The Supreme Court of Canada's warped thinking on medical assistance in dying or legalizing assisted suicide.

[blackbird]

Back in 2015, the Supreme Court apparently ruled in favour of assisted dying with the argument that the right to die is similar to the right to life.  The argument put forward by assisted suicide advocates and apparently bought by the SCC is that if a person is not given the right to assisted dying (assisted suicide) that they might take their own lives.  The SCC somehow reasoned that denying a person medical assistance in dying was a denial of their charter right to life.  You can see how perverted this thinking is.  A right to life suddenly came to include a right to assisted suicide.  A small number of people or judges on a court suddenly in a moment of time in 2015 decided to change the course of history in Canada which has led to possibly 17,500 to 18,000 deaths by MAID in 2025.   Now this so-called right is in the works to be extended in March 2027 to include the mentally ill.  Anyone, even though not mentally fit to make any such decision, may decide to take MAID under the bizarre belief that this is health care.

First reading: Canada told mentally ill must be euthanized lest they kill themselves

 

 

[suds]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The SCC somehow reasoned that denying a person medical assistance in dying was a denial of their charter right to life. 

I don't quite get that part of it either, but it doesn't change my opinion that I should have the right to decide (when the time comes) if I want to die by medical assistance or not. It just seems more humane than being forced into committing suicide on your own. 

[ExFlyer]

Warped??  If your case is at the Supreme Court then the answer you get is whatever the law dictates.

.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

the Supreme Court apparently ruled in favour of assisted dying

Not “apparently”…. It did do this. 
 

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

the right to die is similar to the right to life.

Have you read the actual ruling?  Because you left out an important word of Section 7 of the Charter that applies to this ruling more so than “life”. 

2 hours ago, suds said:

I don't quite get that part of it either

Section 7 isn’t just the “right to life”. Read the rest of it. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Warped??  If your case is at the Supreme Court then the answer you get is whatever the law dictates.

.

You don't understand how the SCC worked on this issue.  There was no law on MAID.  It was the SCC that ruled that people have a right to assisted suicide (MAID) and the Liberal government bowed to the SCC and created the law.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, suds said:

I don't quite get that part of it either, but it doesn't change my opinion that I should have the right to decide (when the time comes) if I want to die by medical assistance or not. It just seems more humane than being forced into committing suicide on your own. 

It is obvious you don't understand the basic issues around this subject.  You take the very simple view that most Canadians take, claiming it is their right to end their lives. 

The fact is MAID or as some call it assisted suicide was passed into law by people who had no idea what they were doing.  They obviously did not understand that man is incapable of controlling such a practice.  It created a slippery slope and is now becoming more widespread.  Many people have taken it that don't even fit the requirements that were stipulated in the first place under the law.  That is a proven fact and the authorities have released the statistics to prove it.

That is why God's law in his written word, the Bible, is absolutely opposed to killing.  It is part of the ten commandments.  God opposes killing, in this case MAID, for good reason.  It is now becoming clear why.  God considers human life sacred and all human life belongs to God.  Only God decides when it should end, not man.  The simple fact is man is not God and is fallible.  Now we see one major reason why God is against it.  Man is playing God, but man does not have the ability to be a judge on who should live and who should die as in MAID.  It is falling down a slippery slope out of control.  Perhaps this is God's judgment for man's rebellion against God.

So when you say it is your choice, be very concerned that rejecting what God says could cost you your life unnecessarily.  You might think you are doing the right thing, but maybe you are not.  You are not God and you have a weak, fallible, mind that is prone to deception and error.

The Problems With Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying Policy

Edited April 10 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There was no law on MAID

The law was that it was illegal to assist in someone’s suicide.  So, yes there was a law.  The Supreme Court struck down parts of the Criminal Code. 
 

Section 241 (b) and s. 14  of the Criminal Code  unjustifiably infringe s. 7  of the Charter  and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do

 

[blackbird]

Canada is drifting away from being a democracy.  What we have is a handful of liberal-appointed judges creating entirely new interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Constitution and imposing it on the government to force it to comply, such as medical assistance in dying without any mandate from the people.  They are unelected and only a small group of people deciding the future of many Canadians, based on their own ideology.

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

You don't understand how the SCC worked on this issue.  There was no law on MAID.  It was the SCC that ruled that people have a right to assisted suicide (MAID) and the Liberal government bowed to the SCC and created the law.

The SSC works one way...according to the law.....not according to your way LOL

Any and every government has to abide by the SSC rulings. 

Edited April 10 by ExFlyer

[John Johnston]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Canada is drifting away from being a democracy.  What we have is a handful of liberal-appointed judges creating entirely new interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Constitution and imposing it on the government to force it to comply, such as medical assistance in dying without any mandate from the people.  They are unelected and only a small group of people deciding the future of many Canadians, based on their own ideology.

What nonsense. 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, John Johnston said:

What nonsense. 

Hard for you to accept the truth that a handful of people on the Supreme Court make major decisions that change the laws in Canada.  Are they some kind of gods or what gives them the power to act as a dictatorship.  That is clearly not democracy and they seem to have more power than our elected Parliament.  Who the heck are they to decree that people have the right to die by assisted suicide?

[blackbird]

Courts are supposed to only interpret laws, not create new major practices that really are the domain of elected representatives.  That is really simple logic.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Courts are supposed to only interpret laws, not create new major practices that really are the domain of elected representatives.  That is really simple logic.

This is what they did.  They ruled that a law on the books violated the Charter. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

This is what they did.  They ruled that a law on the books violated the Charter. 

What law?  

[TreeBeard]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What law?  

Sections 14 and 241b  of the Criminal Code. 
 

I wrote this a few posts ago.  Read the ruling. 

Edited April 11 by TreeBeard

[herbie]

SSShhhh!!!!

You're supposed to believe the Court makes the laws.... not that Parliament has to make sure they're within the limits of the Constitution

 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Courts are supposed to only interpret laws, not create new major practices that really are the domain of elected representatives.  That is really simple logic.

The courts act sort of like fact checkers for elected representatives. I guess that only makes it sound worse for you people.

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

The courts act sort of like fact checkers for elected representatives. I guess that only makes it sound worse for you people.

 

Courts are going far beyond what they are supposed to do.   An appeal court in B.C. just gave FNs ownership of Nootka Island off the west coast of Vancouver Island, a huge area of crown land and a provincial park.  Now non-natives may possibly be denied access or use.  This is how far courts have gone.  Not merely a simple interpretation of laws in certain cases, but vast over reach.

[John Stone]

Medical Assist In Dying scares people

Most especially healthy people............ 

It's use should be closely monitored.  

[John Johnston]

7 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Medical Assist In Dying scares people

Most especially healthy people............ 

It's use should be closely monitored.  

I know of three people who used MAID. Two of them I knew quite well, and in both instances it was the right decision for them. But more than that, it really do not think this is the business of politicians or people other then their families and their care givers. 

[John Stone]

14 minutes ago, John Johnston said:

I know of three people who used MAID. Two of them I knew quite well, and in both instances it was the right decision for them. But more than that, it really do not think this is the business of politicians or people other then their families and their care givers. 

............. generally agree with you ......... witnessed some horrific cases myself while recovering from trauma. 

It could very easily become a slippery slope though. 

 

[John Johnston]

22 minutes ago, John Stone said:

............. generally agree with you ......... witnessed some horrific cases myself while recovering from trauma. 

It could very easily become a slippery slope though. 

 

Fair point. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 

Courts are going far beyond what they are supposed to do.   An appeal court in B.C. just gave FNs ownership of Nootka Island off the west coast of Vancouver Island, a huge area of crown land and a provincial park.  Now non-natives may possibly be denied access or use.  This is how far courts have gone.  Not merely a simple interpretation of laws in certain cases, but vast over reach.

The Nuchatlaht plan to develop tourism on Nootka Island so I suspect anyone will be welcome.

Have you ever been there? It's a beautiful place.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, John Johnston said:

I know of three people who used MAID. Two of them I knew quite well, and in both instances it was the right decision for them. But more than that, it really do not think this is the business of politicians or people other then their families and their care givers. 

Someone has to make the laws or policies that dictate who this service is offered....or do we open it up to anyone, which is pretty much were were at now...only now in the near future mental  ill people can apply or signed up to have their lives taken....the same people who can't go to prison for crimes they are not responsible for, but can elect or have elected for them to be put to death....

Here is an example that makes no sense, there are more posted in blackbirds sources...

Quote

A month later, Nichols successfully applied for MAiD, not for depression, which is not yet legal, but for hearing loss, which occurred as a result of brain surgery when he was twelve.

Another women was granted maid because she could not find an apartment that that suited her allergies...I mean come on...where is the line in the sand...it appears there is no line and soon we will be granting mentally ill people the right...

My question is who protects these people from making these decisions...in Nichols example his family DID NOT agree with his request....and yet he was excepted and now departed....I mean why not set up some factory in each city walk in get carried out, free, no charge no waiting...

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here is an example that makes no sense, there are more posted in blackbirds sources...

How about choosing MAID to end the pain and suffering leftism causes?