jbg Posted February 10, 2015 Report Posted February 10, 2015 I hope so too. I even said Harper seems to have made good appointments!Even Chretien had a few good ones, such as Paul Martin. That didn't work out too well in the end. I don't know much about Kim Campbell's or John Turner's appointments. I am in the middle of reading On the Take, about the Mulroney years. His appointments don't seem so great. 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 10, 2015 Report Posted February 10, 2015 The SCC has become a activist court and they should stick to following laws and not making them. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted February 10, 2015 Report Posted February 10, 2015 Their job is to stick to the constitution. We may not agree with every ruling they make, but let's not confuse their purpose. Quote
guyser Posted February 10, 2015 Report Posted February 10, 2015 Their job is to stick to the constitution. We may not agree with every ruling they make, but let's not confuse their purpose.Lets hope the PM stops in to read this forum. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 10, 2015 Report Posted February 10, 2015 Lets hope the PM stops in to read this forum. It could help.He certainly seems not interested in reading the constitution. Quote
Argus Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 The SCC has become a activist court and they should stick to following laws and not making them. Andrew Coyne had an excellent column today on the activism of the court, especially as it relates to this decision. The dust is still settling from last week’s historic ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter of euthanasia. One early casualty: judicial restraint, the fading notion that the courts, in interpreting the law, should be bound by … something — the written text, the historical record, precedent, logical consistency. One by one the court in recent years has liberated itself from these constraints; with the legalization of “assisted death,” it has slipped free altogether. ... As for the euthanasia decision: what can one say about a ruling that finds a right to death in a section of the constitution devoted to the right to life — that does so in breezy defiance, not just of Parliament’s stated preferences, but of the Court’s own ruling in a similar case, rendered two decades before? The Court goes to elaborate and unconvincing lengths to suggest it had been moved by changes in “the matrix of legislative and social facts” since then. The reality, one suspects, is rather simpler. It did it because it wanted to. http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/andrew-coyne-supreme-court-euthanasia-ruling-marks-the-death-of-judicial-restraint/ 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 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 And already we get the suggestion the law can accommodate all sorts of people wanting to die. People with treatment-resistant depression — a crippling form of the disease that actor Robin Williams was said to have battled before killing himself last August — fulfil the criteria for assisted-suicide set out by the high court, argues Udo Schuklenk, a leading Canadian bioethicist. http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/possibility-that-incurable-depression-meets-criteria-for-doctor-assisted-suicide-raises-ethical-concerns/ 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
Guest Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) The law should accommodate all sorts of people who want to die. What on earth is it about the right not to be forced to live that is so hard to grasp? Edited February 14, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
Argus Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) The law should accommodate all sorts of people who want to die. What on earth is it about the right not to be forced to live that is so hard to grasp? It's called respect for life, something you evidently lack. Edited February 14, 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 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 And already we get the suggestion the law can accommodate all sorts of people wanting to die. The law accommodates every single Canadian, are you going to make a federal case out of every one? By the way, what about death tourism? I smell a buck to be made - just how bad can it be if there's a buck to be made? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 It's called respect for life, something you evidently lack. I would suggest that forcing someone to live when they don't want to shows an appalling lack of respect for life. You insist upon their suffering to make you feel better. Quote
Guest Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 The law accommodates every single Canadian, are you going to make a federal case out of every one? By the way, what about death tourism? I smell a buck to be made - just how bad can it be if there's a buck to be made? I'm thinking of setting up booths, a la Futurama Quote
eyeball Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 I'm thinking bigger than that, more along the lines of syndicated chain of theme parks. Gothic, Heavenly, Zombieland... Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 It should make sense if only from the financial aspect. A person whose condition is terminal requires very expensive maintenance paid for either by government (us) or by their family. We are also suffering from a doctor shortage (especially in rural Ontario) so the fewer doctors that are tied up in cases where the patient does not want to live then the better for those who want to live. I guess that one could make the same argument as was made about abortion. Those who can afford the cost used to travel out of the country for abortions. Consequently, the poor did not have access to them. The same could be argued with assisted suicide. Those who can afford it would leave the country, those who could not - well tough it out. 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.
Guest Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) I'm thinking bigger than that, more along the lines of syndicated chain of theme parks. Gothic, Heavenly, Zombieland... A Walking Dead theme park. It could work. Your'e ill, or depressed, so you get made up and wander around the set grunting until someone who has paid a lot of money offs you with a shotgun. A percentage goes to your relatives. Yes, that could work. Edited February 14, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
jbg Posted February 14, 2015 Report Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) The SCC has become a activist court and they should stick to following laws and not making them. Andrew Coyne had an excellent column today on the activism of the court, especially as it relates to this decision. http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/andrew-coyne-supreme-court-euthanasia-ruling-marks-the-death-of-judicial-restraint/ Thank you for this link. It warrants a separate thread (link). It is in the "Federal Politics" section though it could just as easily go in the U.S. and Canada" section. Edited February 14, 2015 by jbg 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).
webc5 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Posted February 24, 2015 Looks like the Liberals are going to have a special committee in the process of drafting new legislation. Quote
nerve Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) People should have the right die but we need to insure there are protections to insure that the state doesn't use it as a way of murdering people. Sadly all institutions in Canada tend to be self interested corrupt venegeful and vindictive. This is way people should need to insure that ample protections exist such a statements archive listing the reasons in video publically available and an independent confirmation jury to insure the person really exercised the right. There should also be an opportunity to appeal the decision by members of the public within a week or so so that people can confirm with assurance there is no way to public ally resolve the reason for suicide, crisis intervention that is publically open. Government and medical association members should have no role aside from administration or provision of humane death, but it should be reversible within a couple hours in case they change their mind. There should be a window before it is certain death. Giving the given the gov, courts, drs the right to murder people is the wrong way They ain't universally good moral or honest folk, hell no don't involve them in legal murder Edited February 25, 2015 by nerve Quote
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 I think the reversible death bit is a good idea... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 I think the reversible death bit is a good idea... Im gonna sign up for that in case a bus hits me. Quote
overthere Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 Is it too early to nominate people for this "Assisted Suicide" option? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
eyeball Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 I think I'll still put a couple of flaps of heroin on the stash given the certainty that government involvement in the patient doctor relationship will surely screw things up. I wouldn't want to end up like one of these people in a botched execution. Speaking of which why don't they use heroin to execute prisoners anyway? Probably some weird moral qualm about sending the wrong message is my guess. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 I think I'll still put a couple of flaps of heroin on the stash given the certainty that government involvement in the patient doctor relationship will surely screw things up. I wouldn't want to end up like one of these people in a botched execution. Speaking of which why don't they use heroin to execute prisoners anyway? Probably some weird moral qualm about sending the wrong message is my guess. Since you bring that up, it blows me away that, since the Europeans have cut off the supply of the drugs used for executions because they have moral issues, that the US, high tech as they claim to be, cant seem to figure out to concoct something on their own that is at least somewhat humane if they are going to insist on killing people. Heroin might be a better message than torture. Quote
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 25, 2015 Report Posted February 25, 2015 Doctors shouldnt be killing cowards who are too weak to face death head on. When I get old and sick and I'm dying I will refuse all medication and look death right in the eye. I want to be able to say good bye to everyone not just lay on a bed all drugged out taking my last breath unconscious. This is a law for the weak. Those who have no guts to face death and no pain tolerance. I wonder if it will lawful to kill children who suffer as well. Probably since they now have charter rights. SO doctors will be in the business of killing sick children, wonderful. Quote
.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.