Suffering is not a justification for assisted suicide

[Aristides]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Only when it has a direct effect on another life.  That's what I meant about understanding the pro-life point of view.  I believe the women's right to autonomy over rules the foetus's right to a continued existence.

The effect of inducing sorrow or distress does not count.

Flying a passenger plane into a mountain would count.

That's why professional medical assistance when requested is so important. 

 

I agree. Control has to be an individual thing, both for the person requesting assistance and anyone who might be  prepared to give it. Other than the process used, the law should stay out of it.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Pistol in hand . . . . you've made your decision.  Someone else will do the clean-up. 

Unless you give people a better way, that can be the result.

[blackbird]

A man in Chilliwack not too old apparently had mental issues, depression, and requested assisted death.   His relatives strongly disagreed with the hospital and doctors.  The guy needed treatment for his depression and mental issues, but the medical staff went ahead anyway and gave him MAID against the wishes of his relatives.  All I can say is better stay away from hospitals and long term care homes as much as possible if one wants to stay alive.  The system has become a Frankenstein monster.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

A man in Chilliwack not too old apparently had mental issues, depression, and requested assisted death.   His relatives strongly disagreed with the hospital and doctors.  The guy needed treatment for his depression and mental issues, but the medical staff went ahead anyway and gave him MAID against the wishes of his relatives.  All I can say is better stay away from hospitals and long term care homes as much as possible if one wants to stay alive.  The system has become a Frankenstein monster.

Well, if one wants to stay alive the issue is moot.  It only matters if one does not.

I'm glad to hear the man's request was respected.  His relatives might have had what they thought were his best interests at heart, but they did not.  They had their own best interests at heart.

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, if one wants to stay alive the issue is moot.  It only matters if one does not.

I'm glad to hear the man's request was respected.  His relatives might have had what they thought were his best interests at heart, but they did not.  They had their own best interests at heart.

Obviously you think the doctor and hospital had his best interest at heart.  Turned out they were the ones that killed him.  Some medical care system.

Edited February 13, 2021 by blackbird

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Obviously you think the doctor and hospital had his best interest at heart.  Turned out they were the ones that killed him.  Some medical care system.

No, I think the doctor and the hospital refused to put the wishes of the man's relatives above those of his own.  The right decision, in my opinion.

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I think the doctor and the hospital refused to put the wishes of the man's relatives above those of his own.  The right decision, in my opinion.

Ever thought of the possibility of someone with mental problems is not fit to make such decisions?   I have a son who is a schizophrenic and has been in a care home since he was about 20 and for several decades now.  He often says crazy things and is not fit to decide to have assisted suicide.  That would be criminal to give him such a right.

Edited February 13, 2021 by blackbird

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Ever thought of the possibility of someone with mental problems is not fit to make such decisions?   I have a son who is a schizophrenic and has been in a care home since he was about 20 and for several decades now.  He often says crazy things and is not fit to decide to have assisted suicide.  That would be criminal to give him such a right.

You have my sympathy with regard to your situation.  I am not personally unaffected by such a situation myself.

Nevertheless, if he were to request assisted suicide, and you were to veto such a request, you would be forcing him to live on when he did not want to, without any real knowledge of what he is going through.  I could not do that.

[Right To Left]

On 2/12/2021 at 10:13 PM, blackbird said:

It is a major mistake to try to boil it down to whose life it is or it is my right to have assisted death if I wish.  It is wrong to use that to try to prove one has the right to end their life when they want.  That solves nothing and benefits nobody.

The problem is as I described that lack of proper palliative care for people.  Nobody should want to end their lives because of lack of proper care.  Society has a responsibility to take care of it's old, infirm, ill, and handicapped people with excellent care for every aspect of their needs.  That is the solution, not offering someone a quick death by an injection.  That just devalues human life and makes society nothing more than animals.  The answer is compassion and quality care for everyone.

And since a good deal of my time is taken up right now with my oldest brother, who is terminal with esophageal cancer and getting very close to death right now, I want to point out that he has reasonably good palliative care -- which right now includes lying in a hospital bed on a morphine drip to reduce pain as much as possible, and I can only call BS on people like you who are all full of theory and platitudes about how much every life is worth living! Is this coming out of someone who has never experienced death and loss of someone close to you?

At some point in life (and it should be up to the individual/not Catholic or other self-proclaimed pro-life activists), many older people who've been on this earth a long time, reach a point where the pain and discomfort of continued living is becoming too much to bear. Fortunately or unfortunately for my brother, the cancer has spread through his body so fast that the ravages of cancer are closing in and about to end his life...likely within a week, if not sooner. So, since he's already bedridden and in a state of mind where he is in and out of consciousness, the end is mercifully coming very soon for him, and he will have no more pain to go through in a few more days!

But what IF? What if his decline and death was more typical and taking much more time? Or if pain-reducing drugs were having less effect (since this is also variable with each individual)? This is why life or death decisions should be up to an individual in just about every scenario I can think of, and not the committee of busybody do gooders! 

[Right To Left]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Ever thought of the possibility of someone with mental problems is not fit to make such decisions?   I have a son who is a schizophrenic and has been in a care home since he was about 20 and for several decades now.  He often says crazy things and is not fit to decide to have assisted suicide.  That would be criminal to give him such a right.

Your example here would be one of the rare cases I was referring to where exceptions need to be made on the right to end life -- euthanasia. But, that is not the typical story of most people considering ending their lives. 

I don't consider a medical or government health system that demands the sick and infirm linger on till death regardless, to be anything humane or life-affirming!

[betsy]

Assisted suicide for those who fear dementia.  Media streamline promotes the  beauty in the tranquility of a painless death as opposed to a painful end.

That will be the promotion for medically assisted suicide.  Expect "studies" and "research"  to come out revealing how people with dementia suffers from so much  painful death.  

How many age-ing folks will be lining up for peaceful death?

I've already seen the movie.

 

 

They fed people with them cookies - they'll relieve society from economic burdens imposed by the age-ing population!  

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by betsy

[Guest]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Assisted suicide for those who fear dementia.  Media streamline promotes the  beauty in the tranquility of a painless death as opposed to a painful end.

That will be the promotion for medically assisted suicide.  Expect "studies" and "research"  to come out revealing how people with dementia suffers from so much  painful death.  

How many age-ing folks will be lining up for peaceful death?

I've already seen the movie.

 

 

They fed people with them cookies - they'll relieve society from economic burdens imposed by the age-ing population!  

 

I saw a movie once.  I have still to see an elephant using its ears to fly in real life though.

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, Right To Left said:

And since a good deal of my time is taken up right now with my oldest brother, who is terminal with esophageal cancer and getting very close to death right now, I want to point out that he has reasonably good palliative care -- which right now includes lying in a hospital bed on a morphine drip to reduce pain as much as possible, and I can only call BS on people like you who are all full of theory and platitudes about how much every life is worth living! Is this coming out of someone who has never experienced death and loss of someone close to you?

At some point in life (and it should be up to the individual/not Catholic or other self-proclaimed pro-life activists), many older people who've been on this earth a long time, reach a point where the pain and discomfort of continued living is becoming too much to bear. Fortunately or unfortunately for my brother, the cancer has spread through his body so fast that the ravages of cancer are closing in and about to end his life...likely within a week, if not sooner. So, since he's already bedridden and in a state of mind where he is in and out of consciousness, the end is mercifully coming very soon for him, and he will have no more pain to go through in a few more days!

But what IF? What if his decline and death was more typical and taking much more time? Or if pain-reducing drugs were having less effect (since this is also variable with each individual)? This is why life or death decisions should be up to an individual in just about every scenario I can think of, and not the committee of busybody do gooders! 

I am sorry you have a brother going through that.  You are correct in saying unless one is in the situation, they don't really know what it is like.  Hopefully the intravenous pain killers he is receiving are providing much-needed relief for him.  It naturally causes you and his loved ones around him a great deal of distress.  It is understandably why you would wish it would all end.  But there are a number of serious reasons why man should not take it into his own hands to end life.  Here is an article that enumerates some of those reasons.  I hope you will not dismiss this out of hand but give it serious consideration over time.

10 Reasons to Ban Assisted Suicide

By

 Ben Broussard

Topics:

 

• Assisted Suicide

1.  Assisted suicide turns doctors into killers.

The American Medical Association rejects physician-assisted suicide in the following terms:

“Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”

2.  Assisted suicide endangers the weak and vulnerable.

 Wherever assisted suicide has been legalized, safeguards to protect the ill have been inadequate, watered down or eliminated over time. People who deserve society’s help are instead treated like chattel and offered death.

3.  Assisted suicide laws give societal approval to killing. 

Legislation that allows people to end their lives automatically creates incentives to seek death as a cost-saving option. The elderly and infirm are seen as burdens and can easily be disposed of.  Suicide becomes the easy way out.  

4.  Just call it what it is: suicide.  

Under the false guise of ‘compassion,’ all sorts of euphemisms are being used to force this dangerous legislation on America -- phrases such as “aid in dying,” “end-of-life options,” and “death with dignity.” But there is no getting around the truth: these laws allow doctors to administer drugs designed to facilitate suicide.  Even more insidious, the lethal drugs are falsely labeled as “medication” while designed to do the exact opposite of any true medicine.

5.  Assisted suicide laws are unfair to the disabled.  

The vast majority of those requesting assisted suicide in Oregon was not because of pain, but the loss of functional ability. The mindset involved in allowing the practice of assisted suicide equates disability with a “loss of dignity.”  But, every day, thousands of disabled Americans rely on the assistance of others, without any loss of dignity. 

6.  Assisted suicide laws lead to euthanasia.  

Euthanasia, defined as “the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to end pain and suffering,” has followed wherever assisted suicide laws have been enacted. Instead of the suffering person requesting it, euthanasia is administered by others with or without patient consent.  Dr. Herbert Hendin writing in Psychiatric Times sums up what’s happened in the Netherlands:

“The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called “termination of the patient without explicit request”).”

In fact, the Dutch now kill patients and babies born with deformities.

7.  Assisted suicide laws put the poor at risk. 

Those without financial resources are most at risk from this dangerous legislation. Suicide becomes the cheap alternative for the poor who cannot afford costly treatment and medication. By passing assisted suicide laws, the state takes an interest in promoting the suicide of its citizens in order to save money.  In fact, many insurance companies also favor assisted suicide because is saves them a lot of money.

8.  It pressures dying people to end their own lives.  

Those coping with terminal illness are pressured to take the easy way out. “Not being a burden” becomes a powerful temptation to end one’s life.  Instead of cherishing the sunset of life, a terminally ill person’s last moments are deliberately cut short. Laws of this type also allow relatives and family members to kill in order to access inheritances and take advantage of the situation. 

9.  3.4 million nurses oppose assisted suicide.  

The American Nurses Association, which represents 3.4 million registered nurses, has clearly stated that:"... the nurse should not participate in assisted suicide. Such an act is in violation of the Code for Nurses [...] and the ethical traditions of the profession."

10.  Assisted suicide laws go against the Law of God. 

The practice of suicide goes against the 5th Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”  This commandment prohibits the murder of oneself or the murder of others. The state has no right to approve laws contrary to the moral and Divine Law.  And all people of good will should firmly reject assisted suicide and stand up for morality and right reason.

Do you know what the difference is between civilization and savagery?  The difference is respect for natural law.  Even the pagans knew how natural law is engrained in our rational human nature.  We tend to do good and avoid evil.

So, to kill oneself or to “help” another person kill himself shatters that fundamental principle of natural law and paves the way for a new "stone age" of dog-eat-dog barbaric savagery.

And -- as history demonstrates -- the gap between “assisted suicide” and mandatory suicide can be very narrow.  Who can guarantee that the legalization of “assisted suicide” today won't prepare the way for a new version of Auschwitz cremation ovens tomorrow?

God bless you and please help us defend moral values by subscribing here.

[blackbird]

Sadly in Canada, the CBC and mainstream media only present one side of the issue, the side in favour of assisted suicide.  We hear little or nothing of the important reasons why it is wrong.  Tragic that most people do not understand the full implications of this as a result.

[Guest]

One reason to allow assisted suicide.

Some people might want to die with dignity.

Only one reason is required.

[Nefarious Banana]

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

One reason to allow assisted suicide.

Some people might want to die with dignity.

Only one reason is required.

You're fading away, you're able to make a decision on your future, you don't want to be here anymore, your reasons are yours alone, you don't like wearing 'Depends' diapers . . . . 

[blackbird]

Quote: Roger Foley’s case, for example, continues to haunt me two years after I first wrote about him. Foley suffers from a neurodegenerative disease, cerebellar ataxia, that renders him unable to function independently. In his London hospital he has suffered food poisoning and substandard care serious enough to cause suicidal ideation. Foley has recorded being reminded that MAiD is an option. His only other choice is a forced discharge and dependence on contracted agencies that proved unreliable in the past. Foley wants a third option: “assisted life with self-directed funding,” which would cost 10-15 per cent of the daily $1,845 his London hospital charges him.

Why can’t he have that? It would allow him to live in the community with dignity, safety and continuity of care instead of in the soulless sterility of a hospital. Foley’s spirit and determination are indomitable, but one can see how easily others in his situation might request MAiD and, thanks to C-7, get it on the same day.

In 2016, Quebecer Archie Rolland, who suffered from advanced ALS and required specialized care chose MAiD when he was transferred against his will, for cost-saving reasons, to a facility with inadequately trained staff whose incompetence made his life a “living hell.” In the end, Rolland said, “It’s not the ALS that’s killing me; it’s my fight for better care, for decent care.”

Dr. Catherine Frazee gave heartbreaking testimony to the Senate hearings, citing Rolland’s case and that of Sean Tagert, also a prisoner of ALS. Tagert considered his quality of life good. He had shared custody of his adolescent son, while an elaborate technological system gave his days purpose. Denied the two additional daily hours of home care he required, Tagert was transferred to an institution far from his son, without the sophisticated technology that added critical value to his existence. So no “viable alternative” for Tagert. Is it any wonder he then chose MAiD?  

A 2017 Journal of Ethics in Mental Health study of those who signed up for assisted suicide in Oregon concluded that pain and suffering were amongst the least cited reasons for choosing assisted death. Most significant were loss of autonomy, loss of self-control, feelings of being a burden, and, paramountly, fear of being alone. As anti-euthanasia physician Paul Saba writes in his eloquent new book, Made to Live, “The euthanasia and assisted suicide mindset has been marketed by attacking people’s failing courage and preying on their fear that they will end their lives as a worthless human burden or worse, alone.” Further, “It is irresponsible to promote the myth that euthanasia and assisted suicide are never the result of severe external pressures, and that they are pure rational choices freely arrived at by citizens of a civilized and caring country.”

Quebec Justice Christine Baudouin approved the right to MAiD (which he got) of the cerebral-palsy afflicted Jean Truchon, because “He can no longer live on his own … He says he has been dead since 2012.” Why couldn’t he live on his own? He couldn’t afford to. In an August 2017 email to Jonathan Marchand, who suffers from muscular dystrophy and is “trapped in my long-term care facility,” but has long fought for the right of the disabled, including Jean Truchon, to live with adequate assistance at home, Truchon confided (my translation), “I want to thank you for your interest in my cause. In response to your question concerning home care, I think that actually if there were services of 70 hours and more, I would have preferred to stay at home and possibly I would not have had the same wish to die.”

Two more care hours daily might have saved Sean Tagert’s and Jean Truchon’s lives. We should not be offering wider access to euthanasia until every Canadian that needs it has a truly viable option: access to excellent palliative care (only accessible to 30 per cent of us) or optimal life assistance for the disabled. But C-7 will, shamefully, make Canada one of the most MAiD-friendly countries in the world. Unquote

--Barbara Kay: Wider access to assisted dying in Canada will be catastrophic for the disabled (msn.com)

Where is the compassion and concern for the disabled and least in our society?

Edited February 14, 2021 by blackbird

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Quote: Roger Foley’s case, for example, continues to haunt me two years after I first wrote about him. Foley suffers from a neurodegenerative disease, cerebellar ataxia, that renders him unable to function independently. In his London hospital he has suffered food poisoning and substandard care serious enough to cause suicidal ideation. Foley has recorded being reminded that MAiD is an option. His only other choice is a forced discharge and dependence on contracted agencies that proved unreliable in the past. Foley wants a third option: “assisted life with self-directed funding,” which would cost 10-15 per cent of the daily $1,845 his London hospital charges him.

Why can’t he have that? It would allow him to live in the community with dignity, safety and continuity of care instead of in the soulless sterility of a hospital. Foley’s spirit and determination are indomitable, but one can see how easily others in his situation might request MAiD and, thanks to C-7, get it on the same day.

In 2016, Quebecer Archie Rolland, who suffered from advanced ALS and required specialized care chose MAiD when he was transferred against his will, for cost-saving reasons, to a facility with inadequately trained staff whose incompetence made his life a “living hell.” In the end, Rolland said, “It’s not the ALS that’s killing me; it’s my fight for better care, for decent care.”

Dr. Catherine Frazee gave heartbreaking testimony to the Senate hearings, citing Rolland’s case and that of Sean Tagert, also a prisoner of ALS. Tagert considered his quality of life good. He had shared custody of his adolescent son, while an elaborate technological system gave his days purpose. Denied the two additional daily hours of home care he required, Tagert was transferred to an institution far from his son, without the sophisticated technology that added critical value to his existence. So no “viable alternative” for Tagert. Is it any wonder he then chose MAiD?  

A 2017 Journal of Ethics in Mental Health study of those who signed up for assisted suicide in Oregon concluded that pain and suffering were amongst the least cited reasons for choosing assisted death. Most significant were loss of autonomy, loss of self-control, feelings of being a burden, and, paramountly, fear of being alone. As anti-euthanasia physician Paul Saba writes in his eloquent new book, Made to Live, “The euthanasia and assisted suicide mindset has been marketed by attacking people’s failing courage and preying on their fear that they will end their lives as a worthless human burden or worse, alone.” Further, “It is irresponsible to promote the myth that euthanasia and assisted suicide are never the result of severe external pressures, and that they are pure rational choices freely arrived at by citizens of a civilized and caring country.”

Quebec Justice Christine Baudouin approved the right to MAiD (which he got) of the cerebral-palsy afflicted Jean Truchon, because “He can no longer live on his own … He says he has been dead since 2012.” Why couldn’t he live on his own? He couldn’t afford to. In an August 2017 email to Jonathan Marchand, who suffers from muscular dystrophy and is “trapped in my long-term care facility,” but has long fought for the right of the disabled, including Jean Truchon, to live with adequate assistance at home, Truchon confided (my translation), “I want to thank you for your interest in my cause. In response to your question concerning home care, I think that actually if there were services of 70 hours and more, I would have preferred to stay at home and possibly I would not have had the same wish to die.”

Two more care hours daily might have saved Sean Tagert’s and Jean Truchon’s lives. We should not be offering wider access to euthanasia until every Canadian that needs it has a truly viable option: access to excellent palliative care (only accessible to 30 per cent of us) or optimal life assistance for the disabled. But C-7 will, shamefully, make Canada one of the most MAiD-friendly countries in the world. Unquote

--Barbara Kay: Wider access to assisted dying in Canada will be catastrophic for the disabled (msn.com)

Where is the compassion and concern for the disabled and least in our society?

Yeah, probably sad cases all. 

Of course, none of them should have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not someone else has access to assisted suicide when/if they want it.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

22 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, probably sad cases all. 

Of course, none of them should have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not someone else has access to assisted suicide when/if they want it.

Take a look at the Netherlands.  Euthanasia is now administered to people with or without their consent.  This is the kind of slippery slope MAD leads to.  It really fits in with the atheist Communist/Marxist ideology where human life has no value.  Whatever seems expedient on the surface rules.  You end up with a system where humans whose life is deemed of less value are sacrificed to save money for the communal good.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Take a look at the Netherlands.  Euthanasia is now administered to people with or without their consent.  This is the kind of slippery slope MAD leads to.  It really fits in with the atheist Communist/Marxist ideology where human life has no value.  Whatever seems expedient on the surface rules.  You end up with a system where humans whose life is deemed of less value are sacrificed to save money for the communal good.

I'm not a big believer in denying people rights because of a possible slippery slope.  I wouldn't want to deny someone a peaceful, painless, dignified death at their own bidding, because of what might happen down the road.

If you don't like what might happen down the road, deal with that.

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not a big believer in denying people rights because of a possible slippery slope.  I wouldn't want to deny someone a peaceful, painless, dignified death at their own bidding, because of what might happen down the road.

If you don't like what might happen down the road, deal with that.

Turning the medical system into institutions administering death and having doctors and nurses trained to administer death is not my idea of a civilized country that cares for people.  It is a descent into barbarism and uncivilized behavior.  When you get old or are dealing with serious medical problems, I hope you can trust the doctors and medical system that they are sincerely trying to save your life and not take the easy way out and end it or just let you die when it's not necessary.  Because the attitude of medical professionals toward life will change as it is devalued. The only thing that could possibly deliver people from the death mentality is the Bible and gospel of Jesus Christ which includes respecting human life as sacred and loving they neighbour as thyself.  When life ends is God's domain, not man's.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Turning the medical system into institutions administering death and having doctors and nurses trained to administer death is not my idea of a civilized country that cares for people.  It is a descent into barbarism and uncivilized behavior.  When you get old or are dealing with serious medical problems, I hope you can trust the doctors and medical system that they are sincerely trying to save your life and not take the easy way out and end it or just let you die when it's not necessary.  Because the attitude of medical professionals toward life will change as it is devalued. The only thing that could possibly deliver people from the death mentality is the Bible and gospel of Jesus Christ which includes respecting human life as sacred and loving they neighbour as thyself.  When life ends is God's domain, not man's.

When I get old or am dealing with serious medical problems, I hope I can trust the doctors and medical system to allow me a choice. 

When life ends has nothing to do with anyone's God.

Edited February 15, 2021 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

When I get old or am dealing with serious medical problems, I hope I can trust the doctors and medical system to allow me a choice. 

When life ends has nothing to do with anyone's God.

Sorry to have to differ with you, but it has everything to do with the Creator of the universe and Creator of man.  He will hold us accountable after death whether one believes it or not.  According to the Bible all the evil actions of men will be judged but there is forgiveness for those who believe the gospel and are saved.  Everyone else is lost for eternity.

[Army Guy]

On 2/12/2021 at 11:13 PM, blackbird said:

It is a major mistake to try to boil it down to whose life it is or it is my right to have assisted death if I wish.  It is wrong to use that to try to prove one has the right to end their life when they want.  That solves nothing and benefits nobody.

The problem is as I described that lack of proper palliative care for people.  Nobody should want to end their lives because of lack of proper care.  Society has a responsibility to take care of it's old, infirm, ill, and handicapped people with excellent care for every aspect of their needs.  That is the solution, not offering someone a quick death by an injection.  That just devalues human life and makes society nothing more than animals.  The answer is compassion and quality care for everyone.

If it is not my life then who's is it? gods, the governments, who's ? who has the power to make those decisions or better yet do you think it is a mistake to allow someone the choice? 

If it is wrong to take ones life why is there no consequences to do so, why is there not a national government sponsored program to convince everyone that your choice is the only right choice, to suck it up , or my favorite,  Stop complaining , rub some dirt on it , get over it pussy, and live with the pain and suffering.... 

Canadians, politicians have known for decades that our palliative care system sucks, and have we done anything to correct that, no we have not, the only ones concerned are the people that it effects the rest of Canadians don't give a shit. I mean it has been months that the military uncovered what was wrong with out palliative care system, has the liberals stepped up try to change all of that. This is just another example of how the people and government just don't want to act.

So laying in bed with soiled underwear on, little to no medical care when needed, and to the outside world you have been warehoused to died, some stat on someone's profit Sheet ...if this has not spurred action by the people or government , then that says something about who we are as human beings... And Canadians thought to be nice and  polite are really just assholes willing to let this type of problem pass with out concern... 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, blackbird said:

Sorry to have to differ with you, but it has everything to do with the Creator of the universe and Creator of man.  He will hold us accountable after death whether one believes it or not.  According to the Bible all the evil actions of men will be judged but there is forgiveness for those who believe the gospel and are saved.  Everyone else is lost for eternity.

But that's just your God.  What about the other Gods?  Hindus, for instance.  I can't imagine which one of them will be looking out for me in my final moments.  Or the Haida?  I lived in BC for a long time.  Maybe I come under them now.  Apparently they have two that might play a part.  Ta'xet and Tia.  One for peaceful death, one for violent death.  So if I'm in the hospital awaiting my helpful medical professional and her trusty syringe, Tia smiling benevolently upon me, Ta'xet is going to be secretly opening elevator doors when the elevator is on another floor in the hope I might need moving. 

Or, given my heritage, The Dagda.  (I had to look that one up.  See what you have wrought?)

All that said, the Bible is no authority.  Written by men long after any events that might have included what those at the time considered godly interventions, and changed over the years by revisions and translations, I would put no more stock in that book as an authority on how I should live my life and arrange my death than I would the Mabinogion.  And I'm not Welsh.