Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I have no interest in playing along with your silly buggar act... infer what you want... make up what you want.

I haven't made up anything, other then to question what the stance of the LPC is on "medically-assisted death" going into the 2015 election....Don't be so sensitive Waldo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes, I am sensitive... to wasting time. I would have thought the gentle reminder on the very, very late release of that Harper Conservative election platform would have given you pause to keep nattering on about "where's the Liberal election platform"! Are you serious? Again, NO PARTY has released an election platform... NO PARTY will release an election platform until, uhhh..... there's an election campaign in progress! Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, I am sensitive... to wasting time. I would have thought the gentle reminder on the very, very late release of that Harper Conservative election platform would have given you pause to keep nattering on about "where's the Liberal election platform"! Are you serious? Again, NO PARTY has released an election platform... NO PARTY will release an election platform until, uhhh..... there's an election campaign in progress! Go figure.

So your posting of the Mackay and Trudeau quotes, coupled with the LPC's resolution, was a demonstration in what?

edit to add: I can understand no reference to the Greens, NDP or any other fringe parties ;)

Edited by Derek 2.0
Link to post
Share on other sites

True, and they are not, the laws just tend to keep widening.

so you say/imply with your failed link references! Of the/your examples that really are true, you're reaching for the fringe... for the extremes. Your 'sex-change' example involved a person that, even after 6 months of intensive therapy, chose not to accept the surgery results. But again, this is you simply pandering to the so-called "slippery slope" with a one-off example that occurred in another country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your posting of the Mackay and Trudeau quotes, coupled with the LPC's resolution, was a demonstration in what?

edit to add: I can understand no reference to the Greens, NDP or any other fringe parties ;)

I've actually made an attempt in this thread to provide real background information; whether that's to offer a summary accounting on related legal decisions/proceedings, or to provide a sampling of related comments from pertinent politicians, etc.. Why don't you step up and instead of gutter-sniping actually contribute, hey! Given your expressed concern, I await your follow-up with comments/policy associated to the Greens and NDP parties. Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back to the actual issue. The Senate drafted a comprehensive report on Euthenasia that sits collecting dust because no political party will touch it,

I am a huge critic of the Senate and think it should be abolished but it did a fantastic job in researching the issue and covering all sides of the debate.

That paper is as neutral to the issue as possible. It looked at the fears of disabled groups feeling euthanasia will make it easier to kill them. It looked at all the orthodox religious arguments against euthanasia. It also looked at the practical realities of terminal stage illnesses with no cure.

At this time, we have sufficient medical technology to keep people alive in exreme pain.

None of us wants to be in a state of existence where all we have is pain with no hope until we die except suffering from overwhelming pain.

Dr Kavorkian the pathologist stated we are afraid of death and allowed ourselves to be paralyzed from our ignorance and fear of death to remain in a state of collective denial as to how to deal with it.

Well the fact is some of us, in increasing numbers, are talking about death, openly and we are not afraid to and its opening us to ask the questions no one wants to hear asked.

The Senate report basically suggested we take the approach now in operation in Oregon and Washington states and Vermont and probably soon New Hampshire.

This is a system where 10 doctors on a panel clear a person for death after they review the request and screen out potential capacity issues that would impair the person requesting death to make a clear sound decision.

People in these states can choose when to die. They no longer have to live in a prolonged state of slow death. They can welcome it and in s o doing embrace a quality of life through death they didn't have before.

It is possible to have a law that allows people in final stages of death to die while at the same time protecting disabled and vulnerable persons from abuse by their relatives or the state looking to save money.

For those with religious beliefs, it allows them to opt out.

The bottom line is, the choice to die, is a private one between the individual, their health care providers, and their family or loved ones.

The state should only be involved if someone is being abused or taken advantage of.

We have the technology now to offer alternatives.

We have now hospice care where a patient can choose to go home and be given a morphine drip and control their pain through morphine until they die.

We have hospices that do the same.

The horrible slow deaths from aids, cancer,ALS, etc., taught us we have options to allow life until someone is ready to die.

Death however, the choice as to when to say, I am tired I have had enough, surely that is a matter ultimately an individual must decide.

I would argue and I have, I wrote my Master's in Law on euthanasia, that the model in Washington is the one we should choose.

We should not have to have people travel to Switzerland to die.

We should allow people to make the decision for themselves to die if they can. The Kavorkian system allows a person to die with dignity by their own hand.

This does not mean however we don't also support people living with terminal illness until they are ready to die. It does not mean we don't support those who wish to fight death al the way to the end.

We take each person's system of beliefs and honour them.

This issue of euthanasia is about someone choosing to die.

Don't mix that up with assisted suicide where its someone other than the person who dies, implementing the actual death.

That's a different issue. Again if its done on consent, that's probably to be treated as with euthanasia and as I have argued.

Where it gets difficult is Latimer decisions. Latimer was a farmer. A simple man who loved his daughter. He and his wife had a daughter who had the intelligence of a 6 month old. Enough to know who her father and mother was and that they loved her, but not much more. The poor child was born with a disease where the bones fused into one another as she grew. The only treatment was breaking those bones. Imagine the constant pain she was in.

She also could not eat so they opened a permanent hole in her stomach with a tube. It was always infected and swollen. She was wasting away, starving slowly.

This poor man went from doctor to doctor and they said, she would die slowly from starvation and the pain from her stomach wound infection and bone breaking could not be blocked out as no medicine would work on her compromised sysyem.

Imagine you being in his position watching his poor little girl suffer unable to help her. He did what I would have done. Put her in his truck,and connect the exhaust pipe into the window. He stood next to the truck as she slowly fell asleep and died.

This man was treated by the law as a common murderer. The original jury was lied to. They said to their Judge, they would find Latimer guilty but only if he did not go to jail. The Judge lied and put him in jail. This went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Two of the Judges who went on to be Supreme Court Chief Justices found him not guilty. Religious Catholic John Sopinka the deciding decision maker found him guilty following his religious beliefs.

This man was asked at his parole hearings if he had remorse. Had he said yes, he would have been released. He would not lie, and kept saying each time he came up for parole, no he had no remorse he could not let his daughter suffer.

Eventually he was let out of jail after his wife was left alone and his farm was left unattended for years.

That case cries out we examine the assisted suicide or assisted euthanasia issue as well.

Unlike the patient deciding we now are faced with asking, if the patient is in overwhelming pain and can not ask, or is asking or death but can not do it themselves, should we do nothing?

Consider this case-in Halifax an emergency physician working the Intensive Care Unit was called in to pull out the breathing tubes of a patient ready to die. He made peace with his family. Out went the tube but he kept choking and screaming out help him die.

The physician gave him a morphine overdose and he died. The doctor was charged with murder. The city was divided. Luckily the Judge said he could not tell if the last morphine dose or ones before it killed him and let the doctor go.

Would you want to lie choking in your bed not able to die?

This is why the medical community wrestles with the issue. They are asked to witness people in great distress and they do o.d. people and don't tell anyone.

Let's get real now and deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The horrible slow deaths from aids, cancer,ALS, etc., taught us we have options to allow life until someone is ready to die.

You make a lot of good points but the issue that is ignored are people who are not going to die immediately but face a life which they consider unacceptable (ALS, Alzheimer's, etc). As it stands today people are forced to kill themselves while they are still able to because of the state's refusal to consider the wishes. Any fair law on euthanasia has to allow competent adults facing a degenerative condition need the assurance that when they decide they want to go they will get assistance. As it stands right now people in this position like the women who triggered this op are forced to give up on years of life because of the state's absolutist position Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually made an attempt in this thread to provide real background information; whether that's to offer a summary accounting on related legal decisions/proceedings, or to provide a sampling of related comments from pertinent politicians, etc.. Why don't you step up and instead of gutter-sniping actually contribute, hey! Given your expressed concern, I await your follow-up with comments/policy associated to the Greens and NDP parties. Thanks in advance.

What background information? What parties will run with "medically-assisted death" as part of their 2015 platform? I fail to see why you would bring politics into this discussion, other than to infer the Tories are opposed and the Liberals are in favour, just not in favour enough to adopt as a 2015 promise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this topic

One of Fletcher's two bills would, if passed, allow doctors to help people end their lives under certain restricted circumstances. According to the proposed bill, the individual would have to have been diagnosed by a doctor as having "an illness, a disease or disability (including disability arising from traumatic injury) that causes physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to that person and that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person."

Or, "the person must be in a state of weakening capacities with no chance of improvement."

The person must also be of "sound mind," meaning someone like Bennett may not be able to get assistance.

"The challenge with that particular case deals around the mental competency of the individual," Fletcher said. "So was she of competent mind when she took her action? I don’t know those details but my legislation isn't going to address every issue."

Fletcher's second bill, if passed would set up a commission to monitor the system.

Fletcher's bills, introduced in March, come as a number of high-profile cases continue to push the issue into the spotlight.

Will enough Liberals, NDP and Tories support these two Private Members Bills in the Fall?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What background information?

I gave you examples... you should know... you re-quoted them! Way to raise the obtuse meter!

What parties will run with "medically-assisted death" as part of their 2015 platform?

WTF! That's the very question I've repeatedly posed to you on the broader level... as in what parties have released their election platform? Of course, I only did that since you so foolishly kept nattering on about the Liberals not releasing their election platform yet! I trust its finally registered with you that NO parties have released an election platform... and, of course, no parties will until an election is called... until a campaign begins.

I fail to see why you would bring politics into this discussion, other than to infer the Tories are opposed and the Liberals are in favour, just not in favour enough to adopt as a 2015 promise.

yes, you certainly do fail! Obviously, there's a political aspect in the mix - ya think! So, of course, you repeat your nonsense again... yet again! You have no foundation for your statement - until the respective parties release an election platform you can't make any such statement/suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this topic

Will enough Liberals, NDP and Tories support these two Private Members Bills in the Fall?

uhhh... that's a political related reference!!! Here, let me replay a part of your second most recent post in this thread where you asked me the following ridiculous question

I fail to see why you would bring politics into this discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF! That's the very question I've repeatedly posed to you on the broader level... as in what parties have released their election platform? Of course, I only did that since you so foolishly kept nattering on about the Liberals not releasing their election platform yet! I trust its finally registered with you that NO parties have released an election platform... and, of course, no parties will until an election is called... until a campaign begins.

yes, you certainly do fail! Obviously, there's a political aspect in the mix - ya think! So, of course, you repeat your nonsense again... yet again! You have no foundation for your statement - until the respective parties release an election platform you can't make any such statement/suggestion.

The Liberals appear willing to announce their intention to legalize pot……and their views on abortion…..why the obstruction with “medically-assisted death”?

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh... that's a political related reference!!! Here, let me replay a part of your second most recent post in this thread where you asked me the following ridiculous question

There's clearly a political aspect in the mix, started by yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this topic

Will enough Liberals, NDP and Tories support these two Private Members Bills in the Fall?

The article says it has never been properly debated but I believe it was debated in the 90s, followed up with the Senate report. I'll have to find the link to that to see what it actually said.

I doubt any party would run with it as part of their platform, they might but they would be taking a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's clearly a political aspect in the mix, started by yourself.

no - the issue itself is heavily political... but good on ya for hypocritically claiming "I politicized it"... and then adding your own political bent to it.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Liberals appear willing to announce their intention to legalize potand their views on abortion..why the obstruction with medically-assisted death?

how unfortunate that a party you don't favour doesn't dance to your personal artificial timeline... and your ridiculous call for the release of an election platform! But hey now, since you mentioned 'pot', talking about intention dancing, that's quite the act Harper Conservatives are playing out, hey!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says it has never been properly debated but I believe it was debated in the 90s, followed up with the Senate report. I'll have to find the link to that to see what it actually said.

I doubt any party would run with it as part of their platform, they might but they would be taking a chance.

And again several years ago when a Bloc member put forth a private members bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no - the issue itself is heavily political... but good on ya for hypocritically claiming "I politicized it"... and then adding your own political bent to it.

.

Sure it is, but your inference with a couple of select quotes, demonstrates no consensus amongst the two parties that have a chance to actually change the laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how unfortunate that a party you don't favour doesn't dance to your personal artificial timeline... and your ridiculous call for the release of an election platform! But hey now, since you mentioned 'pot', talking about intention dancing, that's quite the act Harper Conservatives are playing out, hey!

Hey outside of Pot laws, the Liberals have yet to state what they would actually do different then the current Government....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it is, but your inference with a couple of select quotes, demonstrates no consensus amongst the two parties that have a chance to actually change the laws.

select quotes??? Well excuuuuse me for quoting from the office of the Harper Conservative Justice Minister. If you feel that quote doesn't represent the actual Harper Conservative government position... please... rectify my grave injustice to the Justice Minister and Harper Conservatives! Thanks in advance.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

select quotes??? Well excuuuuse me for quoting from the office of the Harper Conservative Justice Minister. If you feel that quote doesn't represent the actual Harper Conservative government position... please... rectify my grave injustice to the Justice Minister and Harper Conservatives! Thanks in advance.

.

It represents it no more, or less, than the Trudeau quote you provided...

Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...