Jump to content

Medical assistance in dying is no solution


blackbird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Allowing mental illness to make someone eligible for MAID pushes in a pretty misunderstood and poorly thought out direction I think.

Can the conundrum of a person unable to make their own choice due to the loss of mental faculties do so in a living will written and notarized well beforehand when they're in a sound frame of mind?

Well dementia/Alzheimers are not considered mental illness re: MAID. It's a neurological disorder. 

But it's complicated just the same. Consent could still be withdrawn when not in a sound frame of mind. It seems that the more recent version does generally allow for this though, whereas previously you had to be in a sound frame of mind at the time of death. Meaning MAID had to be administered sooner than many would have liked

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

? God you're predictable. 

You mean i don't like dishonest sacks of crap?  Yeah  -  i'm pretty consistent that way.

I guess it was optimistic of me to think you wouldn't be just as consistant at being one.

But once again, your dishonesty and inability to cope with a simple question is somehow my fault. Typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

Interesting how all these free dums people are so hot to control other peoples choices.

Soooo ---  you feel that trying to prevent  doctors from pressuring war vets suffering from PTSD to kill themselves rather than giving them treatment is  "controlling other people's choices"?

Well - what can one expect from the group who brought nazi's to the parlimaent - of course YOU'D be fond of gassing people because they're inconvenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You mean i don't like dishonest sacks of crap?  Yeah  -  i'm pretty consistent that way.

I guess it was optimistic of me to think you wouldn't be just as consistant at being one.

But once again, your dishonesty and inability to cope with a simple question is somehow my fault. Typical.

Well, why don't we give it another shot.  I'm nothing if not conciliatory on a frosty Sunday morning when there's only one game on.

In response to my first post, you asked:

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

so how do you circle that square?  How do you prevent people from being pressured into maid by others as we saw with the vets, or by denial of services ,  and yet stay out of people's decision making process?  kinda feels like you can't eat your cake and have it

To which I responded:

20 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Pressured?  Nobody should be pressured into anything.  I'm talking about choice.  People should be made aware of their options, but nobody should be pressured into making a choice they would not make otherwise. 

If you want to raise taxes for the improvement of government services I'm completely on board with that.

In subsequent posts, you seemed to imply that I hadn't answered your question at all.

So let's start again.  As I stated above, no-one should be pressured into MAID, but it should be available to anyone who wants it. I am all in favour of increased social services with a view towards helping those who feel assisted suicide is their only option to try and find other avenues.  That might mean higher taxes, but I'm okay with that. 

I also asked what your view of MAID would be if pressure was not an issue.  If everyone who applied had sufficient help to ensure their decision was the one they want to make, perhaps even with gentle pressure being applied to guide them away from the decision, if such was deemed appropriate, would you support it?

I also asked if you had any evidence of the pressure you are concerned about.  Was it by medical professionals or family members?  I'm curious if any sanctions were applied to those doing the pressuring.  

And just to be clear, as far as our conversation is concerned, Gods are not a factor, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

You assume everyone who applies for MAID will suffer unimaginably, which is just an assumption and is not factual.  The medical profession has many medications they can give people and not everyone applying for MAID is suffering.  So it is a kind of myth and disinformation.  There are all kinds of reasons why people apply for MAID.

The people applying for MAID would rather be dead than continue living, which is pretty much the definition of suffering. It is not your place to judge their suffering anyway b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Bottom line is it cheapens life and desensitizes us to the value, many would say sacredness, of life.

I don’t think it does that at all.

But I find it very ironic that the same people who are pro-Death penalty and who shrug their shoulders at tales of indigenous genocide, desperate refugees, the various horrors of colonialism, and until very recently wanted to carpet bomb the entire Middle East, resort to “sacredness of life” arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

MAID is allowing someone to die with dignity on their own terms.

That is pure fiction.  It is the Nazi MAID talking point but no truth in it.  Death by suicide or deliberate killing is not "dignity".  It is the complete opposite.

 That is truly sad.  You obviously don't believe in justice.   If you think capital punishment for murdering a police officer is barbaric, what do you think killing a police officer is?  You evidently don't see the difference?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think it does that at all.

But I find it very ironic that the same people who are pro-Death penalty and who shrug their shoulders at tales of indigenous genocide, desperate refugees, the various horrors of colonialism, and until very recently wanted to carpet bomb the entire Middle East, resort to “sacredness of life” arguments. 

You are inventing all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the subject.  False allegations much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The people applying for MAID would rather be dead than continue living, which is pretty much the definition of suffering.

Obviously such people need help in other ways, not offering them MAID.  Where is the compassion for people who have mental problems?  There is none.  Just give them death.  That doesn't show compassion or caring for people.  They obviously need help which is not being offered in a lot of cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no conclusive solution to this problem. People are always going to feel something from their relatives, friends and carers about what they should do. Anyway, I’m not sure free will exists at all. If it does it’s a much feebler beast than it seems. What surprised me when the law was being promoted was how many across the political spectrum wanted fewer restrictions. I think we should still protect young adults, the mentally ill and those with disabilities like cerebral palsy from rash or pressured decisions. Perhaps strict criteria and a longer decision-making period could be required of those under 35? It’s definitely a blessing to have in place for the elderly if they need it. 

The expression ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’ causes considerable confusion for those learning English, given that ‘having’ cake can also mean ‘eating’ cake in this ramshackle language. If we said ‘keep’ instead of ‘have’ there its meaning would be a lot clearer. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nexii said:

Well dementia/Alzheimers are not considered mental illness re: MAID. It's a neurological disorder. 

But it's complicated just the same. Consent could still be withdrawn when not in a sound frame of mind. It seems that the more recent version does generally allow for this though, whereas previously you had to be in a sound frame of mind at the time of death. Meaning MAID had to be administered sooner than many would have liked

The evidence is mounting that many mental illnesses have a structural basis in the brain and are therefore neurological conditions too. There’s a fairly large literature on the cerebral abnormalities in schizophrenia, for example. Long ago it was called dementia praecox, ie, premature dementia or madness

Consent and capacity are tricky issues. Most schizophrenic patients would have lucid periods that are considerably above the level adequate for consent. However, it’s understandable that governments are approaching this whole issue with caution. There will be bad outcomes. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Obviously such people need help in other ways, not offering them MAID.  Where is the compassion for people who have mental problems?  There is none.  Just give them death.  That doesn't show compassion or caring for people.  They obviously need help which is not being offered in a lot of cases.

Mental health care in most Western countries is inadequate. When effective drug treatment for schizophrenia came along in the Fifties, well-intentioned doctors and patient advocates proposed a new model, community care, to replace the dreaded asylums. Unfortunately, politicians and bean counters seized on this chance to gut psychiatric beds and then conveniently forgot about the community care and humane hospital settings stuff. After all, opening wards for the psychotic isn’t exactly the best photo-op for an ambitious minister. Hence our current ongoing crisis where extremely disturbed people can’t get a hospital bed or appropriate accommodation. This has nothing to do with MAID, though. The Americans may be in a worse place with this:

Quote

The magnitude of deinstitutionalization of the severely mentally ill qualifies it as one of the largest social experiments in American history. In 1955, there were 558,239 severely mentally ill patients in the nation's public psychiatric hospitals. In 1994, this number had been reduced by 486,620 patients, to 71,619, as seen in Figure 1.2. It is important to note, however, that the census of 558,239 patients in public psychiatric hospitals in 1955 was in relationship to the nation's total population at the time, which was 164 million.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

but we have had terrible problems for decades too. 

 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What about the state playing "God" and curing someone?

You don’t understand the purpose of healthcare and the Hyppocratic Oath.  The slope on euthanasia is simply far too slippery, which is why no great powers allow it.  Only experimental countries like Canada are rolling the dice.  Mercy killing.  It’s what we do to sick pets.  

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think it does that at all.

But I find it very ironic that the same people who are pro-Death penalty and who shrug their shoulders at tales of indigenous genocide, desperate refugees, the various horrors of colonialism, and until very recently wanted to carpet bomb the entire Middle East, resort to “sacredness of life” arguments. 

I don’t support capital punishment or genocide.  I also don’t support lies, so if you’re trying to say Canada committed genocide against Indigenous, that’s a problem.

Canada’s “affordable” healthcare system is substandard.  Pretending that killing is healthcare is proof.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Mental health care in most Western countries is inadequate. When effective drug treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder came along, well-intentioned doctors and patient advocates proposed a new model, community care, to replace the dreaded asylums. Unfortunately, politicians and bean counters seized on this chance to gut psychiatric beds and then conveniently forgot about the community care stuff. After all, opening wards for the psychotic isn’t exactly the best photo-op for an ambitious minister. Hence our current ongoing crisis where extremely disturbed people can’t get a hospital bed or appropriate accommodation. This has nothing to do with MAID, though. We abandoned many of the mentally ill decades ago. 

Yea the so-called 'drug crisis' is mostly just mentally ill people that now have nowhere else to go. Asylums weren't perfect but at least they were better than being on the streets. 

This is a real worry of mine, that MAID becomes the go-to instead of a last resort

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You don’t understand the purpose of healthcare and the Hyppocratic Oath.  The slope on euthanasia is simply far too slippery, which is why no great powers allow it.  Only experimental countries like Canada are rolling the dice.  Mercy killing.  It’s what we do to sick pets.  

I do.  A layman's interpretation of the oath might be just to do no harm, but Brittanica says:

The oath dictates the obligations of the physician to students of medicine and the duties of pupil to teacher. In the oath, the physician pledges to prescribe only beneficial treatments, according to his abilities and judgment; to refrain from causing harm or hurt; and to live an exemplary personal and professional life. 

MAID is fully in compliance with that.  I can think of nothing more beneficial than allowing someone the death they desire.  I can think of nothing more harmful than forcing them to live on.

But so what?  You made that response to a question about God.  What does that have to do with God?

As for pets, you're right.  We tend not to allow our sick pets to suffer unduly.  Good for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Well, why don't we give it another shot.  I'm nothing if not conciliatory on a frosty Sunday morning when there's only one game on.I

Where the hell are you that it's frosty this morning?

 

So - lets clarify a few points.  1 - i'm very pro choice when it comes to maid.  I think people of sound mind who make the decision to end their lives should have that choice - what in the world do we own if not our own life. I put my dog down when he was sick and suffering rather than let it draw out and i'd want the same for me. So this isn't an 'anti' maid' issue

2 - no god.

 

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

As I stated above, no-one should be pressured into MAID, but it should be available to anyone who wants it.

Here's the thing. My point was that if you say that it should be avaliable to all who want it AND you say that it should not be abused THEN you have to agree to a mechanism to prevent abuse while allowing people to access it reasonably, otherwise we can't have it and you're just talking about fairy tales.

So my question to you was assuming it's something we want to implement in canada and not shut down, then what mechanism do you feel adequaltely gives access without allowing for abuses?  Some sort of board or panel? That drags it out but tends to eliminate individual abuses especially if they're recorded.  Simply a law saying 'don't pressure anyone'? Problem is that unlike the abortion thing the person isnt' around to testify after.

It's hard for me to answer on your behalf because you made a strong statement regarding access and i don't know how much infringement your personal views will tolerate - but i don't think we will be able to continue with MAID if that question doesn't get answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAID does not "eliminate" suffering;  it eliminates the sufferer.  Where is the compassionate care that society should be providing?  There is little or no difference between Naziism and a government that legalizes and uses MAID as a solution for people.  The people that are particularly vulnerable are the older people, the infirm, the handicapped, and the mentally ill or depressed.  Most people are depressed at one time or another in their lives.  For the government to offer MAID to these people is reprehensible.

Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying Kills THOUSANDS

The hypocratic oath clearly rules out MAID.  This short 6 minute video gives a good overview.

Video | Facebook

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pain can be relieved medically.

MAID is not a treatment. It’s the corollary of an unprincipled country that doesn’t place a high value on human life and doesn’t respect the Judeo-Christian (and multi-faith) belief that despair is a sin and killing is a sin. Once those principles are abandoned, much reprehensible behaviour becomes acceptable.

Whose life is worthy of protection if not all human life?  If you choose to take your own life, there are drugs available that make that possible.  A state-provided suicide program is so ethically dubious and susceptible to abuse that a prudent state wouldn’t allow it.  It’s in keeping with giving free hard drugs to addicts and other reckless policies. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is pure fiction.  It is the Nazi MAID talking point but no truth in it.  Death by suicide or deliberate killing is not "dignity".  It is the complete opposite.

 That is truly sad.  You obviously don't believe in justice.   If you think capital punishment for murdering a police officer is barbaric, what do you think killing a police officer is?  You evidently don't see the difference?

So people must suffer painful hopeless  lives because you think their death by choice is worse than society putting someone to death. Yet you still claim killing is wrong. What you really want is for people to live or die on your terms.

But I'm the NAZI because I think people should be masters of their own fate.

Like NAZIS were known for giving people choices.?

 

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Pain can be relieved medically.

MAID is not a treatment. It’s the corollary of an unprincipled country that doesn’t place a high value on human life and doesn’t respect the Judeo-Christian (and multi-faith) belief that despair is a sin and killing is a sin. Once those principles are abandoned, much reprehensible behaviour becomes acceptable.

Whose life is worthy of protection if not all human life?  If you choose to take your own life, there are drugs available that make that possible.  A state-provided suicide program is so ethically dubious and susceptible to abuse that a prudent state wouldn’t allow it.  It’s in keeping with giving free hard drugs to addicts and other reckless policies. 

Only to a point and even then it can mean drugging them to the point of insensibility but what do you really care what happens to them as long as they conform to your  Judeo-Christian beliefs. Their beliefs are of no consequence to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

When people are depressed or suicidal, offering them MAID is not giving people choices.  It is just killing.

You or I are not qualified to make a blanket judgement. Every case needs to be assessed on its own merit. You act like health professionals want to kill people. They don't and no one can make them.

Capital punishment is just killing.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Only to a point and even then it can mean drugging them to the point of insensibility but what do you really care what happens to them as long as they conform to your  Judeo-Christian beliefs. Their beliefs are of no consequence to you.

What you do to yourself is your problem, including suicide. When the state gets involved it’s no longer suicide; it’s killing.  MAID is the state killing of citizens.  When you say, yeah but only the person choosing it is involved, that’s a lie.  State-provided killing is now on the menu of options for physicians to consider and apply to those who want it. What makes someone want to die?  What factors could make someone consider “wanting” death?  Could it be poverty, family pressure, the decisions of a power of attorney, someone suffering depression related to a specific event, someone for whom there are treatments that are expensive or have big wait times, someone who has been offered MAID as a “medical” option?

There is so much potential for coercion, pressure, professional laziness, expediency, etc.

The stats speak for themselves, as now tens of thousands of Canadians a year are “choosing” suicide.  It’s on the menu of choices along with hard recreational drugs.

Poor people without adequate housing have gotten MAID as a solution to their predicament.  Military vets have been guided to MAID as a solution to PTSD.  The feds are considering providing it to kids and the mentally ill.  It’s morally dubious at best.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...