JT to Whip Assisted Suicide Vote

[dre]

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).

I see what you're saying but a person who suffers from depression but has no other illness is not necessarily mentally incompetent. You should at least have to be really sick with little chance of improving.

[TimG]

I see what you're saying but a person who suffers from depression but has no other illness is not necessarily mentally incompetent. You should at least have to be really sick with little chance of improving.

The trouble is soon as you make assistance dependent on a judgement call by others you will create situations where someone is unreasonably denied help. I am saying the only judgement call should be competence as defined by the courts for legal contracts. If someone is competent then the reason does not matter because it is their choice. The freedom to choose is more important than protecting some people from making bad choices.

[dre]

The trouble is soon as you make assistance dependent on a judgement call by others you will create situations where someone is unreasonably denied help. I am saying the only judgement call should be competence as defined by the courts for legal contracts. If someone is competent then the reason does not matter because it is their choice. The freedom to choose is more important than protecting some people from making bad choices.

So a person that's completely healthy should be able to walk into a clinic or hospital and have a doctor kill them? Funded by our health system?

I dunno... And we both know that's never going to happen.

Those people don't need assistance. This issue has revolved around people that are unable to do it themselves. Assisted suicide happens all the time in Canada by doctors allowing family members to administer morphine to palliative patients to cause respiratory depression, and everyone just looks the other way. Sometimes doctors even do it themselves. But the doctors and family members are potentially in legal jeopardy and some palliative patients don't have family members willing to do it.

That's the problem we are trying to solve here. We need to decriminalize whats already happening and allow for the use of drugs more effective than morphine in these cases.

Edited February 20, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

So a person that's completely healthy should be able to walk into a clinic or hospital and have a doctor kill them? Funded by our health system?

Does not have to be funded. In most cases were are just talking about a prescription. People should not have to look for drugs on a black market or use a gun or a rope when more humane options are available.

Those people don't need assistance. This issue has revolved around people that are unable to do it themselves.

Or people who at some point in the future will not be able to do for themselves. There was a case in Victoria where a woman killed herself years before would have be unable to do it herself because if she waited she would be forced to live because she could not get assistance.

Assisted suicide happens all the time in Canada by doctors allowing family members to administer morphine to palliative patients

Someone who is quadriplegic does not need palliative care but would need assistance. They should be entitled to that assistance. The only person qualified to decide is life is worth living is the person involved. Giving people the freedom to choose means that some people would make bad choices but that is a cost worth living with. Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

Someone who is quadriplegic does not need palliative care but would need assistance. They should be entitled to that assistance.

Why should they be "entitled" to compel another person to act on their choice? What if doctors, family members, the government, and voters don't want to ACT on that choice? We shouldn't have the right to choose NOT to sanction or aid in that act?

[TimG]

Why should they be "entitled" to compel another person to act on their choice? What if doctors, family members, the government, and voters don't want to ACT on that choice? We shouldn't have the right to choose NOT to sanction or aid in that act?

Perhaps "entitled" is the wrong word but I can't think of a better one. Basically, the government has no business telling someone who would like to help that they cannot help which is the situation now.

The parallel to abortion is a good one. Most people have moral objections to late term abortions and do not appose a law restricting them. Yet we don't have an epidemic of such abortions despite the fact that there is no law which suggests there is no need for such a law.

Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

Perhaps "entitled" is the wrong word but I can't think of a better one. Basically, the government has no business telling someone who would like to help that they cannot help which is the situation now.

They also have no obligation to provide it as a service in the Canadian health system beyond what the law said they have to do.

And you aren't just asking the government to allow it. You're asking them to provide it and make it a social entitlement.

[TimG]

And you aren't just asking the government to allow it. You're asking them to provide it and make it a social entitlement.

I said no such thing. The point I have made repeatedly is people should have the choice ask and the choice to help. I never said anything about who pays (you did) nor did I say anything about compelling people to help (you did). If you had actually tried to follow the argument you should have understood that it is nonsensical to assume that someone saying people should have the choice would also be in favor of forcing people to help. Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[SunnyWays]

Maybe I missed something....the Supreme Court found banning assisted suicide to be against the Charter and said "fix it". The Liberals want to whip a vote that in essence allows anyone sane of mind to end their life for just about any reason. Where does levels of depression in teenagers enter into things - how about foster children that are bounced around and sick of it. How about people with deformities or "managed" illnesses who are just tired of it all. Is it their Charter right to end their life? And should we allow them to? Surely a government - any government should draft some protective legislation first - and then perhaps whip a vote......but to leave it completely open to interpretation is irresponsible - and potentially criminal. There could be a good case for the government being sued by refusing to bring forth legislation as part of a "duty to protect".

[TimG]

Is it their Charter right to end their life?

It is not illegal for them to commit suicide so they already have that right. The question is whether people who need help can ask someone to help and the court ruled forcing people to end their lives sooner than they would have chosen because they are afraid they can't get the help they need when they need it is a violation of the Charter.

I would assume the merely depressed would find it next to impossible to find a doctor willing to help.

[dre]

I said no such thing. The point I have made repeatedly is people should have the choice ask and the choice to help. I never said anything about who pays (you did) nor did I say anything about compelling people to help (you did).

Yes you did. You want doctors employed under the Canada Health Act to prescribe (or not prescribe) death drugs, and you want them (or other doctors) to determine if the patients are "mentally competent" or not, and you want this program to be universally available not just available to palliative patients or people who are extremely ill or terminal, or in constant pain. All of the people involved in this make $300+ per hour and healthcare costs are spiraling out of control already.

[dre]

It is not illegal for them to commit suicide so they already have that right. The question is whether people who need help can ask someone to help and the court ruled forcing people to end their lives sooner than they would have chosen because they are afraid they can't get the help they need when they need it is a violation of the Charter.

I would assume the merely depressed would find it next to impossible to find a doctor willing to help.

Now your'e either lying about the courts ruling or you haven't read it. Ill be charitable and just assume you didn't read it...

The Court said the Criminal Code’s prohibitions on assisted suicide will no longer apply “to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The ruling does not even remotely resemble your description.

[cybercoma]

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).

I generally agree with you, which believe me, is odd as hell.

[cybercoma]

Yes you did. You want doctors employed under the Canada Health Act to prescribe (or not prescribe) death drugs, and you want them (or other doctors) to determine if the patients are "mentally competent" or not, and you want this program to be universally available not just available to palliative patients or people who are extremely ill or terminal, or in constant pain. All of the people involved in this make $300+ per hour and healthcare costs are spiraling out of control already.

Tim wants the government to get out of the way, it seems. I don't think he'd force unwilling doctors to do it.

[SunnyWays]

I generally agree with you, which believe me, is odd as hell.

Just another example of this government not really knowing the consequences of its commitments:

1) 25,000 government sponsored refugees by Dec. 31 2015.

2) revenue-neutral on tax changes

3) all 94 recommendations of Truth & recon. being agreed to

4) modest deficits of $10 Billion

5) Death of the F35

[ReeferMadness]

The difference between trudeau and harper ,we knew what harper was like. Trudeau promised everyone sunny days and change. I had said at the election trudeau will be more of a dictator then harper. And we are now going to see a hidden agenda theory come true..

Did we know what Harper was when he rode into power promising open, accountable, ethical governance?

[Big Guy]

I have some background in this area. I will share my conclusions:

People who are depressed and no longer wish to live do not look to their physicians for assistance - they do it themselves.

People requesting the ability to plan and prepare for assisted suicide are those who fear that when they choose to die they will not have the physical ability to follow through with their wishes.

There are those who believe that the mere fact that a person wants to die indicates to them that they are mentally incompetent.

If a person decides that they no longer wish to live they do not need medical assistance - they will do it themselves.

Those persons who have decided that they no longer wish to live, but are no longer physically able to perform the act, deserve the same rights as the physically able to end their lives.

[Boges]

Do we all agree that the law must be clear that a physician can only help a person end their life if they face an incurable physical illness and are simply trying the avoid the unavoidable torture their disease will inflict on them (ALS, Certain Cancers etc)? And under no circumstances should a doctor be able to end the life of a person facing mental illness.

The HBO show Vice did an episode about Assisted suicide on the weekend. It showed a Dutch woman who was otherwise physically healthy but a doctor was able to establish that she had chronic mental illness and was perfectly within her right mind to want to end her life. She had family and friends over to watch her be given an lethal injection. Quite Unsettling. Apparently in Holland, people can opt to have doctor assisted suicide for pretty much anything.

[Guest]

Do we all agree that the law must be clear that a physician can only help a person end their life if they face an incurable physical illness and are simply trying the avoid the unavoidable torture their disease will inflict on them (ALS, Certain Cancers etc)? And under no circumstances should a doctor be able to end the life of a person facing mental illness.

The HBO show Vice did an episode about Assisted suicide on the weekend. It showed a Dutch woman who was otherwise physically healthy but a doctor was able to establish that she had chronic mental illness and was perfectly within her right mind to want to end her life. She had family and friends over to watch her be given an lethal injection. Quite Unsettling. Apparently in Holland, people can opt to have doctor assisted suicide for pretty much anything.

I agree with the Dutch. If someone wants to die they should be allowed to. If they can get a medical professional to help, they should be allowed to.

I don't see a need for a terminal, painful condition. Of course, having one would make it all the more important that the whole process remains legal.

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this vote for CHOICE? No one is forcing anyone to kill them. Justin will learn as being the PM, if people don't like the choices he makes as PM, he'll get voted out in the next election, especially his decisions on the Middle-East. I think Canadians want CHOICE on this topic.

[cybercoma]

Do we all agree that the law must be clear that a physician can only help a person end their life if they face an incurable physical illness and are simply trying the avoid the unavoidable torture their disease will inflict on them (ALS, Certain Cancers etc)? And under no circumstances should a doctor be able to end the life of a person facing mental illness.

The HBO show Vice did an episode about Assisted suicide on the weekend. It showed a Dutch woman who was otherwise physically healthy but a doctor was able to establish that she had chronic mental illness and was perfectly within her right mind to want to end her life. She had family and friends over to watch her be given an lethal injection. Quite Unsettling. Apparently in Holland, people can opt to have doctor assisted suicide for pretty much anything.

Thats fine that you believe this but how do you square that with the SCC saying psychological pain may be a factor in determining "enduring and intolerable pain"? If psychological pain can be intolerable then why doesn't that extend to mental illness?

[Boges]

Thats fine that you believe this but how do you square that with the SCC saying psychological pain may be a factor in determining "enduring and intolerable pain"? If psychological pain can be intolerable then why doesn't that extend to mental illness?

That goes against what we, as a society, says about mental illness. Teenagers with absolutely zero perspective on life wanting to end their lives? Someone with post-partum depression?

Mental Illness can often be subjective. Some people may find mental pain intolerable, while others endure. Hard to legislate when it's appropriate.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Boges

[TimG]

Mental Illness can often be subjective. Some people may find mental pain intolerable, while others endure. Hard to legislate when it's appropriate.

The similar objections can found for late term abortions. In practice Canadians and medical professionals have been reasonable. I don't think the risk of such cases occurring is large enough to justify taking away the right of someone to decide for themselves.

Keep in mind that people are free to commit suicide and do. So having a process may actually be good because people at risk of suicide would be put in touch with professionals as part of the process. Also the process should include delays. i.e. 3-6 month waits just in case some changes their mind. This would also help with those kinds of cases.

Lastly, some people may find it next to impossible to find a medical professional willing to assist. This would provide another non-legislative check and balance.

Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

[SunnyWays]

That goes against what we, as a society, says about mental illness. Teenagers with absolutely zero perspective on life wanting to end their lives? Someone with post-partum depression?

Mental Illness can often be subjective. Some people may find mental pain intolerable, while others endure. Hard to legislate when it's appropriate.

Bingo. Throwing around euphemisms like "choice" debases this very complicated issue. Can you imagine one's mother, father, son or daughter getting "approval" to end their lives under circumstances that are at best, subject to interpretation. Where do you draw the line? That's where legislation is needed. That's what needs to be voted on. Trudeau's position that the right to die is a Charter Right that he will fight for is naive, if not incompetent - he (and we) has a job to do to protect the most vulnerable. Charter Rights are not absolute.......

Section 1 of the Charter reads as follows: “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”

[TimG]

Where do you draw the line?

Why is there any need to draw any line? It is not illegal to commit suicide and any able bodied person has that choice. Why does government need to interfere? Keep in mind that with an able bodied individual we are only talking about a prescription that the person would to ingest themselves. No one would be actively killing someone else.