JT to Whip Assisted Suicide Vote

[Boges]

So do these doctors bill OHIP for offing people with "any" mental illness? Are we comfortable with that?

This is something these people can do on their own time for free.

[TimG]

So do these doctors bill OHIP for offing people with "any" mental illness? Are we comfortable with that?

Where did I say that it should be a covered service?

Doctors provide a lot of services which are not covered. This could be one of them.

Keep in mind that I am arguing that there should be:

1) A waiting period;

2) Some sort of mandatory counselling;

What I am also saying is no one should get to decide if someone else's reasons for suicide are 'good enough'.

Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

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?

The SCC also said there has to be a "grievous and irremediable medical condition".

Most psychological illnesses are treatable. The ruling is very narrow in scope and most of the discussion here is academic.

[SunnyWays]

What I am also saying is no one should get to decide if someone else's reasons for suicide are 'good enough'.

I usually applaud your well-thought-out positions but I can't go along with this one - if only because making suicide generally acceptable in society will lead younger and vulnerable minds to treat it in that very fashion - an acceptable way to end whatever they construe as "their pain".

[TimG]

The SCC also said there has to be a "grievous and irremediable medical condition".

Most psychological illness are classed as medical conditions and often treatments are not often effective.

[dre]

What I am also saying is no one should get to decide if someone else's reasons for suicide are 'good enough'.

No that's not what your'e saying. You want doctors to make exactly that decision by giving them the right to refuse to assist, or declare the patient not competent to make that decision.

Where did I say that it should be a covered service?

Ouch this is getting worse by the minute. The psychiatrists and doctors involved in this decision all make more than $300+ per hour. Pharmy companies will probably charge thousands for the drugs. The judgement call still exists its a matter of whether or not there should be guidelines.

I'm taking a wild guess here that it would cost 50k -100k when all is said and done. Most people don't have this lying around... even people that make too much money to qualify for any kind of assistance. And i doubt they will be able to finance it since they are planning to die.

Edited February 22, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

I usually applaud your well-thought-out positions but I can't go along with this one - if only because making suicide generally acceptable in society will lead younger and vulnerable minds to treat it in that very fashion - an acceptable way to end whatever they construe as "their pain".

The problem is I don't trust a bureaucracy to be fair and I think the harm of letting people make bad choices is less than harm created by a bureaucracy designated as a gatekeeper.

Abortions used to require that the women demonstrate an need for one but those bureaucracies were deemed to be unfair. I don't understand why people think bureaucracy will help.

Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

No that's not what your'e saying. You want doctors to make exactly that decision by giving them the right to refuse to assist, or declare the patient not competent to make that decision.

I am saying no one should be compelled to assist and no one should be denied assistance. Those are conflicting requirements that, in practice, should not be a problem for people with a reasonable case.

Ouch this is getting worse by the minute. The psychiatrists and doctors involved in this decision all make more than $300+ per hour.

If someone is a suicide risk they have access to counselling. This aspect would have to be covered as it is today.

The drugs are red herring. You have no idea what they cost but I doubt it costs more than enough heroine to OD brought on the street.

[Boges]

The problem is I don't trust a bureaucracy to be fair and I think the harm of letting people make bad choices is less than harm created by a bureaucracy designated as a gatekeeper.

Abortions used to require that the women demonstrate an need for one but those bureaucracy were deemed to be unfair. I don't understand why people think bureaucracy will help.

Abortions need a health professional to be performed safety. Anyone can kill themselves if they want.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Boges

[TimG]

Abortions need a health professional to be performed safety. Anyone can kill themselves if they want.

Suicide can be done but it is hard to do right and often leaves a mess for emergency workers and loved ones to clean up. If someone wants to go the certainty of prescribed drugs reduces trauma for everyone involved.

[Smallc]

Keep in mind that I am arguing that there should be:

1) A waiting period;

2) Some sort of mandatory counselling;

So what you're saying is that we SHOULD let the government craft some kind of law?

[Boges]

Suicide can be done but it is hard to do right and often leaves a mess for emergency workers and loved ones to clean up. If someone wants to go the certainty of prescribed drugs reduces trauma for everyone involved.

There are foolproof ways. The Vice Episode I referenced earlier shows that if you put a bag over your head that has helium being piped in, you die within 5 minutes. Not instant but having a doctor come by, set up an IV and giving you a cocktail of drugs while family watches isn't instant either.

[Smallc]

I am saying no one should be compelled to assist and no one should be denied assistance.

So then there should be rules.

[TimG]

So what you're saying is that we SHOULD let the government craft some kind of law?

I guess I am arguing is the government should not make assistance dependent on someone else's determination on whether the request is 'reasonable'. It can depend on following a clear process and documenting each step as long as the end result is the only person that decides is the person affected.

[Topaz]

First of all. isn't this about one group of people, those who are doing to die no matter what and this would give them the right to die sooner rather than later and spare themselves from addition pain and their families who have to watch them slowly die.

[Boges]

First of all. isn't this about one group of people, those who are doing to die no matter what and this would give them the right to die sooner rather than later and spare themselves from addition pain and their families who have to watch them slowly die.

Well no. The most recent direction this thread has moved into is allowing people that are otherwise physically healthy but facing some form a mental impairment or distress get an assisted suicide.

It's interesting because if it's determined someone has attempted suicide, they are held for a period for psychiatric monitoring.

[TimG]

Well no. The most recent direction this thread has moved into is allowing people that are otherwise physically healthy but facing some form a mental impairment or distress get an assisted suicide.

So someone facing life in prison should not be allowed to commit suicide even if that is what they want?

[Boges]

So someone facing life in prison should not be allowed to commit suicide even if that is what they want?

Well some would say that living in prison for the rest of one's life is part of the punishment. Death is an easy way out.

[TimG]

Well some would say that living in prison for the rest of one's life is part of the punishment. Death is an easy way out.

But I thought the prison system was not about retribution but deterrent and protection of society? The latter two goals are still achieved if the criminal does not get free room and board for 50 years.

[On Guard for Thee]

But I thought the prison system was not about retribution but deterrent and protection of society? The latter two goals are still achieved if the criminal does not get free room and board for 50 years.

I think trying to conflate the penal systems goal with PAD is really drifting here.

[The_Squid]

So someone facing life in prison should not be allowed to commit suicide even if that is what they want?

I think people who say this extends to mental illness are reading way more into the judgement by the SCC. The judgement makes clear that it must be a medical issue and that the person has to be competent to make the decision. (Being in prison is not a medical issue)

Informed consent and decisional capacity is mentioned in the decision.

I can't see the legislation taking a broad view of the issue.

Edited February 22, 2016 by The_Squid

[TimG]

I think people who say this extends to mental illness are reading way more into the judgement by the SCC.

This is not about the minimum requirements set out by the SCC. This is about what the government should do. That said, given the general tendency of the SCC to expand "rights" to absurd levels it is quite likely that 'the desires of a competent individual must be respected' requirement will eventually be imposed.

[SunnyWays]

The problem is I don't trust a bureaucracy to be fair and I think the harm of letting people make bad choices is less than harm created by a bureaucracy designated as a gatekeeper.

Abortions used to require that the women demonstrate an need for one but those bureaucracies were deemed to be unfair. I don't understand why people think bureaucracy will help.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to kicking bureaucracy out of the way - but there are certain pieces of legislation that define who and what we are as a society - and I believe this is one of them. I don't expect everyone to agree but hey, that's why we always put our opinions on these boards.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is not about the minimum requirements set out by the SCC. This is about what the government should do. That said, given the general tendency of the SCC to expand "rights" to absurd levels it is quite likely that 'the desires of a competent individual must be respected' requirement will eventually be imposed.

Being competent is only one of the requirements. Not enough to even come close to meeting any of the other three.

[TimG]

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to kicking bureaucracy out of the way - but there are certain pieces of legislation that define who and what we are as a society - and I believe this is one of them. I don't expect everyone to agree but hey, that's why we always put our opinions on these boards.

It is ultimately a question of values. I happen to place a high value on people having the freedom to make their own choices even if they are bad choices. Others will disagree. My biggest fear is the legislation will be shaped by people who oppose the right of people to make their own choices and end up offering no improvement over the existing regime. Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG