Seems like you're hung up on the semantics. I worked peripherally on the trial that resulted in the current legislation, including all discovery for both sides. What I did is of no moment, of course, but there were some particularly enlightening statements made in discovery, including one where the late, great Joe Arvay got the head of the Canadian palliative care association to admit that it is unknown if patients placed in a palliative coma can feel pain, or not. The intervenors in the Taylor trial were of particular significance. Each one of them faced a prolonged certain death, and simply wanted the right to choose the time and place of their passing. Oregon and Washington states have had "Death with Dignity" programs since the mid-1990s. If semantics is what is bothering you, the name "Death with Dignity" is perhaps more acceptable. That's what drove the Taylor trial, to have a legal death at the time of choosing, and in a dignified manner. After spending months and months listening to both sides of the argument, I know that I am grateful that, should I ever have to, I will have the legal choice to make a decision one way or the other.
Thanks for the comment. I remember you mentioned that after my first post on the subject. I think it's an important question whether or palliative sedation eliminates suffering in the way it is presumed to. Even if it were the case the palliative sedation is an issue, for me it still wouldn't suggest that the solution is to enlist the medical profession to put people of their misery. It's not that I'm hung up on semantics, it's that I think the semantics are manipulative at best and nefarious at worst. "dying with dignity" is also euphemistic. what do you mean dignity? Do palliative physicians only deal in undignified death? Is it undignified for an Indigenous child to live with the fallout of childhood trauma? What about the medical students who don't match and then kill themselves? Should their suffering not be considered irremediable if theyll never ever be able to practice as an ophthomologist? I know that Canada has pushed back MAiD for the mentally ill to 2024, but this is where it leads.
Regardless of the slippery slope, which, at least when implemented on a national level, is super slippery, I just don't see how enlisting the state to procure death is a good idea. And I don't see how the medical profession doesn't suffer mightily from its role in it carrying out. '
When you define something as a right, the floodgates are open. If you frame something quite controversial as mere harm reduction, things get even worse. We don't live in an era of "safe legal and rare" moderation. This will be pursued to its utmost. The next generation of medical students are completely blinkered. It doesnt bode well.
Not to mention some physicians' Colleges wanted to classify medical autonomy in the last few years as a mental defect requiring psychological treatment. Where does this lead?
These are strange times. We are seeing genuinely new phenomena, essentially the (seemingly) unstoppable rise of the Bleeding Heart. This cohort has always reveled in re-framing their radical ideas using language to make them more palatable to the masses, but it now appears to be an unstoppable force. On a society-wide level, the Devouring Mother is trying to creating the ultimate nanny state. We should all be afraid.
Euthanasia and Eugenics go hand in hand at a time where the Canadian Government is Financially Destroyed and the population aging ...
Seems like you're hung up on the semantics. I worked peripherally on the trial that resulted in the current legislation, including all discovery for both sides. What I did is of no moment, of course, but there were some particularly enlightening statements made in discovery, including one where the late, great Joe Arvay got the head of the Canadian palliative care association to admit that it is unknown if patients placed in a palliative coma can feel pain, or not. The intervenors in the Taylor trial were of particular significance. Each one of them faced a prolonged certain death, and simply wanted the right to choose the time and place of their passing. Oregon and Washington states have had "Death with Dignity" programs since the mid-1990s. If semantics is what is bothering you, the name "Death with Dignity" is perhaps more acceptable. That's what drove the Taylor trial, to have a legal death at the time of choosing, and in a dignified manner. After spending months and months listening to both sides of the argument, I know that I am grateful that, should I ever have to, I will have the legal choice to make a decision one way or the other.
Thanks for the comment. I remember you mentioned that after my first post on the subject. I think it's an important question whether or palliative sedation eliminates suffering in the way it is presumed to. Even if it were the case the palliative sedation is an issue, for me it still wouldn't suggest that the solution is to enlist the medical profession to put people of their misery. It's not that I'm hung up on semantics, it's that I think the semantics are manipulative at best and nefarious at worst. "dying with dignity" is also euphemistic. what do you mean dignity? Do palliative physicians only deal in undignified death? Is it undignified for an Indigenous child to live with the fallout of childhood trauma? What about the medical students who don't match and then kill themselves? Should their suffering not be considered irremediable if theyll never ever be able to practice as an ophthomologist? I know that Canada has pushed back MAiD for the mentally ill to 2024, but this is where it leads.
Regardless of the slippery slope, which, at least when implemented on a national level, is super slippery, I just don't see how enlisting the state to procure death is a good idea. And I don't see how the medical profession doesn't suffer mightily from its role in it carrying out. '
When you define something as a right, the floodgates are open. If you frame something quite controversial as mere harm reduction, things get even worse. We don't live in an era of "safe legal and rare" moderation. This will be pursued to its utmost. The next generation of medical students are completely blinkered. It doesnt bode well.
Not to mention some physicians' Colleges wanted to classify medical autonomy in the last few years as a mental defect requiring psychological treatment. Where does this lead?
MP Ed Fast has proposed Bill C-314 to oppose MAiD for those with mental illnesses. Parliamentary petition in support here for those who are interested: http://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4442
Thank you for that petition link, signed.
Where are the footnotes? (You had note numbers in the text.)
These are strange times. We are seeing genuinely new phenomena, essentially the (seemingly) unstoppable rise of the Bleeding Heart. This cohort has always reveled in re-framing their radical ideas using language to make them more palatable to the masses, but it now appears to be an unstoppable force. On a society-wide level, the Devouring Mother is trying to creating the ultimate nanny state. We should all be afraid.