The assisted suicide legislation is out and neither side is happy, this my friends is not the end but the beginning of many court battles. What about conscience rights? And why are activists upset? Where do they want to take this next.
Warren Kinsella joins Brian with a political round-up. Faith Goldy has details of her trip to Halifax to investigate the refugee bullying story and do cabbies need to be compensated for Uber? All that plus your phone calls.
if people want to kill themselves they don’t need doctors to help them. they also don’t need the government to sanction it.
My hope is that ……NO CANADIAN GOVERNMENT EVER, EVER, EVER goes down the path of legalizing the ……..STATE’S…….KILLING OF ITS PEOPLE !!
ASSISTED SUICIDE, IS by any reasonable sense ……… the KILLING of a living soul,on THIS CANADIAN PLANE OF EXISTENCE !!
Humans playing …….GOD, in CANADA!
“Humans playing …….GOD, in CANADA!”
I agree. The term “assisted suicide” is by definition an oxymoron: if you need help from someone else to kill yourself, it’s not suicide. The term should be “death by physician” – call it what it is and perhaps this might bring some sense of shame those doctors willing to administer such killing.*
The beginning of a slippery slope.
* In my view, the doctors are truly the weak link in this and they’re the ones any concerted anti-euthanasia strategy should target. For example, if an MD gets even a slight whiff of the possibility that a lengthy court case might bring into question their medical judgment in putting down a patient, potentially resulting in a manslaughter or murder charge, they’ll start getting pretty shy about euthanasia.
Poor Ms. Goldy, and poor Rebel Media — now resorting to cheesy, 90’s tabloid-TV tricks to gin up interest (and subscriptions). Eerie camera filters, old-time-y typewriter font, dramatic background music — might as well be watching A Current Affair.
“But I get to the truth!” — dun-dun-dun!
Poor Ms. Goldy, and poor Rebel Media — now resorting to cheesy, 90’s tabloid-TV tricks to gin up interest (and subscriptions). Eerie camera filters, old-time-y typewriter font, dramatic background music — might as well be watching A Current Affair.
“But I get to the truth!” — dun-dun-dun!
– http://www.therebel.media/faith_goldy_april_14_2016
What I find hysterical and just dripping with hypocrisy is the same lizards that want assisted suicide are the same bunch who moan and wail about suicide with firearms and want to ban guns.
Agree Joe. This is a slippery slope. We euthanize pets when they are deemed to be suffering from some malady or due to old age. We humans are now in the same boat. Doctors can now kill us with our consent or that of our guardians. At first it was called euthanasia then assisted suicide now it has morphed into assisted dying. The powers that be now believe we need help dying. God help us if and when we can’t help ourselves.
Neglegent doctors have killed more people then guns and more people were killed by drunk drivers then were killed in the vietnam war and yet Hollyweed villifies war vets andin movies like PLATOON and making funny drunkinness like from hollywood crap like SIDEWAYS
They better pay well for a doctor to ice a patient. I suspect most doctors will refuse and there will be a few busy Mengeles killing old people like there are a few baby killers. How will the dialogue go – “call the Mengele, I have a patient that wants to die.”
Why don’t they just give the people of Attawapiskat their Constitutional right to die? Simple.
“They better pay well for a doctor to ice a patient.”
Doctors already have to face the ever-present possibility of considerable legal woes over injury or death due to some perceived negligence on their part.
Once they’re deliberately terminating patients they’re going to have to start protecting themselves from even more litigation.
Nothing can stop dissatisfied next-of-kin or other parties from coming back later on and making some case against the presiding doctor. And this time it won’t be about “negligence” causing death, it’ll be about willfully causing death, i.e., murder.
Just wait for it.
“Our grandmother’s GP killed her!”
As a doctor, even if you win the case you still lose.
@old white guy, @Joe Molnar, @Liz J:
Why exactly are you opposed to physician-assisted suicide, which is in effect an expansion of individual rights and freedoms?
The term should be “death by physician”
That is correct. Death by physician is already one of the leading causes of death in Canada, they euphemistically label it “medical misadventures” to make it seem OK.
Old white guy is right. If someone needs a doctor to commit suicide, then they’ve waited too long or are not doing it right.
The simple solution is to give terminally ill patients a morphine drip controlled by a button in their hand, along with the instructions: ‘If you use this too much you will die’. That morphine drip is the only thing the State should provide to the terminally ill. If they want to prolong their lives artificially then they or their family can pay for it. It’s obscene that the greatest percent of health care resources is spent in the last six months of someone’s life.
“The simple solution is to give terminally ill patients a morphine drip controlled by a button in their hand, along with the instructions: ‘If you use this too much you will die’.”
Um, that’s in fact the main point of the proposed legislation. Your “simple solution” is currently an illegal one, as it violates section 241(b) of the Criminal Code.
-www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8183660
Um, that’s the point. If someone chooses to kill themself by ignoring warnings, then nobody else should be liable for it.
So you agree with the Supreme Court as well as the Liberal’s proposed legislation, then. Glad to hear it.
Perhaps because if you have “right” to the assistance of a physician in your suicide, then a physician has an obligation to kill you against his will.
“If they want to prolong their lives artificially then they or their family can pay for it.”
Isn’t all medical care fundamentally an artificial prolonging of life?
If you broke your ankle and have a compound fracture isn’t pushing the protruding bone back under the skin and muscle then setting the fracture, perhaps surgically putting a steel plate over the fracture to reinforce the bone, artificially prolonging your life?
“It’s obscene that the greatest percent of health care resources is spent in the last six months of someone’s life.”
It’s obscene that Leftists would force people into a universal healthcare system and then care about the cost to the system after denying Canadians an alternative, all the while bringing unhealthy immigrants, most of whom through the family reunification program are demographically older than the national demographic, brought in from 3rd world toilets where they were raised drinking dirty water, and spending Canadian tax dollars on these people who aren’t even Canadian citizens while rationing medical procedures to legacy Canadians and complaining about the cost of prolonging the life of a Canadian citizen who paid taxes here all their life.
“Perhaps because if you have “right” to the assistance of a physician in your suicide, then a physician has an obligation to kill you against his will.”
Nope:
Q: Would health care providers be able to decline to provide medical assistance in dying?
A: There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would compel a health care provider to provide medical assistance in dying or refer a patient to another medical practitioner. Balancing the rights of medical providers and those of patients is generally a matter of provincial and territorial responsibility. However, the federal government has committed to work with provinces and territories to support access to medical assistance in dying, while respecting the personal convictions of health care providers.
– http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/faq.html#six
Many radical eco-freaks want humans to go the way of the dodo and dinasoar and go extinct becuase many beleive this population bomb poppycock of Paul Ehrlich and the rest of the eco-freak crowd
“There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would compel a health care provider to provide medical assistance in dying or refer a patient to another medical practitioner.”
Correct.
There is nothing in any proposed legislation.
Yet.
We have already crossed the line on one major socio-cultural taboo (the deliberate medical killing of human beings) so it’s only a matter of time before we cross the next: compelling recalcitrant medical professionals to get on with it in order to ensure someone’s “absolute right” to demand the state kill them.
Which is exactly why it’s a slippery slope. Blasé, nothing-to-see-here blandishments from the Department of Justice just don’t cut it.