redundant since the ruling by the court says it can only be used when someone has a serious and irreparable medical condition.

Many mental illnesses are a medical condition and are managed with drugs. If they were not medical conditions the drugs would serve no purpose.

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

There is an intractable ethical dilemma when it comes to caring for people who have no prospect for recovery and can no longer function themselves. In real world a significant portion of burden and cost of caring for these people often falls on the near relatives and it makes sense for people with any empathy to realize that the greatest kindness they could offer their relatives is to die sooner than later. Are these people coerced because they see their loved ones struggling with the stress of their care or are they making a choice that they believe is best for themselves? It is impossible to distinguish between the two.

What if they are unable to understand that they are a burden to their relatives?

TimG · March 7, 2016

What if they are unable to understand that they are a burden to their relatives?

It is not relevant to question of whether they wish assistance. They either wish it or they do not. If they do not wish it then nothing changes.

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

.

Edited March 7, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

SpankyMcFarland · March 7, 2016

Fairly hardline views, guys. I can see trouble ahead putting this into practice.

March 8, 2016

The bizarre thing here is I support assisted suicide. What on earth do you say to people who don't?

You appear to support DAS, within a set of guidelines that you want to set. Appear to.

I support DAS, regardless of reasons. If someone wishes to die, and they can get a Doctor to agree to assist, that ought to be all that is required.

SpankyMcFarland · March 8, 2016

You appear to support DAS, within a set of guidelines that you want to set. Appear to.

I support DAS, regardless of reasons. If someone wishes to die, and they can get a Doctor to agree to assist, that ought to be all that is required.

Appear to. I'll have to send you my final video to get that 'appear to' overturned.

March 8, 2016

Appear to. I'll have to send you my final video to get that 'appear to' overturned.

Well, that's why I emphasised the "appear to". I didn't want to put words into your mouth.

As I said, I'm pro choice. I think the law should allow anyone who wants to, to avail themselves of medical assistance with suicide, providing they can get a medical practioner to agree. No sanctions for any party involved. No reasons necessary for anyone else.

dre · March 8, 2016

I support DAS, regardless of reasons. If someone wishes to die, and they can get a Doctor to agree to assist, that ought to be all that is required.

Thats fine, but your opinion is in a vacuum that does not take into account the courts ruling or how the medical system works

It seems irrelevant because we know for a fact thats not how its going to work..

TimG · March 8, 2016

Thats fine, but your opinion is in a vacuum that does not take into account the courts ruling or how the medical system works

The court only specifies the minimum requirements for a constitutional law. The government can go beyond those requirements should it choose to do so.

dre · March 8, 2016

The court only specifies the minimum requirements for a constitutional law.

Still haven't read it huh? Almost unbelievable your still posting that on page 22 of this thread. The ruling specifies limits not just minimum requirements.

he February 2015 Supreme Court decision^[19] in Carter v Canada (AG) limits physician-assisted suicides to “a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

The government can write any law they want, but if it goes beyond those limits it wont survive a challenge.

TimG · March 8, 2016

Still haven't read it huh? Almost unbelievable your still posting that on page 22 of this thread. The ruling specifies limits not just minimum requirements.

You clearly don't understand what the courts can do. Courts can strike down legislation and force the government to re-write legislation. The court CANNOT compel the government to pass laws prohibiting things that it does not want to prohibit.

In this case, the court was nuanced enough that if the government fails to change the law the courts will likely establish precedents that enforce the criteria laid out by the SCC but that is only because there is an existing law on the books that it can selectively enforce. If the law was repealed then the courts could do nothing.

Edited March 8, 2016 by TimG

dre · March 8, 2016

You clearly don't understand what the courts can do. Courts can strike down legislation and force the government to re-write legislation. The court CANNOT compel the government to pass laws prohibiting things that it does not want to prohibit.

In this case, the court was nuanced enough that if the government fails to change the law the courts will likely establish precedents that enforce the criteria laid out by the SCC but that is only because there is an existing law on the books that it can selectively enforce. If the law was repealed then the courts could do nothing.

All this is just flat out wrong. The ruling will be enforced throughout the entire judicial system whether or not the law is repealed. That goes for both the minimum requirements and restrictions. The ruling is now case-law.

Have you not even read the rest of this thread (never mind the ruling)?

TimG · March 8, 2016

All this is just flat out wrong. The ruling will be enforced throughout the entire judicial system whether or not the law is repealed. That goes for both the minimum requirements and restrictions. The ruling is now case-law.

Now you are just being silly. Courts cannot enforce laws that don't exist. You need a remedial course in civics.

dre · March 8, 2016

Now you are just being silly. Courts cannot enforce laws that don't exist. You need a remedial course in civics.

You need to learn what judicial precedents are. The courts ruling establishes a precedent for any future cases. And its statutory basis is not the law banning PAS, its section 7 of the charter.

If the government passes legislation that conflicts with the ruling, then someone with standing can take the case to superior court, then to the provincial court of appeals, then back up to the supreme court.

The February 2015 Supreme Court decision^[19] in Carter v Canada (AG) limits physician-assisted suicides to “a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

TimG · March 8, 2016

You need to learn what judicial precedents are. The courts ruling establishes a precedent for any future cases. And its statutory basis is not the law banning PAS, its section 7 of the charter.

The court only answers questions that were put before it. The question it was asked is if the LAW prohibiting assisted suicide contravenes the charter. It said it did under some situations. If the government chooses to repeal the LAW then the precedents won't matter because there is no law to enforce.

As I said: the court can only enforce (or not enforce) existing laws - it cannot compel the government to pass a law that it does not want to. Why is this basic concept so hard for you to grasp?

Edited March 8, 2016 by TimG

dre · March 8, 2016

The court only answers questions that were put before it. The question it was asked is if the LAW prohibiting assisted suicide contravenes the charter. It said it did under some situations. If the government chooses to repeal the LAW then the precedents won't matter because there is no law to enforce.

As I said: the court can only enforce (or not enforce) existing laws - it cannot compel the government to pass a law that it does not want to. Why is this basic concept so hard for you to grasp?

The ruling isn't based on the assisted suicide law, its basis is the charter And the precedent WILL matter as soon as conflicting legislation is challenged in the courts. Its silly to say its not a precedent because the appeals process for any challenge will wind up before... you guessed it... the supreme court... and they already ruled on it.

And what did they rule?

The February 2015 Supreme Court decision^[19] in Carter v Canada (AG) limits physician-assisted suicides to “a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

TimG · March 8, 2016

The ruling isn't based on the assisted suicide law, its basis is the charter And the precedent WILL matter as soon as conflicting legislation is challenged in the courts.

I am really dumbstruck at your lack of understanding. The ruling says the LAW violates the charter so the ruling IS based on the LAW. If there is no law there is no charter issue and no basis for further court challenges. It is a very simple concept to understand. Why is it so difficult for you? Edited March 8, 2016 by TimG