And so it starts

[sdw]

The people that rule us always like to point to a segment of our society and say "that one's not worth the air (s)he breathes". In Nazi Germany, an "imperfect" child was immediately terminated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics People that may produce an "imperfect" child were forcibly sterilized.

Now a committee of our Canadian Parliament has recommended that children who are mentally handicapped may choose to be killed. It's not hard to make a person desire death, just withdraw food, shelter and socialization and many times the person will suicide. The problem is, of course, most people aren't "good" at suicide. Most of them survive. Which is why the committee thinks that the government should step in and "Help". This in a country that has opposed the death penalty for any crime.

Since when did it become a death penalty offense to be "inconvenient" for our lords and masters?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...gerous-by-some-conservative-committee-members

...A parliamentary committee says “mature minors” under the age of 18 should be able to access physician-assisted dying, as should people with advancing dementia who want to pre-arrange their deaths. ...

... Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was attentive but careful in responding Thursday, saying cabinet must weigh the recommendations from the Liberal-dominated body. “We’re looking to ensure that we continue to take an empathetic approach, that we look to create balance in our approach that recognizes the autonomy of individuals, that recognizes the need to protect the vulnerable, that respects the conscience rights of medical practitioners, and that will take a little bit of time,” she said.

She would not say whether she agrees with assisted-dying for people with mental illnesses and mature minors.

“I, like everybody else, have their own personal views on this, and all personal views are going to necessarily need to be considered in this dialogue and debate.”

The legislation must be enacted by June 6, when the existing law against physician-assisting dying ceases to be valid. ...

... The report says all publicly funded health-care institutions must provide the service, but the procedure can be performed “in any appropriate location,” including in a person’s home.

Doctors should be free to object to performing the procedure but, at a minimum, must provide “an effective” referral for the patient. ...

 

[newatit]

This kind of dumb blast at an effort to relieve horrendous pain and discomfort is stupid. Go back and study the whole issue please

 

[sdw]

This kind of dumb blast at an effort to relieve horrendous pain and discomfort is stupid. Go back and study the whole issue please

Mentally ill people don't have the competence to make a life or death decision. If a seriously injured person doesn't want to live a life in a chair or, worse, strapped to a bed with tubes in every hole - and they are mentally competent - then they can choose death.

There is a huge difference between allowing a person to competently make a choice and someone or some committee deciding that it's best for society for a person to die.

I would point out that because we don't have a death penalty, we are able to compensate and release people that were wrongly found guilty. We can't do that if we have already killed them because it's inconvenient to keep them in jail.

The same think applies to a young mentally handicapped person who is feeling hopeless. Things change. New treatments come along. If we have already killed them, we didn't give them a chance to take advantage of positive change because they are already dead. We killed them because it was convenient for us.

 

[Billiam]

Another inaccurate, misleading, and irrelevant post. Have you ever thought of entering politics? Or reporting for the CBC?

 

[overdone]

So I would say one should argue at what age minors become competent over what age minors should be allowed to choose to die. We can't endorse them making a decision to die and still think they aren't competent to participate in all aspects of society.

maybe we should start with the something simple, the drinking age being brought back to 18 everywhere

they're going to need it, if SDW gets a job at the CBC, lol

 

[Feenix]

That is just alarmist rhetoric, sdw. The conversations will not lead to anyone being compulsorarily being put to death. There are many suffering from physical and mental ailments for which death seems to be their chosen option. I, for one, will not tell you how to live your life, or how to die for that matter. Please stay out of how I want to live, or die.

The majority of Canadians are in favour of doctor assisted death. It is practiced in several countries in Europe with little fanfare or uproar about putting Aunt Betty to death even though she didn't want to die. We are a compassionate people who DO put the concerns of many ahead of our own.

As for mental problems being a grounds for doctor assisted death, wait to see what the details are. I doubt mental illness in general would qualify. But, my understanding is that Alzheimer's is considered a mental affliction. ALS may be another example. I doubt anyone will argue they are not debilitating diseases.

 

[CanineCowboy]

Agree that sdw is being alarmist. The whole idea of having right to die legislation is for humanitarian reasons - I was able to have pets put down in the past - and as shitty as it sounds, when my father was dying, my whole family wished we could end his suffering as humanely. As far as minors go, a very small percentage of children are born with severe disabilities/deformities that not only severly affect their mortality, but can make living unbearably painful. I hope just because they are young they aren't kept suffering, and for what? Our morality. Is watching someone with cf in their last hours of death drown humanitarian?
***As an aside, and not trying to hijack the thread, I don't understand the connection some people are making to the CBC. I believe it's our most respected news source (especially CBC radio, but also Peter) and internationally it is held in high regard. And yes, I acknowledge that they report from an educated centerist perspective.

 

[westwoody]

Review the Robert Latimer case.
His daughter was in incredible constant pain and had no hope of recovery.
It's not an easy choice!

 

[sdw]

Review the Robert Latimer case.
His daughter was in incredible constant pain and had no hope of recovery.
It's not an easy choice!

Excellent example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer Nobody asked Tracy if she wanted to die. Tracy, according to the testimony in court, had never expressed any interest in dying. At the time, Tracy was attending school and was scheduled for an operation on her hip. And yet, "because he loves her" Robert Latimer decided that she must die. The rest of the family was away from the house and he killed her with the exhaust from his truck. At first, he said she had died in her sleep - but - the autopsy revealed carbon monoxide poisoning. He was convicted of Second Degree Murder and the Federal Government took the case to the Supreme Court because they felt his sentence wasn't long enough.

Support for Latimer's conviction and sentence

Numerous disability rights groups obtained intervenor status in the Latimer's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that killing a disabled child like Tracy is no different than killing a non-disabled child and should carry the same penalty. To do otherwise, they argued, would devalue the lives of disabled people and increase the risk of more such killings by their caregivers.[29] Religious groups representing the Roman Catholic church and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada also appeared as intervenors in Latimer's Supreme Court appeal.

If it's legal to "Play God" people will "Play God" for their own convenience and NOT for the love or care of the person they wish to kill.

 

[sdw]

That is just alarmist rhetoric, sdw. The conversations will not lead to anyone being compulsorarily being put to death. There are many suffering from physical and mental ailments for which death seems to be their chosen option. I, for one, will not tell you how to live your life, or how to die for that matter. Please stay out of how I want to live, or die.

The majority of Canadians are in favour of doctor assisted death. It is practiced in several countries in Europe with little fanfare or uproar about putting Aunt Betty to death even though she didn't want to die. We are a compassionate people who DO put the concerns of many ahead of our own.

As for mental problems being a grounds for doctor assisted death, wait to see what the details are. I doubt mental illness in general would qualify. But, my understanding is that Alzheimer's is considered a mental affliction. ALS may be another example. I doubt anyone will argue they are not debilitating diseases.

Aunt Betty most likely, as I have, had written instructions on when she doesn't want to be kept alive. I have no desire to "Live" with tubes putting stuff in me and more tubes taking stuff out of me. I have been most specific on my "Do Not Resuscitate Order" which was an issue when they were getting ready to do the open heart surgery. I CHOSE to risk dying on the table rather than spend any period of time with tubes going in and out of me. I even had to sign a number of documents to satisfy Saint Paul's that I really meant it.

The cases of Aunt Betty and myself are not similar to the case of a mentally handicapped youth. Not even remotely. One is a person's choice, the other is another person's or society's convenience.

 

[johnsmit]

As I have pointed out a few times ,we all ready have doctors deciding that a person should die..and not because the pacient ask for it ..but because if their own attitude on what is quality of life..and what is economical practical for the resources of the hospital..Like the are not going to spend time and medical supplies or prosecuted on a 90 yr old with other medical problem..
This all ready happens every day in our hospitals..They make life and death decisions with out asking the pacient. .and generally don't give the family any chose to decide on how much they are willing to do to keep a person alive..Yes it is mainly the attitude towards the elderly. .And yet that still amount to more then assisted death.

 

[sdw]

And I see no evidence that what was murder in the Latimer case will not be murder under the new legislation. The Latimer case is actually a good example as to why the new legislation is a good thing. Bear with me.

What happened to Tracy Latimer was the result of a legal environment that allowed no process. Mr. Latimer was probably wrong about what life was like for Tracy, possibly right, but he certainly could not ask for advice or for an independent assessment or for qualified professionals to try to ascertain her wishes or competence. To do so then would likely have had Tracy removed from his care and himself put in legal jeopardy without addressing the underlying issue: What was Tracy's life like?

With a legal framework in which such questions can be asked, at least there is a clear process, clear guidelines and much less sympathy for murderers than Mr. Latimer has received. There have been how many so called "mercy" murders of disabled persons, let alone disabled children, in Canada in the 23 years since Tracy Latimer's? This is not a common event and will possibly be even less common when there was a legal process for requests with appropriate safeguards.

The CBC did an article http://www.cbc-network.org/2012/03/latimer-truths-rarely-told/

Tracy faced many difficult challenges, to be sure. So did her family. But as Mark says, Robert Latimer wasn’t the victim. His daughter was.

Now, consider, in thinking about the bigger picture, that someone less disabled than Tracy would have access to euthanasia under the new Quebec euthanasia recommendations, if an adult with the competence to make decisions. But once you go there, it wouldn’t take long until “substituted judgement” would allow euthanasia of the incompetent, just as a matter of “equality.” And then, the Tracy Latimers would be in the target zone, perhaps one day, leading to them being put down just as Latimer’s apologists opined she should have been — and as seriously disabled infants in the Netherlands already are under the Gronningen Protocol.

In the Netherlands there is the Groningen Protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol It's a clear process that allows the killing of a disabled child. The Problem has already arisen. Now, activists want to allow "unwanted" children to be killed. They are using the autonomy over their own bodies that was granted to women in the abortion fight, to suggest that a parent shouldn't be "burdened" with an unwanted child. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/latest-infanticide-push-about-more-than-killing-babies/

These things are always a step program. If there isn't too much protest at one step, the next step is introduced, if there isn't too much protest at the second step, the next step is introduced.

Hitler went from killing obviously deformed babies, to sterilizing the people that "May" have deformed babies, to extermination camps where "Mud Races", Political Opponents, Homosexuals and others met Hitler's "Final Solution". The first concentration camp, Dachau, was set up in 1933. With 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that Hitler had always been working towards his "Solution".

 

[Cock Throppled]

Once you mention Hitler, you've lostthe debate.

The dreaded "slippery slope" is the other common argument usually trotted out, and right on cue, you got them both in one post.