Jump to content

Medical assistance in dying is no solution


blackbird

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

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, 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.  

Well, that's why people are assessed before it is made available to them. 

 

 

You can make up  whatever you want but you would rather people visit a corner drug dealer and get a lethal dose of fentanyl then die alone and in despair by suicide than reach a considered decision with people who love them and die peacefully with those same people at their side.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Well, that's why people are assessed before it is made available to them. 

 

 

You can make up  whatever you want but you would rather people visit a corner drug dealer and get a lethal dose of fentanyl then die alone and in despair by suicide than reach a considered decision with people who love them and die peacefully with those same people at their side.

Rationalize it any way you want, Canada is an outlier as a provider of active euthanasia.  It’s not a good look, but either is free hard drugs, unlimited abortion up to the expected day of birth, and gender affirmation for kids without parental involvement.  It illustrates a country unmoored from a healthy moral framework.   Anyway, it probably won’t change, so you got what you wanted.  I hope you don’t regret your views when you’re elderly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Rationalize it any way you want, Canada is an outlier as a provider of active euthanasia.  It’s not a good look, but either is free hard drugs, unlimited abortion up to the expected day of birth, and gender affirmation for kids without parental involvement.  It illustrates a country unmoored from a healthy moral framework.   Anyway, it probably won’t change, so you got what you wanted.  I hope you don’t regret your views when you’re elderly.

No it isn't, The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Columbia.

It is not about what I want, it's about what people want for themselves.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No it isn't, The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Columbia.

It is not about what I want, it's about what people want for themselves.

Yeah those countries are all worries.  Even Australia has proven itself to be fragile in recent years.  These countries’ governments, along with Canada’s, don’t always work for their citizens, in my opinion.  Anyway Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia policies in the world.  Congratulations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah those countries are all worries.  Even Australia has proven itself to be fragile in recent years.  These countries’ governments, along with Canada’s, don’t always work for their citizens, in my opinion.  Anyway Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia policies in the world.  Congratulations.  

Yes, its unfortunate you can't impose your will on the personal decisions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes, it’s unfortunate you can't impose your will on the personal decisions of others.

Destroy yourself as much as you like.

This is another reason why Canadian healthcare is a big fail.  The taxpayers are expected to be co-conspirators in the deaths of citizens by paying for their assisted suicide. We are to pay for the bad choices of drug addicts by giving them free drugs.  Yet people who want to live are dying because they can’t get cancer diagnosed soon enough and life saving surgery can’t come soon enough. Screwed up priorities from a morally confused government. Canada isn’t admirable on this front. It’s scary.  

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

"Nine Reasons why Euthanasia (killing the patient instead of killing the pain) Is Always Wrong

When the patient and the family get proper support, demand for euthanasia disappears. Medical practice teaches us that patients who express the wish to die usually do so because they are in need of comfort, they are depressed or their pain and symptoms are not being well managed. For the great majority, good medical care, treatment for the depression and a palliative approach are the solutions. Patients who ask to die often change their mind with time. Often the request comes not from the patients but from their exhausted families; the patients themselves have not asked that their death be hastened. Mostly, when the families get more support, the demand disappears. In the face of suffering, it is far better to look for meaning in the life that remains, develop strategies to face existential questions and strive for optimal care, than to seek shortcuts to death.
 

There is always a way out without euthanasia, even in the most complex cases. Ending the patient’s life is not a humane solution to tragic situations of pain and suffering: the physician’s duty is always to kill the pain, not the patient. Proposing euthanasia shows a lack of confidence in the progress of medical science. There are no limits imposed on the physician’s means of relieving pain. The means are many, accessible, increasingly sophisticated and constantly developing. In extreme cases, heavy sedation that puts patients to sleep can even be a last resort to sustain them through their suffering, until death takes place from natural causes. In treating terminal cases, there are no obstacles to ending or foregoing treatments considered useless or disproportionate by the patient or the physician. There is always a way out, even in the most complex cases. There are no taboo issues about death in the medical profession. The questioning of life-prolonging treatment, the withdrawal of useless or disproportionate treatment and the refusal of treatment by autonomous patients are daily events in clinical practice, addressed calmly and openly by practising physicians and in training programs. Doctors clearly understand the line between pain relief and euthanasia.
 

People who have not asked to die will be put to death. There are individuals who seriously or insistently ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide. They are very few in number. These requests are usually rooted in their personality and the need they feel to control their life—and their death. The vast majority of people in similar situations do not ask for life-shortening intervention. Individual freedom and autonomy end where they impinge on the freedom of other members of society. Changing the law to satisfy the demand of such a small number of people would imperil the lives of a much greater number who initially were not even aimed at. The experience of the few countries that have taken the route of euthanasia and assisted suicide shows that these practices soon become ungovernable despite the controls and guidelines put in place: protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage. People who have not asked to die are put to death.
 

Accepting that giving death could be a solution to one problem opens the door to giving death to a hundred others. Decriminalization of euthanasia is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to a much steeper slide, hard to control. Physicians in countries where euthanasia is legal know this from experience. Once it is accepted that patients in a terminal state who so request can be put to death, physicians find themselves confronted with the requests of the disabled and the chronically ill, then with the requests of patients with psychological problems and then with the fate of severely handicapped new-borns—who have not asked to die. Even young people who are chronically ill invoke anti-discrimination laws to support their request for assisted suicide. Accepting that giving death could be a solution to one problem opens the door to giving death to a hundred others. Euthanasia becomes a “treatment option” that people can turn to to relieve their suffering, when in fact there are many other options.
 

Decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide would create unwarranted pressure on the chronically ill, the severely disabled and those who require a lot of assistance or expensive treatments: they could begin to think that they are an undue burden on their loved ones or on society and that they should consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. The possibility of euthanasia would distort social attitudes toward the seriously ill, the disabled and the old.
 

A person is not valuless because he or she is chronically dependant or dying. Neither disease, nor physical or mental decline, nor pain, nor suffering, nor loss of autonomy can undermine the fundamental value of the human being. A person is not valueless because she or he is chronically dependent or dying. The solution to ensure “dying with dignity” remains first and foremost a competent palliative approach, respect, support and tenderness.
 

Giving patients the right to die means giving doctors the right to kill. Decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide depends entirely on the participation of the medical profession. Ultimately, it is doctors who are asked to decide whether it makes more sense to preserve a life or to end it: physicians find themselves put in the position of arbitrator. The result is a loss of patients’ autonomy and a corresponding increase in the power of the medical profession over the individuals in its charge. Giving patients the right to die means giving doctors the right to kill. An erosion of the doctor-patient relationship must follow if the doctor is not simply the person who cures, relieves or comforts, but becomes as well the person who gives death. Putting to death becomes just another treatment option available to the profession, along with various medical or surgical alternatives; this would erode people’s bond of confidence in the profession as a whole.
 

Euthanasia promotes suicide. Even though it is sometimes asserted that suicide is a freedom, it is above all a personal tragedy that is fundamentally contrary to human nature and a failure on society’s part. Suicide is never without repercussions on other people and society as a whole. The medical response to a person’s attempted suicide has always been to come to the person’s aid; it should remain so. The physician who participates in suicide is promoting suicide at a societal level.
 

Euthanasia has been prohibited by the medical profession for more than two thousand years. The Hippocratic prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide is more than a millennial tradition. It has been a core value for the generations of physicians who have adhered to it. It is imbued with wisdom and compassion and deserves to be vigorously defended.

(These 9 arguments are taken from a brief presented to the Collège des Médecins du Québec, on August 30 2009, by Joseph Ayoub, m.d., André Bourque, m.d., Catherine Ferrier, m.d., François Lehmann, m.d. and José Morais, m.d.. The brief --which is attached below--has also been endorsed by a significant number of physicians in the province of Québec.)"

What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aristides said:

MAID is not a substitute for care but care has its limitations. You control your life as you see fit and respect the right of others to do the same.

People can make the choice to do themselves in, but if it’s on the public dime and called healthcare, we have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

People can make the choice to do themselves in, but if it’s on the public dime and called healthcare, we have a problem.

So now it is about money? If that is the case, you should be i favour of MAID. Much cheaper than that treatment you go on about.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

Central Alberta, west of Edmonton.  -2 at 07:30.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

This sounds reasonable, but it also sounds like you want me to come up with said mechanism.  I'm okay with us all being able to drive, within the confines of the law, but I didn't come up with the laws.

Same with MAID.  I support it as a right, and importantly, will continue to do so regardless of what controls are in place to prevent pressure being applied.  That being said, I would also fully support and be in favour of measures incorporated in the process to prevent such abuse.  The whole point of such a staggering life choice is that it be a choice.

Currently MAID comes with some very restrictive eligibility requirements.  Personally I think they are too strict, but that's a fight for later.  (Of course, some of those are subjective)

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html

There is nothing on that page that specifically speaks to pressure, but given two independent medical practitioners are required to assess a request along with an independent witness it seems unlikely that medical pressure will be brought to bear. (Unlikely, but not impossible.  I would support any measures taken to lessen the likelihood on the condition they do not prolong suffering)

That leaves family pressure.  Given the nature of that I don't see how measures can be taken to prevent it unless there is a suspicion on the part of the medical practitioners involved.  If it was suspected to be the case, an independent review of the facts might be in order.

I differ from you in that I don't see this as a reason to discontinue MAID.  By all means work towards making the system less fallible but remember what the system is for.  It defeats the purpose to prolong suffering while a bureaucracy takes its time providing a stamp.

I am still curious as to any examples of pressure you might have.  Not as a way of winning a point, but because I want to know what happened to those found to be doing the pressuring.  What were their motives?  Compassionate or criminal?  Were they punished in any way?  What happened to the patient?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

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.

"The experience of the few countries that have taken the route of euthanasia and assisted suicide shows that these practices soon become ungovernable despite the controls and guidelines put in place: protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage. People who have not asked to die are put to death."

What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca)

This means your demand to have the choice has far-reaching consequences and means many who have not asked to die are put to death.  This is the natural outcome of the system.  MAID becomes ungovernable and unmanageable.  Be careful for what you wish for.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"The experience of the few countries that have taken the route of euthanasia and assisted suicide shows that these practices soon become ungovernable despite the controls and guidelines put in place: protocols are not respected, consents are not obtained, the pressures exerted by families are strong and difficult to manage. People who have not asked to die are put to death."

What Euthanasia is and Nine Reasons why it is Always Wrong - Campagne Québec-Vie (cqv.qc.ca)

This means your demand to have the choice has far-reaching consequences and means many who have not asked to die are put to death.  This is the natural outcome of the system.  MAID becomes ungovernable and unmanageable.  Be careful for what you wish for.

Yes, I refer to you my discussion with CdnFox on the issue.  It is not the natural outcome of the system.  The natural outcome of the system is that many people who want to die are allowed to do so. 

(Are you okay with those deaths then?  Those that are not a result of the system becoming ungovernable, but rather the result of the system working for those who need it?)

If the system is shown to have flaws, I am all in favour of fixing those flaws, but I would not have people continue to suffer regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Mercy killing.  It’s what we do to sick pets.  

Nobody is “doing 2to” these people. The people who request these services are doing it to themselves 

 

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

which is why no great powers allow it.  Only experimental countries like Canada are rolling the dice.  

“Great powers”?  What relevance is that?  And did you know 10 US states have legalized MAID?  Also Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, are Experimental countries”?

 

The solution to your MAID problem is easy, if you don’t agree with it, don’t get it. Problem solved. Stop trying to rule and micromanage other people’s lives. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nobody is “doing 2to” these people. The people who request these services are doing it to themselves 

 

“Great powers”?  What relevance is that?  And did you know 10 US states have legalized MAID?  Also Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, are Experimental countries”?

 

The solution to your MAID problem is easy, if you don’t agree with it, don’t get it. Problem solved. Stop trying to rule and micromanage other people’s lives. 

Doing yourself in is your problem, no one else’s, not morally or financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, I refer to you my discussion with CdnFox on the issue.  It is not the natural outcome of the system.  The natural outcome of the system is that many people who want to die are allowed to do so. 

(Are you okay with those deaths then?  Those that are not a result of the system becoming ungovernable, but rather the result of the system working for those who need it?)

If the system is shown to have flaws, I am all in favour of fixing those flaws, but I would not have people continue to suffer regardless.

If the system has proven to put to death people who have not asked to die, why would you support such a system?  I understand you said repeatedly that you want to have the freedom of choice.

But if that means many others are being put to death against their wishes, would that be enough for you to reconsider the whole thing?  This article has just come to my attention and adds a whole new perspective.  You probably were not aware of it either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

If the system is shown to have flaws, I am all in favour of fixing those flaws, but I would not have people continue to suffer regardless.

The government and society has proven they are not capable of "fixing those flaws".  Likely the whole system does not lend itself to fixing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about somebody with ALS who faces a future of gasping for air? That’s a nightmare of mine. If they want a dignified death before that horrible stage, surely they should have the right to be given it? For years, doctors have helped patients like this leave the world, before MAID and in countries without it. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
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...