Assisted Suicide in Canada.

[Topaz]

This Bill may not pass if there's so many MPs saying what their views are so that no solution can be made. Perhaps it would be easier to say ANYONE, at any age that is dying of a disease or can't live a "normal" life can CHOSE by their own choice to end their life. Canadians just want to FREEDOM to CHOSE.

[Big Guy]

I imagine it would be tough to come up with the question, and even tougher to stick to the result once it was known.

I guess my point is what should trigger a referendum and how should it be worded into a yes/no response?

[scribblet]

Should people be allowed to off themselves yes or no

Speaking of which, the slippery slope is getting slipperier in Holland

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589929/The-woman-killed-doctors-obsessed-cleaning-Horrifying-Yes-s-just-one-growing-numbers-Dutch-men-women-given-right-euthanasia-mental-not-terminal-illness.html

[Guest]

People are already allowed to off themselves.

Should a doctor be allowed to help?

Should the condition be terminal?

Should pain be a factor? At whose discretion?

Should depression be a factor?

Age? Dementia?

If I can find a doctor who will do it, and I ask her to kill me, for no reason other than a poor performance by my local soccer side, should she be able to carry out my wishes with no fear of sanction?

[Rue]

This is by far one of the most serious legal issues faced by our elected officials. The Supreme Court had no choice but to send it back to Parliament.

For the most part all 3 parties have been extremely good at venting and debating all the issues. The temper tantrum by Trudeau and the juvenile NDP mp\s blocking the vote the other day is testament to just how emotional this issue is. Its something that has profound implications on each and everyone of us as we age and are faced with the spectre of aging into prolonged lives with severe and hopeless pain.

I believe and I think most Canadians do, we are at a point where we want each Canadian as an individual to make the choice when to die and of course free from duress, mental illness that may impair judgement or other lack of capacity issues. None of us wants a law created that would enable the murder of disabled or allow people with sinister motives to kill others to inherit, etc.

In this matter as well, the Senate believe it or not has done a very valuable past review and has been providing positive constructive research on certain issues. Its hard to explain but our court system, Parliament, Senate they are all working hard at this.

Its an apolitical issue with all sides working their damn hardest and we will eventually have a law that makes our society more humane in treating the dying. In the interim stupid juvenile displays on the House floor, juvenile immature politicians obsessing over their feelings of the flair nostril Justin Trudeau need to shut the phack up and get back to this important issue. He apologized for his hissy fit, now shut up all you primma donna diva twits and get back to the issue.

This is a heart wrenching issue. I wrote my Master's thesis on this area of law. Its a tough tough area but our country except for this minor temper tantrum is working hard. I respect all three parties, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

They are working hard on the issues. Its a thankless task but they are going to get through this.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

Why not have a referendum on the issue?

I think I'll still keep a handful of fentanyl handy, just in case.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I think the Supreme Court should have given Parliament more time to get this done. It is fiendishly difficult.

There are certain categories I am uncomfortable to see doctors involved with: minors; the mentally ill; and certain patients with lifelong disabilities. With the last group, in particular, I worry about the pressure they might come under to do 'the decent thing' and cease to be a 'burden on the family'. We must be vigilant to avoid the eugenics of the fascists and many other like-minded thinkers in this regard.

For myself, I would be more than happy to see a doctor step in and help me exit if I needed it.

Edited May 22, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Topaz]

Perhaps the feds could do is just pass a bill saying Canadians have a Right and A Freedom to make a CHOICE if they want to use the law of assisted suicide and since its under Health Care, let each provinces work out the agenda with the medical sector or this thing will never get passed, there's too many opinions.

[Rue]

Since people can freely commit suicide now, that's fine.

No they can not. I am not sure where some of you get the idea you are allowed to kill yourself.

More to the point the issue is assisted suicide because most people get too sick to be able to engage in self inflicted death which is different than suicide.

Suicide was a term created and still used to suggest the person engaging it was under duress or mentally ill.

As well assisted death is homicide and you get convicted under the section of manslaughter or murder depending on who charged you.

Assisted death deals with people who while able to have full capacity to make decisions wish to leave instructions when and where to die.

In Washington, Oregon and Vermont laws exist where a person is screened by a panel of 10 doctors to rule out incapacity issues or issues that could impair judgement to make such a decision.

The law works well, there have been no complaints, and the law has not been used as disabled people rightly fear as a way to cull them. or kill the disabled to save money from the medical system.

The law is also not imposed on those with religious beliefs that do not accept that humans should make such a decision.

That is the law we are striving for in Canada. One where those with fundamental religious beliefs and who do not believe in self inflicted or assisted death are not impacted on and the disabled or vulnerable remain protected from any abuse of such a law.

Its supposed to be designed to allow those with terminal illnesses with no hope of recovery or those with chronic slow wasting and eventually life threatening medical diseases the right to choose when to be put to death.

It is envisioned for example for those with cancer, ALS, Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's for example.

The whole point I s we are being kept alive much longer thanks to technology but in states of chronic pain and misery and some want to assure they can die with humanity, peace, dignity and avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering, something we do with our dogs and cats but don't do with people.

This is not about suicide. This is about assisted suicide. There is a huge difference.

As for suicide, the whole point Dr. Kavorkian went to jail and pushed the cause he did was because for years people trying to comit suicide faced with hopeless situations, maimed themselves. Dr. Kavorkian was a pathologist who would example the bodies and witness the suffering and mutilation they inflicted upon themselves unintentionally.

So he created a machine that as you may be aware is used for capital punishment today and in Europe and hospices outside Canada where two drugs are sent to the patient-one to sedate, the other to kill. The drugs are administered by i.v. and the patient does not choke or sufer and can if strong enough push the button themselves.

He was depicted as a monster and insisted he place himself in jail to show the public he was not a murderer as some charged but trying to deal with the issue constructively.

In a very important case called Latimer, simple, farmer was faced with the on-going suffering of his daughter. She had a disease where her bones fused together and the only solution was to continually break them. This happened with every joint in her body. She could not take analgesics because she was born with an inability to digest. She had a permanently opened and infected cavity in her stomach where they pumped in fod but not withstanding hat she was slowing starving to death. On top of it this girl had only the i.q. of a 6 month old so knew who her father and mother was but would not have understood why she was in permanent overwhelming pain. Latimer went to doctor after doctor and no one offered him any hope or solutions so he did what I would have done, placed his daughter in his pick up truck, turned on her favourite music, and hooked a pipe up and stood next to the window smiling as she slowing fell asleep and then died with no pain.

He was placed n jail and given a maximum sentence and vilified in the courts as a demon. He was lied to by the trial judge and the trial judge told the jury if they rendered a decision of guilt he would not give him a jail decision, then did just that. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

By a one vote decision he was called a murderer. They said the girl was not capable of giving consent to death and even if she did it was still murderer.

That decision put a good loving man in prison and punished his wife as well.

Other decisions came up with people in Quebec and British Columbia where assisted suicide was engaged in and the courts did not pursue murder trials.

In another case in Halifax an emergency physician respected in her community working part time in the ICU unit was faced with a final stage lung cancer victim down to 45 pounds. That patient's family gathered and prayed and then they asked his breathing tube be pulled out so he could die.

In many cases the patient would just stop breathing. In this case however the man began choking slowly and screaming out. There was a do not resuscitate order but he was choking slowly. So the physician gave him an injection of morphine and he then died. The doctor was then charged with murder. The family rallied behind the doctpr. The city was split between those calling the doctor a murderer and others saying she was a good woman who did the right thing.

Bottom line is a creative Criminal Judge avoided a horrible situation claiming he could not proceed to trial stating no one could say beyond reasonable doubt whether the final injection the doctor gave the patient killed him or a combination of other shots and his medical state leading up to the shot killed him and in the absence of that proof, no trial could proceed.

For such reasons this law has been on the books. Believe it or not the Senate wrote an excellent report on suicide and euthanasia laws around the world and hinted at considering the Vermont-Washington-Oregon model. That report continues to collect dust as the debate rages.

The debate deals with concerns from the disabled, fundamentalist religious persons, and others as to the criteria to be used to decide who gets to choose to die, when, where and how its screened to prevent abuse, duress, coercion.

The politicians are faced with very difficult issues and some have acted like immature jack asses but for the mot part this law will be very difficult to conceive, be full of emotion and what we do not need is turning it into a politically partisan issue. Its not.

The stupid posturing last week should not detract from the issues. We all are faced with a coming situation that will appreciate clarification and humane consideration of this topic for ourselves and our loved ones.

God forbid any of you are faced with the situation that emergency doctor was, Latimer was or Canadians are each day in final stages of painful death.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Rue

[Smallc]

People have the right to commit suicide. The Supreme Court says so because the Charter says so. It's as simple as that, long winded posts notwithstanding.

[A.D.Civics]

In my opinion I do not believe that the law making euthanasia legal should have been passed. Committing suicide is not an acceptable means of dealing with any situation even if it is the person's choice. For many people that are have a hard life and want an easy solution, they would choose this option to end all their problems. There are better options or programs that can help someone feel loved or even help them deal with their issues so they do not have to commit suicide. For those who are sick and still mentally stable I do not think that euthanasia should be an option. They are better options such as palliative care where the person will not only be put out of their pain but be able to enjoy their last few days/months with their family. They should not feel like they are a burden to the family. Also for some doctors euthanasia can violate their freedom of conscience right because they live the rest of their life either knowing that they directly killed the person or referred the person to be killed elsewhere.

Edited June 6, 2017 by A.D.Civics

[Guest]

I disagree.  The only thing that matters is the person's choice.  By the same token, the doctor ought to be afforded the same choice.

If someone wants to die, and they can find a doctor to willingly help them, nothing more needs to be known about the issue.  Except perhaps the disposal plans.