Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Canuck News!Follow

#1 Jul 13 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/federal-government-appeal-assisted-suicide-ruling-justice-minister-173705794.html

Quote:
OTTAWA - Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says the federal government will appeal a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling which struck down Canada's ban on assisted suicide.
The ruling last month granted an exemption allowing Gloria Taylor, one of the women who brought the lawsuit, to die with a doctor's help.
The decision also gave the government a year to rewrite the law.
Nicholson says the government will seek a stay on all aspects of the ruling, including the exemption for Taylor, while it goes to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
He says the government believes Canada's existing Criminal Code ban on assisted suicide is constitutional.
Taylor, who has Lou Gehrig's disease, or ALS, hailed the lower court's ruling because it gives her control over when and how she dies.


I guess choice is bad according to Herr Harper.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#2 Jul 13 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,566 posts
Joke about healthcare cost control goes here.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#3 Jul 13 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Death panels!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#4 Jul 14 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.

You could take the doctor's point of view I suppose. The whole thing where they're supposed to heal, not "harm", but that's sort of invalid since I don't see how making someone suffer for the last chapter of their lives, can be considered "not causing harm". It's not the same as someone who's clinically depressed wanting to end it all because they don't see a future, those people need help getting out of that place, we're talking about people who, in fact, do not have a future. Because they're terminally ill, and in pain.

You could go with the religious point of view where it's a mortal sin to end one's own life, but that's not exactly valid either as the religious view of one person or group of persons, should not be forced upon others. One could say it's immoral to let someone end their own life to save themselves the pain of dying from a disease, but I fail to see how it's morally acceptable to force someone to suffer from ALS, or terminal cancer, or AIDS, etc.

The entire argument seems dumb to me(that it's an argument that exists at all seems dumb to me), and the people against it come off as overtly self-righteous, and condescending. I fail to see how it can continue to be an issue.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#5 Jul 14 2012 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,224 posts
I'll take it a step further. I would wager, were there a way to prove the point either way, that upwards of 60% of general practitioners/internists have eased a dying patient out with a generous prescription of pain killers. It's the sort of thing where you give the prescription to the family and tell them, "Now, giving him more than the prescribed dose would certainly be fatal...."

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Jul 16 2012 at 3:51 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Everything Driftwood said.

Life shouldn't be forced upon people, any more than death should be.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#7 Jul 16 2012 at 4:03 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Nothing a bottle or two of Tylenol can't cure.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#8 Jul 16 2012 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.
Protection from being sued by the family is the reason I can think of. Easy to argue that anyone that wants to kill themselves aren't in their right mind and not fit to make those decisions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Jul 16 2012 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.
Protection from being sued by the family is the reason I can think of. Easy to argue that anyone that wants to kill themselves aren't in their right mind and not fit to make those decisions.


This is easily remedied by a notarized document signed by the patient, physician and a family member certifying that the patient in the proper state of mind to make the decision. Most hospitals (and even some family practicioners) have either an on call or referral psychologist (for patients whose problems seem more mental than physical) who could be asked to verify said state of mind if necessary.

I agree with DW on this one. No terminally ill patient should be forced to suffer because of the belief systems of others. Your morals are irrelevant to me if I'm lying in a hospice bed in agony.


Edited, Jul 16th 2012 1:32pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#10 Jul 16 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
This is easily remedied by a notarized document signed by the patient, physician and a family member certifying that the patient in the proper state of mind to make the decision.
You'd think it was easy. The physician's opinion doesn't really matter, and any lawyer would argue the family member that signed with the patient didn't care as much as the opposing family members who were disgusted with the murder that took place.
BrownDuck wrote:
Your morals are irrelevant to me if I'm lying in a hospice bed in agony.
What does morals have to do with people being sue-happy and wanting money? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Jul 16 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.
Protection from being sued by the family is the reason I can think of. Easy to argue that anyone that wants to kill themselves aren't in their right mind and not fit to make those decisions.


This is easily remedied by a notarized document signed by the patient, physician and a family member certifying that the patient in the proper state of mind to make the decision. Most hospitals (and even some family practicioners) have either an on call or referral psychologist (for patients whose problems seem more mental than physical) who could be asked to verify said state of mind if necessary.

I agree with DW on this one. No terminally ill patient should be forced to suffer because of the belief systems of others. Your morals are irrelevant to me if I'm lying in a hospice bed in agony.


Edited, Jul 16th 2012 1:32pm by BrownDuck


My thoughts exactly.

lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
This is easily remedied by a notarized document signed by the patient, physician and a family member certifying that the patient in the proper state of mind to make the decision.
You'd think it was easy. The physician's opinion doesn't really matter, and any lawyer would argue the family member that signed with the patient didn't care as much as the opposing family members who were disgusted with the murder that took place.


Ok, how about this: After the necessary contracts and such have been signed, a date should be set in the near future(lets say a week or two) for when the patient is to pass away, providing other family members to take their issues up with the patient and the family member who signed. In any sensible world, those family members wouldn't have the right to sue over it, but we're a silly people, with silly laws.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#12 Jul 16 2012 at 11:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Ok, how about this: After the necessary contracts and such have been signed, a date should be set in the near future(lets say a week or two) for when the patient is to pass away, providing other family members to take their issues up with the patient and the family member who signed. In any sensible world, those family members wouldn't have the right to sue over it, but we're a silly people, with silly laws.


I understand the problem you're trying to solve, but IMHO, this is just as bad as requiring a pregnant woman who wants to get an abortion to look at an ultrasound before she can terminate the pregnancy.

A signed consent form should be good enough. Especially coupled with a DNR.
#13 Jul 17 2012 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.


I think it's more being against allowing one man to determine the ultimate fate of another man. You could argue that someone who's in prison for life with no chance of parole has no greater future than a person suffering from a terminal disease. Should our laws make it legal for another human being to take their life?

Certainly, in the case of a terminally ill person who is suffering greatly, it seems to make perfect sense to allow a doctor to be able to put give them a pain-eliminating and life-taking drug if the person desires it. We allow this humane treatment of our pets yet deny it to our kind.

I don't have a strong opinion about a law allowing assisted suicide. But knowing how misguided, greedy, and egocentric humans can be I can certainly see the argument against allowing a person, even a doctor to make the final life-ending decision for another.




Edited, Jul 17th 2012 3:03pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Jul 17 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Ok, how about this: After the necessary contracts and such have been signed, a date should be set in the near future(lets say a week or two) for when the patient is to pass away, providing other family members to take their issues up with the patient and the family member who signed.
I doubt anyone who is "philosophically" against the idea is going to see reason after a week of back and forth screaming across a table and you'd still be facing the same situation of lawsuits and malpractice charges. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people offing themselves for any reason they can think of, but I can see why the people that would be in charge of doing it would hesitate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Jul 17 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
We should just have "museums" full of historical painlessly deadly devices and a big pit that's limited to the terminally ill, to avoid over crowding of course... Just a museum mind you. If the poor old buggers off themselves, preferably hopefully not in the plastic, easy clean, room, while checking out the exhibits, it would be a blessing unfortunate, but whatcha gonna do?
#16 Jul 17 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Elinda wrote:

I think it's more being against allowing one man to determine the ultimate fate of another man. You could argue that someone who's in prison for life with no chance of parole has no greater future than a person suffering from a terminal disease. Should our laws make it legal for another human being to take their life?

Certainly, in the case of a terminally ill person who is suffering greatly, it seems to make perfect sense to allow a doctor to be able to put give them a pain-eliminating and life-taking drug if the person desires it. We allow this humane treatment of our pets yet deny it to our kind.

I don't have a strong opinion about a law allowing assisted suicide. But knowing how misguided, greedy, and egocentric humans can be I can certainly see the argument against allowing a person, even a doctor to make the final life-ending decision for another.


I don't know how BC does it, but we've had this on our books for a while. Once people gave up trying to repeal and fight it, it's pretty much been a non-issue. There haven't been any major problems arising from it at least.

Some points of note:

You have to have less than 6 months to live.
Doctors can opt out of offering the lethal dose of prescription.
You have to have witnesses sign off on it that aren't related, and aren't able to financially benefit from the death in any way.
You have to be mentally competent.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Jul 17 2012 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
We should just have "museums" full of historical painlessly deadly devices and a big pit that's limited to the terminally ill, to avoid over crowding of course... Just a museum mind you. If the poor old buggers off themselves, preferably hopefully not in the plastic, easy clean, room, while checking out the exhibits, it would be a blessing unfortunate, but whatcha gonna do?
"And here we have the twenty ton boulder tied to twine and a giant X right under it used in numerous Road Runner cartoons. Now, don't pull this string or it'll come crashing down on your head and make spaghetti sauce out of you! Teehee! Now we'll just walk away ..."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Jul 17 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
A coworker of mine had an aunt in her 80s that was prescribed a lethal dose of pain killers last week. She had severe osteoporosis and her pelvis shattered when she sat down one day. They couldn't operate and it wouldn't heal on its own so her options were lie in the hospital bed in severe pain until she died of natural causes or "swallow this and be done with it". Everyone was aware and everyone respected her decision.

Now, myself I'd like to think I could be burning alive and I'd try to live every agonizing second I could, but who knows and more importantly who am I to say what others should do?
#19 Jul 17 2012 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Now, myself I'd like to think I could be burning alive and I'd try to live every agonizing second I could, but who knows and more importantly who am I to say what others should do?


I suppose that depends on your current stage in life. In an ideal world, a person at age 80 has already retired, spent a good number of years enjoying the rest of their life, and is well prepared to meet their end, whenever that should be. In such a case, I can see it being a very easy decision to self-terminate (haha schwarzeneger) if the foreseeable future is a grim one.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#20 Jul 17 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
Perhaps. I'm a dirty athiest (that's the one that doesn't believe in anything right? Why that requires a title I'll never understand) so I can't see my self consigning myself to oblivion for, well, anything short of saving my children from the same fate.
#21 Jul 17 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I think once you're 80+, you've done everything you've wanted and the foreseeable future has a lot of pain and not much else, nor much hope of recovery I think it's a logical thing to decide to end it on your own terms. Oblivion or not.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#22 Jul 17 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
I think at 80+ they should be herded up and then process their old bones into oil. Or put them into a pit and let them fight for our amusement. Something other than tossing them into a room and fed jello until they die. Waste of a resource, I say.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Jul 17 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I think at 80+ they should be herded up and then process their old bones into oil cattle feed.


Because the world needs more people eating beef sources.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#24 Jul 17 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think at 80+ they should be herded up and then process their old bones into oil cattle feed.


Because the world needs more people eating beef sources.


It's the Circle of Life.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Jul 17 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,549 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I think at 80+ they should be herded up and then process their old bones into oil. Or put them into a pit and let them fight for our amusement. Something other than tossing them into a room and fed jello until they die. Waste of a resource, I say.


***** that! I LOVE me some jello!
#26 Jul 17 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
I've never been able to understand why people are against the idea of someone who is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, committing suicide so they can die on their own terms as opposed to slowly and painfully withering away, eventually dying, a shell of their former selves, in a hospital bed.


I think it's more being against allowing one man to determine the ultimate fate of another man. You could argue that someone who's in prison for life with no chance of parole has no greater future than a person suffering from a terminal disease. Should our laws make it legal for another human being to take their life?

Certainly, in the case of a terminally ill person who is suffering greatly, it seems to make perfect sense to allow a doctor to be able to put give them a pain-eliminating and life-taking drug if the person desires it. We allow this humane treatment of our pets yet deny it to our kind.

I don't have a strong opinion about a law allowing assisted suicide. But knowing how misguided, greedy, and egocentric humans can be I can certainly see the argument against allowing a person, even a doctor to make the final life-ending decision for another.




Edited, Jul 17th 2012 3:03pm by Elinda



But it wouldn't be the doctor making the decision. I'm not arguing that doctors should be able to choose to end their patients' lives. I'm arguing that the patients themselves have that right to choose for themselves.

someproteinguy wrote:


I don't know how BC does it, but we've had this on our books for a while. Once people gave up trying to repeal and fight it, it's pretty much been a non-issue. There haven't been any major problems arising from it at least.

Some points of note:

You have to have less than 6 months to live.
Doctors can opt out of offering the lethal dose of prescription.
You have to have witnesses sign off on it that aren't related, and aren't able to financially benefit from the death in any way.
You have to be mentally competent.


That actually sounds quite reasonable. This is how it should be done.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (76)