Bill C-407, a Bill to legalize euthanasia

[mcqueen625]

Bloc MP Francine LaLonde has introduced a private member's Bill to legalize euthanasia, similar to the law passed in the Netherlands which allows the eithanization of anyone who requests it. The only criteria is that the person be at lerast 18 years of age, and must appear to be lucid. The assessment need not be made by a doctor, and the person must request it at least twice within 10 days, and that request need not be in writing.

Justice Minister Irwin Colter apparently has signalled a desire to change Canada's law on the issue to refelct his perception of what he calls "changing attitudes,' the same way he pushed through the same-sex marriage legislation which also reflects legislation from the Netherlands, where prosittution is legal, marijuana can be bought and smoked in bars and taverns, and same-sex marriage is also legal. I as a Canadian do not trhe laws of Canada changed to parallel the laws in the Netherlands, they are far too liberal for my liking.

[Shakeyhands]

wow. We are kinder to our animals. Thats all that need be said. If a person wishes to go, when all that is left is a painful, slow death, who are we to say they should just get their chins up. Let them go, why would this possibly bother you?

[Riverwind]

Bloc MP Francine LaLonde has introduced a private member's Bill to legalize euthanasia, similar to the law passed in the Netherlands which allows the eithanization of anyone who requests it.

I have always found it strange that a group of people who scream bloody murder everytime a tax dollar is spent on something they oppose will think nothing of spendings millions of tax payer dollars to keep people alive who don't want to live.

My confusion is compounded by the fact that this same group of people complains whenever the gov't takes away indvidual rights like gun ownership but does seem to have a problem with taking away a person's right to choose the timing and the nature of their death.

[PocketRocket]

Just over a year ago my mom passed away.

She was in pretty rough shape, and she knew she was on her way out.

She was living in an old-age home.

She had specified, in writing, "No rescucitation".

During the last several weeks, we kapt a 24-hr vigil, my sister and I.

My sister was with her when she passed, and sure enough, in came a bunch of yabos who wanted to start rescucitating her.

My sister, being a nurse and well acquainted with both the procedures, and the legalities, not to mention being pretty formidable in both size and attitude, put a quick stop to it.

But it was very upsetting to her, and to the rest of us when we found out.

My mom's time had come. She knew it, as did we all.

The effort to bring her back may have borne fruit, but for what???

A few more days gasping for breath, not recognizing her own children. No dignity. No pleasure.

I'm glad my sister was there. I may not have been as strong.

As for myself, if I ever get to the point where I'm a burden to others, not lucid, or bereft of personal dignity, take me out back and shoot me.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

As for myself, if I ever get to the point where I'm a burden to others, not lucid, or bereft of personal dignity, take me out back and shoot me.

Right now, that is illegal. All of the crackheads in my neighbourhood fit that description, but the cops told me I can't do anything of the sort.

[PocketRocket]

Good Morning, Thelonious:

No worries. The crackheads are killing themselves. The process simply takes a bit longer.

[Riverwind]

Good Morning, Thelonious:

No worries. The crackheads are killing themselves. The process simply takes a bit longer.

That is why they say drug use is 'suicide on the installment plan'...

[Yodeler]

As for myself, if I ever get to the point where I'm a burden to others, not lucid, or bereft of personal dignity, take me out back and shoot me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you make a "living will"?

Chicken?

You're not alone. When Oregon state relaxed their euthanasia rules, they were expecting hordes of people to do just that, but nobody did.

[BHS]

I note that in the original post their was no mention of illness, just a wish to die made twice in a short span of time by someone "appearing" to have control of their faculties. Was this an omission, or are they proposing that the medical establishment go into the business of putting down healthy people with a death wish?

There's a big difference between "do not rescucitate" - allowing a terminal patient to die without interference - and intentionally killing them. Giving someone a lethal dose of drugs isn't "letting them go". This is a cavalier, overly simplistic attitude towards life and death and killing. Why do we spend so much time fretting about the execution of axe murderers by the most humane methods possible, and then applaud the speedy, remorseless killing of the ailing innocent as if it were some sort of victory?

I see all of this as a symptom of a larger problem - the aggrandization of loss and victimhood. I see posts on the web every day of people trumpeting their "fear" of people and things that they don't like, as if this were a virtue. "I'm afraid of what President Bush is doing". "I'm afraid for the future of the planet/my country/my demographic/my special interest group." JFK said there was nothing to fear but fear itself, in another time, to a different generation of liberally-minded people. What ever happened to fighting to win? Fighting to make a better future? Fighting to beat cancer, even as it lays you out for good? When did these things get replaced a desire for condolence and pity?

[FTA Lawyer]

There's a big difference between "do not rescucitate" - allowing a terminal patient to die without interference - and intentionally killing them. Giving someone a lethal dose of drugs isn't "letting them go". This is a cavalier, overly simplistic attitude towards life and death and killing. Why do we spend so much time fretting about the execution of axe murderers by the most humane methods possible, and then applaud the speedy, remorseless killing of the ailing innocent as if it were some sort of victory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that the issue is anything but black and white.

In fact, the singlemost concern with allowing euthanasia is that it opens a huge potential for abuse of the most weak and vulnerable in society.

For the clear-cut case of a lucid individual who has made the decision to end their life, but has not the physical ability to do so, we can see how this may make sense. But what of the old ailing senior who would cling to their very last breath no matter how horrible it may seem, who happens to have a boatload of money and a kid or two who never really liked the old buggar anyway?

Really...he asked me to kill him...honest...where do I pick up my cheque?

Think this won't happen? Just ask estate litigators how frequently they deal with cut-throat family members who circle the dying parent like vultures.

What of the child with cerebral palsy who actually gets a hell of a kick out of life (for what life they know) but has a single parent who simply no longer has the patience or the money to endure?

Really, she didn't want to go on with such a poor standard of living...I'm her mom, I could see it in her eyes...

The problem really does become where do we draw the line?

And the "we treat animals better" analogy really doesn't fly for me. I'm from rural Alberta where you do in fact shoot your dog when he gets too old to get around without pain. My grandfather on the other hand got a hip replacement, arthritis meds and everything else we have to make him get by. I would hate to think that we would just "give up" and put him down in the future instead of fighting to keep him going.

Human life has always been given a level of sanctity in our society that other life does not enjoy, and I for one think that we need to tread very cautiously before we just start making it easy to kill people because they "ask for it".

FTA Lawyer

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

I agree that the issue is anything but black and white.

I must agree, we must tread lightly. One of the dangers of defining 'quality of life' (or passing judgement) for others is seeing things like eugenics rearing it's ugly head again. However, different cultures have different ways with dealing with death. Not so long ago, eskimos would place, (assumably willingly) grandma or grandpa on an ice floe when they reached a certain level of 'enfeeblement'. They thought that this method of 'leaving the land of the living' was very dignified.

[tml12]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

I agree that the issue is anything but black and white.

I must agree, we must tread lightly. One of the dangers of defining 'quality of life' (or passing judgement) for others is seeing things like eugenics rearing it's ugly head again. However, different cultures have different ways with dealing with death. Not so long ago, eskimos would place, (assumably willingly) grandma or grandpa on an ice floe when they reached a certain level of 'enfeeblement'. They thought that this method of 'leaving the land of the living' was very dignified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are not legally insane and have a life-threatening illness you should be allowed to die with respect. Period. Case closed.

[PocketRocket]

As for myself, if I ever get to the point where I'm a burden to others, not lucid, or bereft of personal dignity, take me out back and shoot me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you make a "living will"?

How do you know I haven't???

You are making assumptions.

Chicken?

If we stipulate that I have not made such a will, then very possibly chicken, yes.

But that is not really relevant to the thread, is it??

You're not alone. When Oregon state relaxed their euthanasia rules, they were expecting hordes of people to do just that, but nobody did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a lot of people are in a rush to recognize, let alone hasten, their own mortality.

[PocketRocket]

I note that in the original post their was no mention of illness, just a wish to die made twice in a short span of time by someone "appearing" to have control of their faculties. Was this an omission, or are they proposing that the medical establishment go into the business of putting down healthy people with a death wish?

I think it is safe to assume that we are speaking of cases in which someone is terminal.

But perhaps I should not make assumptions, especially since I showed disapproval of doing so in my previous post.

There's a big difference between "do not rescucitate" - allowing a terminal patient to die without interference - and intentionally killing them. Giving someone a lethal dose of drugs isn't "letting them go".

Okay. How about taking someone (who would otherwise be terminal) off life support??? Is that "killing" them, or simply "letting them go"???

This is a cavalier, overly simplistic attitude towards life and death and killing. Why do we spend so much time fretting about the execution of axe murderers by the most humane methods possible, and then applaud the speedy, remorseless killing of the ailing innocent as if it were some sort of victory?

Well, is the axe-murderer terminal??? Has he asked to be "let go"???

(BTW, I have no problem with capital punishment if guilt is proven BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT. My problem would be if someone were excecuted, then later found to be innocent. Cases like Guy Paul Moran show that wrongful conviction can easily occur.)

I see all of this as a symptom of a larger problem - the aggrandization of loss and victimhood. I see posts on the web every day of people trumpeting their "fear" of people and things that they don't like, as if this were a virtue. "I'm afraid of what President Bush is doing". "I'm afraid for the future of the planet/my country/my demographic/my special interest group." JFK said there was nothing to fear but fear itself, in another time, to a different generation of liberally-minded people.

Many people are "afraid" of what Bush is doing. Many also fear for the future of their country/world/environment etc.

But this is a different sort of fear than a personal fear of death or bodily harm, or in this case, slow loss of life preceded by possible immobility and loss of dignity and ultimately, self.

What ever happened to fighting to win? Fighting to make a better future? Fighting to beat cancer, even as it lays you out for good? When did these things get replaced a desire for condolence and pity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are not speaking of a football game wherein you and your team are down 56-3 at the half.

We are speaking of someone who is terminal, possibly brain-dead, or any number of incremental mixes of the two.

To rephrase what I said earlier, if I'm a drooling, brain-dead mess on life support after some accident, then switch me off.

[Yodeler]

How about taking someone (who would otherwise be terminal) off life support??? Is that "killing" them, or simply "letting them go"??? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A nice guy (no police record) but poor, and a long time welfare recipient, got beaten up by thugs in Vancouver's Chinatown about a week ago. At 3 am he was taken to St. Paul's hospital by ambulance, still lucid and able to communicate. They put him on life support at about 5 am but by 7 am they unplugged him. He died at 5:17 pm that night.

Some people are "let go" or "killed" sooner than others, I guess.

[Guest eureka]

Living wills are not the answer; only an assistance. Wills can be contested and frequently are.

Legislation and social change of attitude is necessary.

[Slavik44]

We are not speaking of a football game wherein you and your team are down 56-3 at the half.

We are speaking of someone who is terminal, possibly brain-dead, or any number of incremental mixes of the two.

To rephrase what I said earlier, if I'm a drooling, brain-dead mess on life support after some accident, then switch me off.

No but it seems like we could be talking about a football game where you are down 20-23 at half time, as all that is required is to ask to die, two times in ten days, no doctors neccasary buckshot will do. Common, if the terminally i'll want to go, let them, but if your 18 year old son's girlfriend broke up with him and he is so heart broken to the point that he requests to die 2 times in ten days, should I grab my gun and shoot him for you, or will you put him out of his never ending missery?

I think it is more scary that we are willing to treat people like dogs. Where even when they are perfectly healthy, we can get them shot, maybe we could get them stuffed at a taxedermist aswell? The original post I saw made no mention of the terminally ill, just someoen over 18, no doctor is neccasary to make the assessment. IF we want some liberalization of Euthanasia go for it, but we need more boundaries then 18 years old. Unless the rest of the bill contains these boundaries, and they were not posted, although I would want a doctor to be one of those boundaries.

[Yodeler]

JFK said there was nothing to fear but fear itself, in another time, to a different generation of liberally-minded people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JFK stole that one from Winston ChurchilL, who stole it from Henry Thoreau, who stole it from Francis Bacon.

His "Ask not" speech was plagerized many times also. That one originated with Mr. Harding.

[PocketRocket]

A nice guy (no police record) but poor, and a long time welfare recipient, got beaten up by thugs in Vancouver's Chinatown about a week ago. At 3 am he was taken to St. Paul's hospital by ambulance, still lucid and able to communicate.  They put him on life support at about 5 am but by 7 am they unplugged him. He died at 5:17 pm that night.

Some people are "let go" or "killed" sooner than others, I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to ask this question; why did they take him off life support???

If he was lucid when they brought him in, life support applied at 5AM, perhaps by 7AM they thought he'd be fine without LS???

Do you have any more details on this case???

[PocketRocket]

We are not speaking of a football game wherein you and your team are down 56-3 at the half.

We are speaking of someone who is terminal, possibly brain-dead, or any number of incremental mixes of the two.

To rephrase what I said earlier, if I'm a drooling, brain-dead mess on life support after some accident, then switch me off.

No but it seems like we could be talking about a football game where you are down 20-23 at half time, as all that is required is to ask to die, two times in ten days, no doctors neccasary buckshot will do. Common, if the terminally i'll want to go, let them, but if your 18 year old son's girlfriend broke up with him and he is so heart broken to the point that he requests to die 2 times in ten days, should I grab my gun and shoot him for you, or will you put him out of his never ending missery?

Hiya, SLAVIK44. No offense, but I think you're taking this way out of context.

It is, after all, called "Euthanasia". Sometimes also called "Assisted Suicide".

If your 18-year old son wants to kill himself, he doesn't need any help. Like so many other kids, he can figure it out for himself.

  I think it is more scary that we are willing to treat people like dogs. Where even when they are perfectly healthy, we can get them shot, maybe we could get them stuffed at a taxedermist aswell? The original post I saw made no mention of the terminally ill, just someoen over 18, no doctor is neccasary to make the assessment. IF we want some liberalization of Euthanasia go for it, but we need more boundaries then 18 years old. Unless the rest of the bill contains these boundaries, and they were not posted, although I would want a doctor to be one of those boundaries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see anyone else who has had this misunderstanding.

I don't believe the bill would legalize killing a perfectly healthy human just because they asked you to.

If this concerns you so much, why not try find a link to the text of the bill???

[Yodeler]

A nice guy (no police record) but poor, and a long time welfare recipient, got beaten up by thugs in Vancouver's Chinatown about a week ago. At 3 am he was taken to St. Paul's hospital by ambulance, still lucid and able to communicate.  They put him on life support at about 5 am but by 7 am they unplugged him. He died at 5:17 pm that night.

Some people are "let go" or "killed" sooner than others, I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to ask this question; why did they take him off life support???

If he was lucid when they brought him in, life support applied at 5AM, perhaps by 7AM they thought he'd be fine without LS???

Do you have any more details on this case???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I read they just plain gave up on him. THAT FAST !! It doesn't make sense. I'm just an amateur, specializing mainly in respiratory problems .... but this looks fishy to me.

In today's Province the police are offering $10,000 to whoever helps them catch the killer.

It reads:

"The police board is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever killed Tony Robertson.

Robertson, a homosexual, had left the Dufferin Hotel in downtown Vancouver and was believed to be on his way home.

In the 600-block of Main Street, he ended up in a varbal altercation in front of a convenience store.

A witness saw two men standing by while a third attacked Robertson, 51, at around 3 a.m. on Oct. 8.

'We don't know whether all three were actually involved,' said Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning.

It's not known if Robertson was targeted because he was homosexual."

I hope they catch them.

I'm a betting man, and if I was going to wager on who actually WANTED to kill him, I'd take the doctors.

[Yodeler]

[ why did they take him off life support???

If he was lucid when they brought him in, life support applied at 5AM, perhaps by 7AM they thought he'd be fine without LS???

Do you have any more details on this case???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I read they just plain gave up on him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No details.

And just to clarify ... I didn't really read that they "just plain gave up on him", I just imagined it.

I got ALL of my information reading the 'Wanted Poster', below, where it states;

"EHS attended and transported ROBERTSON, who was still conscious, to St. Paul's Hospital. ROBERTSON's condition subsequently deteriorated, and he was removed from life support during the morning of October 8th. ROBERTSON was pronounced dead at 17:04 hrs."

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tony+r...nG=Search&meta=

I bet you that they wouldn't have unplugged him as fast as they did had they suspected that loved ones would be coming.

[Yodeler]

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tony+r...nG=Search&meta=

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After reading the above 'WANTED POSTER' on my work place bulletin board, and seeing how no one gave a shit that Tony Robertson was unplugged so fast and without explanation, I started thinking about Martin Niemöller's advice....

"First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me."

.... and wondered if it could apply here.

I think it could.

[PocketRocket]

Yodeler: Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I just haven't had time.

You're right about one thing, no news about why he was "unplugged", if indeed he was ever "plugged in".

I did a search, and they all simply detail the barest facts, ie; two men watched as a third attacked.

Not even anything about him being either put on or taken off life support.

But then again I don't recall any past news stories which detail how such a victim was treated in hospital.

Difficult to say, really.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Yodeler,

From what I read they just plain gave up on him. THAT FAST !! It doesn't make sense. I'm just an amateur, specializing mainly in respiratory problems .... but this looks fishy to me.

I have been on a 'death watch' before, where a loved one was nearing death. There are tell-tale signs that show when 'the end is near', and it could well be that the doctors saw those signs. We don't know what those doctors saw. Robertson may have had a ruptured spleen and /or kidneys, which can poison a person to death very quickly. Sometimes people can go to ER with a shopping list of trauma injuries, and if they are lucky, they might live. Others are doomed if they are the 'wrong ones' where each are handicapping to the others. Collapsed lungs, for example, require immediate re-inflation, and you can't really do too much other abdominal surgery while this happens.

Also, I had a hockey buddy severely wounded in a vehicle roll-over. His brain had swollen to the point of putting pressure on his skull, and there was nothing the doctors could really do until the swelling stabilized, or it killed him. His 'shopping list' of trauma' was extensive (fractured vertebrae in his spine and neck, broken arm and leg), but he lived, and came back to play hockey within 2 years (although his pro hopes were gone, as he was playing Major Junior at the time of the accident)

All of the traumas listed above could still leave a victim 'conscious', until shock sets in, a possible killer in itself. Before judgement on motives is passed, we should find out what the circumstances were.