jbg Posted January 3, 2015 Report Posted January 3, 2015 It doesn't always work that way. Although my brother's pain and sedation drugs were powerful and virtually coma inducing they were not lethal and it was still the cancer that killed him. The device my brother was given for self-administering medication was in our hands the last few days. Unbeknownst to us it recorded the number of times we gave Mike a hit and was recording us giving him up to 50 hits an hour which of course would have put him out of his misery pretty quickly. I guess in ours it didn't dawn on anyone the damn thing wasn't actually doing much more than providing a glimpse into our minds and feelings. We can laugh about it now but if it looks like I'm going the same route I'll put a couple of flaps of heroin on the stash, hang in at home until the last possible week or so and just sidestep the whole hospital/palliative gong show. The foods really crappy and I'd hate to put my loved ones through the agony of waiting for me to croak so they can get on with living. As always, if the Taliban doesn't like it they can go blow a gasket. For once, we agree. And that's heartfelt. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
PIK Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Is now legal, government given 1 yr to come up with the rules. Supreme court ruled. I am fine with it with strict rules. I can't put up a link, but if someone else can.... Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Keepitsimple Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Is now legal, government given 1 yr to come up with the rules. Supreme court ruled. I am fine with it with strict rules. I can't put up a link, but if someone else can.... Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/death-docket-supreme-court-rules-today-doctor-assisted-093009610.html Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients. The historic, groundbreaking decision from the country's top court sweeps away the existing law and gives Parliament a year to draft new legislation that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable suffering — physical or mental — to seek medical help ending their lives. The judgment, which is unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court, says the current ban infringes on all three of the life, liberty and security of person provisions in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I'm fine with this ruling as well. It'll be tough to define the limits though. Physical AND mental pain puts a different spin on things. Altzheimers for example......especially when there potential "cures" out there that can reverse things. But in general, when someone is in continuous pain with no hope at all - and they clear-mindedly want to end it - I'm OK with pulling the plug. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Looks like the Supreme Court agrees with most of the posters here. Unanimous decision. Another set-back for the Harper government? Also looks to me like the provinces can now each create their own legislation. I do not think that the current Harper gov't will touch this one before the election. Edited February 6, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 *Please note that I merged two threads on this topic into one* Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Mighty AC Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Looks like the Supreme Court agrees with most of the posters here. Unanimous decision. Another set-back for the Harper government? This is great news for the country but another issue that puts Harper between the hard right base and the rest of Canada. I suspect he will treat this like the abortion debate and just not take a position. Harper values political support above all else. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
PIK Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Or maybe this is the SC plan ,put harper in a bad place. But this is like the abortion issue, parliament never put in place any rules for that, and this could go that way if harper does not put rules in place. He will have to. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I'd first like to say that I'm fine with legalizing assisted suicide within proscribed limitations, ie terminally ill and quality of life. But I have to also say it looks to me like the justices on the Supreme court basically invented the reason why the law against this is illegal out of whole cloth. The very idea that a law banning people from killing a person violates that person's right to 'life, liberty and security' is absurdest logic the likes of which Monty Python would no doubt appreciate. It looks to me like they believed assisted suicide ought to be allowed, then invented a legal justification for overturning the ban. Edited February 6, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
TimG Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) It looks to me like they believed assisted suicide ought to be allowed, then invented a legal justification for overturning the ban.Isn't that always the case? This is why I have little patience for the argument that just because the SCC ruled a certain way something becomes an inherent truth that should never be questioned. The judges are a bunch of unelected and unaccountable academics who use the court as a platform to impose their social views on the country. In some cases, these views broadly reflect the will of the people. In others, they represent minority views. Edited February 6, 2015 by TimG Quote
jacee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I'm fine with this ruling as well. It'll be tough to define the limits though. Physical AND mental pain puts a different spin on things. Altzheimers for example......especially when there potential "cures" out there that can reverse things. But in general, when someone is in continuous pain with no hope at all - and they clear-mindedly want to end it - I'm OK with pulling the plug. Alzheimers isn't included, I don't think ... unless a plan is formalized while the patient is still lucid. There is no pain involved. mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients. . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 This is great news for the country but another issue that puts Harper between the hard right base and the rest of Canada. I suspect he will treat this like the abortion debate and just not take a position. Harper values political support above all else. I doubt very much hell wade into this one before next election, especially if he calls it early which I wouldnt doubt. He may try a scam like he did with abortion and get a back bencher to try and table a bill that of course goes nowhere, then he can try to be seen as having tried to do something and that hard right base will likely buy it. Quote
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) It looks to me like they believed assisted suicide ought to be allowed, then invented a legal justification for overturning the ban. Isn't that pretty much what any supreme court does? What's the difference between a legal justification and an opinion when judging, overturning, or ruling on something? Edited February 6, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Isn't that pretty much what any supreme court does? What's the difference between a legal justification and an opinion when judging, overturning, or ruling on something? The difference is in a real legal justification they would read the damned Charter, figure out the intent of those who wrote it, and then base their decision on that. I really don't understand how you can stretch the definition of a charter right which guarantees life into prohibiting a law which prevents death. But clearly that wasn't the intent of the framers. The judges simply made their decision, then did a torturous stretch to justify it legally. Edited February 6, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Sounds like they saved us from having to open up the constitution. Can you imagine the torturous stretch you'd have to go to justify doing that? The SC had lemons so they made lemonade. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jazzer Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 In regards to Alzheimer's, I believe there can be pain involved. Can't seem to get the link to work. WebMD has the info though. Quote
PIK Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Why are people so scared of ''opening up the constitution'' Is it because everybody then can demand changes to other parts of it? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 The difference is in a real legal justification they would read the damned Charter, figure out the intent of those who wrote it, and then base their decision on that. I really don't understand how you can stretch the definition of a charter right which guarantees life into prohibiting a law which prevents death. But clearly that wasn't the intent of the framers. The judges simply made their decision, then did a torturous stretch to justify it legally. They did read the damned charter and applied it to reach their conclusion. Its as simple as this: if I chose to kill myself right now I have the legal right to do so, and if I proceed to do so, will not have comitted a crime in Canada. If I am too badly disabled in some way to carry out that wish, this decision will allow someone to assist me, if I am of sound mind to make that decision. Quote
Big Guy Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I have been trying to locate information on what happens to those people who are incarcerated for breaking a particular law after that law is changed? If you can find any examples please share. I understand that some Canadians (including doctors) are currently in jail for assisting suicides. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Why are people so scared of ''opening up the constitution'' Is it because everybody then can demand changes to other parts of it? Apparently. I think every generation should have their chance at reviewing and suggesting tweaks to it. With citizen's assembly and constitutional experts working together that is. I wouldn't let politicians within a thousand miles of thing myself. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
webc5 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Report Posted February 6, 2015 The Supreme Court has given the government the opportunity to draft meaningful legislation. I hope Conservatives show leadership. Quote
PIK Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I hope so to. Screw the base on this one. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Sounds like they saved us from having to open up the constitution. Can you imagine the torturous stretch you'd have to go to justify doing that? The SC had lemons so they made lemonade. They didn't save us from anything. They should have said "No, nobody has a constitutional right to die" and left it up to the politicians to decide whether they wanted to make changes to the law. That's what we pay them for. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 They did read the damned charter and applied it to reach their conclusion. Its as simple as this: if I chose to kill myself right now I have the legal right to do so, and if I proceed to do so, will not have comitted a crime in Canada. If I am too badly disabled in some way to carry out that wish, this decision will allow someone to assist me, if I am of sound mind to make that decision. No sane reading of "life liberty and security of the person' could lead to the idea that it somehow forbids the government from outlawing assisted suicide. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.