|
to Guspaz
Re: Dying in a 'free and informed manner'thanks for elaborating guys, i'm learning slowly |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:I don't get what the big deal is anyhow. The law is supposed to be a reflection of a society's values, and if we as a society agree in the majority that the existing law no longer reflects our values, why should we not seek to change it? I would suggest that there is some disagreement that it reflects society's values. |
|
EUSKill cancer Premium Member join:2002-09-10 canada |
EUS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 9:13 am
said by DKS:said by Guspaz:I don't get what the big deal is anyhow. The law is supposed to be a reflection of a society's values, and if we as a society agree in the majority that the existing law no longer reflects our values, why should we not seek to change it? I would suggest that there is some disagreement that it reflects society's values. No one is going to force anyone who has beliefs against this step to go ahead and make end of life decisions. For everyone else, who doesn't hold to certain beliefs regarding end of life decisions, this is a step forward. |
|
|
to Bender2000
said by Bender2000:that's a fine line. You can't define euthanasia as not being murder and not being suicide (assisted). It has to be one or the other. No it doesn't. It would help if you actually read the Criminal Code before going on using legal terms in contexts that don't apply to them. Not all homicide is murder, just as not all homicide is culpable. In this case I've provide clear evidence that, criminally, a doctor who kills a patient in accordance with the proposed law would be committing a non culpable homicide, which is not a criminal offense. said by Bender2000:Regardless of what you call it, euthanasia currently does not have an exception of being legal in Canada, so regardless of what she's said, it is considered illegal for the time being and anyone performing it can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Anything pertaining to the criminal code cannot be exempted by provincial law. It's not what I call it, it's what the Criminal Code calls it, and the Criminal Code, a FEDERAL law, says it's not an offense. If you believe it does, provide evidence. I did. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
DKS to EUS
2013-Jun-14 9:57 am
to EUS
said by EUS:No one is going to force anyone who has beliefs against this step to go ahead and make end of life decisions. For everyone else, who doesn't hold to certain beliefs regarding end of life decisions, this is a step forward. I beg to differ. There will be pressure to make end of life decisions, just as there are now. This just lowers the bar. |
|
corster Premium Member join:2002-02-23 Oshawa, ON 1 edit |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:said by Bender2000:Regardless of what you call it, euthanasia currently does not have an exception of being legal in Canada, so regardless of what she's said, it is considered illegal for the time being and anyone performing it can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Anything pertaining to the criminal code cannot be exempted by provincial law. It's not what I call it, it's what the Criminal Code calls it, and the Criminal Code, a FEDERAL law, says it's not an offense. If you believe it does, provide evidence. I did. Rodriguez v. BC, 1993. Look it up. As much as the PQ wants to claim otherwise, there is no difference between Euthanasia (also known as "Physician-Assisted Suicide") and Assisted Suicide in Canadian law. Period. To make it legal in Canada, you'd need to amend section 241(b) of the Criminal Code to exempt Medical Professionals. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC 1 edit |
to DKS
said by DKS:I would suggest that there is some disagreement that it reflects society's values. If there is, the media is doing a terrible job conveying that fact, since the coverage I've read makes it out to be something with little opposition to the concept, only some details about the implementation. This thread hasn't actually demonstrated any disagreement at all on the actual subject of euthanasia. I tallied all the negative comments about the bill in this thread (one count per user) and added up the objections: Legal wrangling concerns: 1 Too complex: 1 Federal/provincial law conflict: 2 Quebec bigotry: 1 Details of bill need tweaking: 1 Not a single person objected to bill 52 on the basis that they feel euthanasia is wrong. They mostly brought up procedural issues rather than ethical concerns. |
|
corster Premium Member join:2002-02-23 Oshawa, ON |
corster
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 11:04 am
I do have some ethical concerns relating to the bill. It's just much easier to point out that the Bill won't accomplish anything because it's still illegal under Federal law than it is to get into a debate about ethics and personal beliefs that has no right or wrong answer |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:said by DKS:I would suggest that there is some disagreement that it reflects society's values. If there is, the media is doing a terrible job conveying that fact, since the coverage I've read makes it out to be something with little opposition to the concept, only some details about the implementation. Ethical concerns have yet to be debated. I know of a number of quarters in the faith community where questions will be raised. |
|
eksterHi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC
1 recommendation |
ekster
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 11:38 am
Of course... they want the freedom to do what they want and always voice themselves how they should not be restricted with anything... but they also want to tell others what they can and can't do and restrict them even if they have nothing to do with their beliefs and it forces the person to continue to suffer. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON
1 recommendation |
said by ekster:Of course... they want the freedom to do what they want and always voice themselves how they should not be restricted with anything... but they also want to tell others what they can and can't do and restrict them even if they have nothing to do with their beliefs and it forces the person to continue to suffer. Sadly, that is simply not true. It is a completely inaccurate perception of the faith community. |
|
DKS |
to jaberi
Many doctors, including the distinguished palliative care pioneer Dr.Balfour Mount, are opposed to the new legislation in Quebec. The Physician's Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia. I agree with their position of more and better palliative care, not euthanasia. |
|
eksterHi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC |
ekster to DKS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 11:52 am
to DKS
How is it not true? If I have a terminal illness that's incurable and I have no more than a year to live, combined with terrible pain and circumstances that make me dependent on others, shouldn't it be my right to decide if I should die with dignity and all my wits instead of spending the next year suffering and unable to do anything just to die year later?
Religious people don't like this, that's fine. They're free not to do it. But why should they have a say with what I do? |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to jaberi
Faith is where it gets into a sticky area. On the one hand, I want to say that what people of certain faiths feel about euthenasia should have no impact on the bill, because their beliefs can be respected on an individual level by not taking advantage of the bill, and that they should not impose their faith on others that don't follow it.
But on the other hand, these sort of changes that the bill imposes should have general support from the society, and the people of faith are a part of that society, and are entitled to take a part in deciding its path.
I don't know that there's an easy answer to this one. It's the whole "freedom of religion versus freedom from religion" issue, and I'm not sure what the solution is to that one, or if one is even possible. I do still believe that my personal rights should not be restricted by somebody else's belief system that I don't adhere to, but at the same time, you can't reject the opinions of the people of those belief systems. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to ekster
said by ekster:How is it not true? If I have a terminal illness that's incurable and I have no more than a year to live, combined with terrible pain and circumstances that make me dependent on others, shouldn't it be my right to decide if I should die with dignity and all my wits instead of spending the next year suffering and unable to do anything just to die year later? No one can stop you from killing yourself. However, the medical profession is ethically unable to assist you in your decision. Religious people don't like this, that's fine. They're free not to do it. But why should they have a say with what I do? Again, that's simply not true. Religious faith is concerned about quality of life from birth to death (note I did NOT say from conception to death, as there is no unanimity on that subject, but birth is a good place to start). This proposed law makes murder legal. The medical profession is rightly concerned about being a party to that, violating medical principles which are nearly 3000 years old. It's not about you. It's never about you. To say this is nothing more than hubris. It's about society and community and our values. |
|
|
DKS |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Faith is where it gets into a sticky area. On the one hand, I want to say that what people of certain faiths feel about euthenasia should have no impact on the bill, because their beliefs can be respected on an individual level by not taking advantage of the bill, and that they should not impose their faith on others that don't follow it.
But on the other hand, these sort of changes that the bill imposes should have general support from the society, and the people of faith are a part of that society, and are entitled to take a part in deciding its path.
I don't know that there's an easy answer to this one. It's the whole "freedom of religion versus freedom from religion" issue, and I'm not sure what the solution is to that one, or if one is even possible. I do still believe that my personal rights should not be restricted by somebody else's belief system that I don't adhere to, but at the same time, you can't reject the opinions of the people of those belief systems. Personal freedoms can be constrained by larger values of society. That's a position upheld already in constitutional law. |
|
EUSKill cancer Premium Member join:2002-09-10 canada |
EUS to DKS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 12:05 pm
to DKS
"Our values" differ. That's the whole point of making the decision up to the individual patient, and doctor. Besides, we all know that little extra shot of morphine to end the pain of a terminal cancer patient is not coming from a pusher on the street. |
|
eksterHi there Premium Member join:2010-07-16 Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC
1 recommendation |
ekster to DKS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 12:09 pm
to DKS
If an individual doctor refuses to do it, that's fine by me as well. They're free not to do it and let someone else perform euthanasia. But the religious community has no say in that part as it has nothing to do with them... that's up to the doctors. I'm fine with not forcing it on doctors... but those that are willing to do it, should be allowed to do it.
And no, no one is stopping me from committing suicide. But it's not always physically possible for some that do want it, it's not always dignifying, and it can be a lot harder to properly do it, sometimes might even result in more suffering and not a death. Euthanasia will work, with guaranteed no suffering when done properly. There is a big difference between the two.
As for religious faith... they should be concerned with quality of life from birth to death of those that adhere to that faith. They should not meddle with others, if they do not wish others to meddle with them and tell them what's right or wrong. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to DKS
said by DKS:Personal freedoms can be constrained by larger values of society. That's a position upheld already in constitutional law. I agree with that, but defining the larger values held by society is difficult. No one religious faith has a majority population share. Christianity as a combined whole does, but even the different denominations can have wildly different values. Further complicating things, the religious demographics of Canada are very rapidly shifting (Christianity's population share has gone from 83% to 67% between 1991 and 2011), due in part to the general western trend towards secularization (no affiliation went from 13% to 24%) as well as immigration (other went from 4% to 8%). You could also argue (successfully to me, at least) that we have to make these sorts of decisions based on the values of today, not the values of tomorrow. |
|
|
to corster
said by corster:Rodriguez v. BC, 1993. Look it up. I did, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the law being proposed. Rodriguez v. BC was about suicide. This ISN'T. Even IF it had been about the same topic, the proposed law DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN, which means the procedures it SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS couldn't be argued. said by corster:As much as the PQ wants to claim otherwise, there is no difference between Euthanasia (also known as "Physician-Assisted Suicide") and Assisted Suicide in Canadian law. Period. As much as you're incapable of reading the Criminal Code of Canada, you're wrong. The very fact you're unable to provide specific sections of the Criminal Code to back up your claims is proof. said by corster:To make it legal in Canada, you'd need to amend section 241(b) of the Criminal Code to exempt Medical Professionals. No they don't, because there's no suicide involved in the proposed law. |
|
IamGimli |
to DKS
said by DKS: No one can stop you from killing yourself. However, the medical profession is ethically unable to assist you in your decision. So in your opinion it's more ethical to let terminally ill and suffering patients try to end their own life, using methods that are far from humane, safe or dignified, than it is to help them accomplish the exact same goal in a safe, humane and respectful manner? I have to say I'm in complete and categoric disagreement. So are the countless physicians that have secretly done exactly that over the years, in Canada. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
DKS to EUS
2013-Jun-14 1:59 pm
to EUS
said by EUS:"Our values" differ. That's the whole point of making the decision up to the individual patient, and doctor. Besides, we all know that little extra shot of morphine to end the pain of a terminal cancer patient is not coming from a pusher on the street. Then let's have a conversation about the values. And no, a physician doesn't give an "extra shot of morphine to end the pain". That's murder. |
|
DKS |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:said by DKS: No one can stop you from killing yourself. However, the medical profession is ethically unable to assist you in your decision. So in your opinion it's more ethical to let terminally ill and suffering patients try to end their own life, using methods that are far from humane, safe or dignified, than it is to help them accomplish the exact same goal in a safe, humane and respectful manner? I have to say I'm in complete and categoric disagreement. So are the countless physicians that have secretly done exactly that over the years, in Canada. If a person chooses to kill themselves, no one can stop them. But it is unethical and illegal to assist them. A better alternative is good quality palliative care. But we are unwilling to invest in that, preferring shortcuts like this. Countless physicians? Risking their license? I think not. Having been at many deathbeds over the years, I have never heard a whisper of physician assisted suicide. I have seen people with terminal illnesses commit suicide, however. Much to the distress of their families. |
|
|
to DKS
said by DKS:And no, a physician doesn't give an "extra shot of morphine to end the pain". That's murder. Yes. And the very reason YOU don't hear about it is because it's murder. That doesn't change the reality where is DOES happen. I know of at least two instances myself. And the families involved were very thankful for it. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to jaberi
Is it illegal? I don't know, lawyers need to figure that out. Beyond what the criminal code says, there is the issue of what falls under what kind of law (health care doesn't need to trump federal law because Canada has no federal health care laws, for example).
Is it unethical? That's subjective, and I would say that it's unethical not to. I don't see how forcing somebody to either endure large amounts of pain or drug them up so badly they're barely conscious could be considered more ethical. Palliative care isn't a solution to all situations. In some cases, it could improve the quality of life sufficiently, in others it couldn't. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:said by DKS:And no, a physician doesn't give an "extra shot of morphine to end the pain". That's murder. Yes. And the very reason YOU don't hear about it is because it's murder. That doesn't change the reality where is DOES happen. I know of at least two instances myself. And the families involved were very thankful for it. Lemme see. Been at dozens, if not hundreds of bedsides of people dying over the years. Never heard of it. You've heard of two. Therefore it happens all the time. Right. |
|
|
IamGimli (banned)
Member
2013-Jun-14 2:22 pm
said by DKS:Lemme see. Been at dozens, if not hundreds of bedsides of people dying over the years. Never heard of it. You've heard of two. Therefore it happens all the time. Right. Yet you weren't family for the great majority of those people and you make it very clear you are opposed to such. Think maybe that's why you never heard of it? I bet those people never told the cops either, I wonder why... |
|
|
hey now to DKS
Anon
2013-Jun-14 2:27 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:Then let's have a conversation about the values. And no, a physician doesn't give an "extra shot of morphine to end the pain". That's murder. Yes they do. Or have you forgotten about how they put down my sister? The In law, aunt, and another another I spoke of here over that past few years in topics i created as it affected me and that you replied and spoke in? Euthanasia (you prefer murder) is alive and well in Quebec. All this is, is to do with different drugs and with acceptance. Nothing more since it is already practiced. |
|
|
Hey now to DKS
Anon
2013-Jun-14 2:29 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:Lemme see. Been at dozens, if not hundreds of bedsides of people dying over the years. Never heard of it. You were quite surprised when I mentioned how they put my sister down. Never heard of it? Riiiight. |
|
EUSKill cancer Premium Member join:2002-09-10 canada |
EUS to DKS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 2:31 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:said by EUS:"Our values" differ. That's the whole point of making the decision up to the individual patient, and doctor. Besides, we all know that little extra shot of morphine to end the pain of a terminal cancer patient is not coming from a pusher on the street. Then let's have a conversation about the values. And no, a physician doesn't give an "extra shot of morphine to end the pain". That's murder. My conversation on values would be pretty short. No one's business but patient and doctor is the crux of it. I never said the doctors administer, it's usually the family that increases the drip. Deny all you want, the truth is uncomfortable sometimes. |
|