JT to Whip Assisted Suicide Vote

[scribblet]

Actually, it really did no such thing. The right to life includes the right to end life.

Our parliament and legislatures cannot pass legislation that will allow euthanasia of vulnerable and disabled people as well as those who do not wish to have a physician assisted death.

It decriminalized death by doctor for those with “grievous and irremediable” medical condition (an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual who must be a competent, consenting adult.

The decision leaves it up to the legislature and healthcare regulators to decide whether health care institutions must provide assisted dying by doctor.

[square]

I don't know why JT would need to whip the vote on something 80+% of Canadian favor; legalizing doctor assisted dying.

[Argus]

I don't know why JT would need to whip the vote on something 80+% of Canadian favor; legalizing doctor assisted dying.

I think it's called being extremely self-righteousness.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Our parliament and legislatures cannot pass legislation that will allow euthanasia of vulnerable and disabled people as well as those who do not wish to have a physician assisted death.

It decriminalized death by doctor for those with “grievous and irremediable” medical condition (an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual who must be a competent, consenting adult.

The decision leaves it up to the legislature and healthcare regulators to decide whether health care institutions must provide assisted dying by doctor.

The decision says that doctors themselves could decide if patients were competent or not and they said nothing in the decision you posted about mental illness (however psychological pain is included in defining enduring and intolerable suffering). In short, you're narrowing the scope of the decision when that's not at all what the SCC determined.

The judgment allows that "competent patients", as defined by their doctors, have a right to end enduring and intolerable suffering, and psychological pain is included in the assessment of that suffering. Any legislation the government makes has to honour that decision or the law is not valid. Trudeau is whipping the vote because shooting down the legislation means here will be absolutely no law governing assisted suicide whatsoever.

Is that the point some of you are missing? If this legislation fails to pass, the old law doesn't remain in effect. That law as shot down and is set to expire. Failing to pass this legislation doesn't keep it illegal, it makes it completely unregulated.

[TimG]

Is that the point some of you are missing? If this legislation fails to pass, the old law doesn't remain in effect. That law as shot down and is set to expire. Failing to pass this legislation doesn't keep it illegal, it makes it completely unregulated.

Which is more or less what has happened with abortion and the world did not end.

[scribblet]

I think it's called being extremely self-righteous.

and then some... however, the decision to whip the vote may have been 'premature'... hmmm

[scribblet]

The decision says that doctors themselves could decide if patients were competent or not and they said nothing in the decision you posted about mental illness (however psychological pain is included in defining enduring and intolerable suffering). In short, you're narrowing the scope of the decision when that's not at all what the SCC ..........................

In your opinion..

[Smallc]

Our parliament and legislatures cannot pass legislation that will allow euthanasia of vulnerable and disabled people as well as those who do not wish to have a physician assisted death.

No one is suggesting they do - things that would run contrary btw, to the decision and the Constitution. That would, after all, be murder.

It decriminalized death by doctor for those with “grievous and irremediable” medical condition (an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual who must be a competent, consenting adult.

Right, and the rest of the people can just kill themselves. See the difference?

The decision leaves it up to the legislature and healthcare regulators to decide whether health care institutions must provide assisted dying by doctor.

I'm not sure you have a point to make.

[scribblet]

.................

I'm not sure you have a point to make.

Not sure you do either... carry on

[Smallc]

Not sure you do either... carry on

There is, as of June 6th, no law governing assisted suicide. I'm not sure why that's difficult.

[The_Squid]

What did Trudeau promise regarding "whipped votes"? I don't even know... frankly, it's not very important to me. The OP doesn't actually say what Trudeau's stance on whipped votes was, just that he will whip this particular vote.

The OP also asks:

I'd like to know how letting a doctor kill you is a charter issue.

And yet, in the OP it refers to the "unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling that struck down the Criminal Code ban on assisted dying for grievously ill and suffering adults."

If Boges would just read the article on why assisted suicide was struck down by the SCC (hint: it's a violation of one's Charter Rights), then he would have an answer to his question.

[TimG]

It decriminalized death by doctor for those with “grievous and irremediable” medical condition (an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual who must be a competent, consenting adult.

The important point here is it is individual doing the asking is the only who should decide what constitutes an 'intolerable' condition.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't believe any member of any parliament or legislative chamber should be forced by their party to vote in the way the leadership wants...ever It's called democracy, every representative should be as equal in power as is practically possible. Having unnecessarily more powerful party members than others is undemocratic since it means some constituencies are more influential than others. It should be one person, one vote, one unit of power as much as practically possible. Our representatives should primarily be representing the interests of their constituents, not the will of the party's leadership or powerful inner clique. When you don't have democracy, in any part of society, power almost always concentrates at the top among a powerful few elites. That's what Canada has in our party/cabinet system.

That's why forming the government's cabinet from members of the legislature is so problematic.

[Smallc]

That's why forming the government's cabinet from members of the legislature is so problematic.

If you don't form it from the legislature, it ceases to be accountable to the legislature. That's why almost every successful country in the world uses this model.

[TimG]

I don't believe any member of any parliament or legislative chamber should be forced by their party to vote in the way the leadership wants...ever

Lovely concept in theory. In practice it just means every MPs vote is for sale to the highest bidden (see the US congress for evidence). Whipped votes don't need to be used as often as they are but they serve a purpose.

[Moonlight Graham]

If you don't form it from the legislature, it ceases to be accountable to the legislature. That's why almost every successful country in the world uses this model.

Why? You're saying that since the Auditor General isn't a member of the legislature that they aren't accountable to Parliament?

[Bonam]

This is not a bill which 'abides by' the SCC ruling. The SCC were not that specific. I kinda sorta support the right to die - mostly. Where I have issues is with the possibility people can elect to die because they're suffering from depression, or some other kind of psychological illness, or where they want to die for any other reason other than being locked in a terminal illness which has unrelieved pain and/or robs them of any real ability to live anything like an enjoyable life. I would support a bill which restricted the right to assisted dying under those circumstances, otherwise not.

Why? Why shouldn't a person be allowed to end their own life for any reason of their own choosing, so long as they are of sound mind to make such a decision?

[Moonlight Graham]

Lovely concept in theory. In practice it just means every MPs vote is for sale to the highest bidden (see the US congress for evidence).

So what's preventing the PM and other high ranking party members from being for sale, and dictating this is to the party by whip? Wouldn't it be easier, since there's fewer people to corrupt?

The reality is, in the US they have loose campaign finance laws, with recent legal changes allowing Super PACS where corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, plus just the fact that the stakes of lobbying & influence are far, far higher in the world's only super power.

Whipped votes don't need to be used as often as they are but they serve a purpose.

The most practical purpose I can see for whipped votes in the House of Commons is on confidence votes, to avoid a threat of going to an election every time a budget etc. is tabled, even in a majority.

[Smallc]

Why? You're saying that since the Auditor General isn't a member of the legislature that they aren't accountable to Parliament?

I think this 2011 guide sums it up well:

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of the powers, duties and functions vested in them by statute or otherwise. Ministers must be present in Parliament to respond to questions on the discharge of their responsibilities, including the manner in which public monies were spent, as well as to account for that use. Whether a Minister has discharged responsibilities appropriately is a matter of political judgment by Parliament. The Prime Minister has the prerogative to reaffirm support for that Minister or to ask for his or her resignation.

It is critical to the principle of responsible government that all organizations within the executive be the responsibility of a Minister who is accountable to Parliament for the organization. A Minister is accountable to Parliament for the proper functioning of his or her department and all other organizations within his or her portfolio.

Ministers fulfill their accountability with respect to organizations by demonstrating appropriate diligence and competence in the discharge of their responsibilities. What constitutes appropriate ministerial oversight will depend on the nature of the organization and the Minister’s role. In some cases, where arm’s-length bodies are concerned and most powers, duties and functions are vested in a deputy head or governing body, the Minister’s engagement will be at a systemic level—for example, making or recommending appropriate appointments, approving corporate plans, or examining the need for changes to the framework legislation.

Ministerial accountability to Parliament does not mean that a Minister is presumed to have knowledge of every matter that occurs within his or her department or portfolio, nor that the Minister is necessarily required to accept blame for every matter. It does require that the Minister attend to all matters in Parliament that concern any organizations for which he or she is responsible, including responding to questions. It further requires that the Minister take appropriate corrective action to address any problems that may have arisen, consistent with the Minister’s role with respect to the organization in question. It is important that Ministers know and respect the parameters of their responsibilities with respect to arm’s-length organizations.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information⊂=publications&doc=ag-gr/2011/ag-gr-eng.htm#I3

[On Guard for Thee]

Parliament, not the SCC, will amend our laws, therefore it should not be a whipped vote.

Parliament can amend our laws to their hearts content, as long as they don't contravene the constitution, else the SCC will strike down the amendments.

[cybercoma]

Which is more or less what has happened with abortion and the world did not end.

So you would rather no legislation whatsoever, rather than parliament placing reasonable limits on assists suicide? How extremely left wing of you.

[Big Guy]

I don't believe any member of any parliament or legislative chamber should be forced by their party to vote in the way the leadership wants...ever It's called democracy, every representative should be as equal in power as is practically possible. Having unnecessarily more powerful party members than others is undemocratic since it means some constituencies are more influential than others. It should be one person, one vote, one unit of power as much as practically possible. Our representatives should primarily be representing the interests of their constituents, not the will of the party's leadership or powerful inner clique. When you don't have democracy, in any part of society, power almost always concentrates at the top among a powerful few elites. That's what Canada has in our party/cabinet system.

That's why forming the government's cabinet from members of the legislature is so problematic.

I share your views. I think you would enjoy Terry Fallis's first two books: "The Best Laid Plans" (2008) and "The High Road" (2010).

Edited February 20, 2016 by Big Guy

[Guest]

So you would rather no legislation whatsoever, rather than parliament placing reasonable limits on assists suicide? How extremely left wing of you.

By reasonable limits, you mean Plumbers and Drywallers wouldn't be allowed to assist? Just Doctors and Nurses. Or Vets.

[TimG]

So you would rather no legislation whatsoever, rather than parliament placing reasonable limits on assists suicide? How extremely left wing of you.

I don't have much confidence that the 'reasonable limits' dreamed up by politicians would not end up being too restrictive. Personally, I think mentally competent people should be entitled choose the time of their demise instead of letting 'nature take it course'. The only requirement should be have to be a process where a request for assistance has to be made formally by the person affected (and only that person). Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[overthere]

I'm not a huge Trudeau fan, but you're being very unfair.

He's whipped a vote on something that upholds the constitution. Harper forced his views on his MP's and electorate on things that are directly unconstitutional (C-51).

The Liberasls also whipped the vote on same sex marriage, as did the NDP.

The Liberals also whipped MPs on an earlier vote when they had a majority, this time on the other side of the issue.

Party discipline matters to Trudeau, dissent is not allowed. It extends past this issue of course, it is pretty funny to see all the senior military people on TV, grim faced, having to pretend they understand their new mission in Iraq/Syria.