Suicide bill legalizes Euthanasia
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:42 pm
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005 ... 7-sun.html
$1:
A chronically ill man is coming to Toronto to tell a euthanasia symposium that Bill C-407 -- which is before Parliament for consideration -- is a licence to kill.
"It is anti-disability bigotry disguised as right-to-die legislation," said Mark Pickup, who lives in Edmonton with an advanced stage of multiple sclerosis and is with the group Human Life Matters.
"It's a horrible bill that would open the door to killing the disabled and you wouldn't need a physician to do it."
"It is anti-disability bigotry disguised as right-to-die legislation," said Mark Pickup, who lives in Edmonton with an advanced stage of multiple sclerosis and is with the group Human Life Matters.
"It's a horrible bill that would open the door to killing the disabled and you wouldn't need a physician to do it."
Nothing either myself or Consty hasn't already said before.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:30 pm
It was in another thread that Constantinople and I agreed (at least I thought we did) that the only solution would be to have something similar to a DNR order which allows people to agree to their own euthanization should a future condition prevent them from leading a lifestyle they've deemed critical.
I think the euthanization of a person based on the opinion of a doctor or family member is a little more complicated, and I honestly don't know how that should be handled.
(The actions of the doctors in New Orleans were based on extreme circumstances, so I'm not considering that in this case)
This problem has arisen due to the fact that medical procedures have developed so much in the last few decades. A person may be kept alve using highly technical procedures, drugs, and equipment, but the ethical questions of how and when these medical systems should be used haven't been answered completely.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:46 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
WDHIII WDHIII:
Look at the case of Terry Schiavo.
That had more to do with political interference than the family not being able to decide.
Her parents did not want her starved and dehydrated to death. That was her cheating husband's idea. His rights should've been terminated when he moved in with his mistress and started having children with her. Why that was not determined a conflict of interest is beyond me.
On the upside, the $400,000 he got from her trust account when she finally died will make his life easier.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:47 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
The Hoser @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:56 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
Lets see... a quick, painless death, or a dragged out existence of constant pain while I lose more and more of my dignity and bodily functions, becoming a burden to those who look after me... tought call.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:03 pm
The Hoser The Hoser:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
Lets see... a quick, painless death, or a dragged out existence of constant pain while I lose more and more of my dignity and bodily functions, becoming a burden to those who look after me... tought call.
Gee, you mean like this guy who could be killed under the new law?
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:19 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The Hoser The Hoser:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
Lets see... a quick, painless death, or a dragged out existence of constant pain while I lose more and more of my dignity and bodily functions, becoming a burden to those who look after me... tought call.
Gee, you mean like this guy who could be killed under the new law?
he would only be killed if he wants to be killed. the new law won't give doctors the legal right to kill without written (or typed) permission of the person first.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:19 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yes, we should legalise it, but it should only happen with the permission of a doctor who has assessed that a person's illnesses have caused them so much pain or reduced their quality of life so much that continuing to live would only lead to needless suffering, and that the person isn't merely asking for it because they are depressed about their condition.
Be careful what you wish for lest you're the first person who gets put to death under this new law.
Why would I get put to death? I don't have any permanent, debilitating illnesses.
That can change in the blink of an eye. Ask Christopher Reeve.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:21 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Gee, you mean like this guy who could be killed under the new law?
As far as I know, Stephen Hawking doesn't live in Canada.
Then he really is a genius, isn't he? Canada is apparently not a safe place to be a gimpy dude in a wheelchair.
Constantinople @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:23 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
WDHIII WDHIII:
Look at the case of Terry Schiavo.
That had more to do with political interference than the family not being able to decide.
Her parents did not want her starved and dehydrated to death. That was her cheating husband's idea. His rights should've been terminated when he moved in with his mistress and started having children with her. Why that was not determined a conflict of interest is beyond me.
On the upside, the $400,000 he got from her trust account when she finally died will make his life easier.
Her parents need to hire a hitman on that SOB.
Constantinople @ Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:24 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I think the euthanization of a person based on the opinion of a doctor or family member is a little more complicated, and I honestly don't know how that should be handled.
It shouldn't be handled. Err on the side of life.
Poor Terry.