Trudeau supports doctor assisted suicide ruling for personal reasons

[tay]

and the Supreme Court 12 month directive... is not enough time?

Harper Conservative MPs say 12 months is not enough time to craft laws on assisted death

In today's column in The Globe and Mail, Tory lapdog John Ibbitso (link is external) looks at the government's assisted dying law.

He concludes the Trudeau Grits are acting just like the Harper Tories. And he's right.

The Liberal government’s handling of the bill resembled the Conservatives at their worst.

To bring the new federal law into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on assisted dying, the government created a committee, which recommended measures to end the lives of, not only those dying from an intolerably painful illness, but those suffering from intolerable chronic or mental illness. Mature minors might also quality.

But the government calculated that the public was not prepared to go there, and so pared back the grounds for seeking a medically assisted death. Many observers warn that the government bill, as written, would be unlikely to survive a court challenge. So the Trudeau government is mimicking the Harper government in passing legislation that many authorities consider judicially invalid.

Potentially unconstitutional bills, warring over the hammer of closure and confusion in the Senate. Where have we heard that before?

He's right. You know it. I know it. Faced with a tough call - for his party, that is - Trudeau has, again, gone weak-kneed, incapable of doing the right thing, just like the Tories. Once again he shows us that, when difficult, even perilous, problems arise, we can't count on him when we may need him most.

 

[mentalfloss]

That's an unfair characterization.

First, you have to understand that this is only one piece of legislation and even if you did want to humour that comparison, there is no evidence it would be a trend in the government's behaviour.

The more salient points though, involve looking into crafting this particular bill.

The Conservatives had 6 months where they did absolutely nothing about this bill and likely would not craft any legislation at all with their position on physician assisted dying.


The other important piece here is how the Liberals did craft this legislation and the Senate.


The Liberals have a majority and could have made the bill any way they want and ignored any prospect of debate altogether.

Instead, the tried to make it as neutral as possible to appeal to both left and right.

Furthermore, they are making this the first test case for the independent senate who will suggest amendments and then pass that back to the house for a second vote.


All of this is meant to foster cooperation between both parts of government and at least give the appearance that they are open to changing the bill once those amendments are made.


That is a far cry from the nefarious intentions of the previous government.

 

[pgs]

That's an unfair characterization.

First, you have to understand that this is only one piece of legislation and even if you did want to humour that comparison, there is no evidence it would be a trend in the government's behaviour.

The more salient points though, involve looking into crafting this particular bill.

The Conservatives had 6 months where they did absolutely nothing about this bill and likely would not craft any legislation at all with their position on physician assisted dying.


The other important piece here is how the Liberals did craft this legislation and the Senate.


The Liberals have a majority and could have made the bill any way they want and ignored any prospect of debate altogether.

Instead, the tried to make it as neutral as possible to appeal to both left and right.

Furthermore, they are making this the first test case for the independent senate who will suggest amendments and then pass that back to the house for a second vote.


All of this is meant to foster cooperation between both parts of government and at least give the appearance that they are open to changing the bill once those amendments are made.


That is a far cry from the nefarious intentions of the previous government.

Right square the circle .

 

[B00Mer]

It's funny how we can easily put down are family pet when it's in pain with no hope of a good life, but when it comes to being compassionate to another human being, that is terminal and in pain, well..

I support doctor-assisted death, and good for Trudeau.

 

[JLM]

It's funny how we can easily put down are family pet when it's in pain with no hope of a good life, but when it comes to being compassionate to another human being, that is terminal and in pain, well..

I support doctor-assisted death, and good for Trudeau.

There's times when it not only makes sense but should be mandatory, BUT should be a decision based on the opinion of THREE doctors- especially if the patient has a lot of money!

 

[Dixie Cup]

I worry about where this will lead. I agree that if I have a painful, terminal illness, it should be my right to decide if I wanna stick around. OTOH should anyone with a mental illness fall into this category? I'm not so sure about that although it would reduce heathcare costs - which is why that concerns me - $$ over lives.

 

[captain morgan]

That's an unfair characterization.

First, you have to understand that this is only one piece of legislation and even if you did want to humour that comparison, there is no evidence it would be a trend in the government's behaviour.

Trudeau has established a trend in forcing his personal will in the Hoc as evidenced by 2 openly physical assaults on opposition members

I worry about where this will lead. I agree that if I have a painful, terminal illness, it should be my right to decide if I wanna stick around. OTOH should anyone with a mental illness fall into this category? I'm not so sure about that although it would reduce heathcare costs - which is why that concerns me - $$ over lives.

It's also a catch-22.

The healthcare system is unsustainable at its present levels, just the ability to receive healthcare services in Canada is a challenge.

This is no justification either for or against the Bill, however, the path we are on right now is headed for failure

 

[JLM]

I worry about where this will lead. I agree that if I have a painful, terminal illness, it should be my right to decide if I wanna stick around. OTOH should anyone with a mental illness fall into this category? I'm not so sure about that although it would reduce heathcare costs - which is why that concerns me - $$ over lives.

Don't want to cause unnecessary concern, but I think the day is fast coming when there simply will not be enough money in the system (even more so than now) to treat everyone. I know several years ago in the State of Oregon their health system had a list of diseases and conditions that were covered and if your malady wasn't on the list you were S.O.L. for Gov't funded treatment. Not sure if that is still the case. I know it's hard getting used to the idea we're going to die.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Judging from all the restrictions contained within the bill it would appear Trudeau is not for assisted suicide. The fact that the Liberal legislation would actually prevent the woman who brought the case to the SCC from assisted suicide seems ludicrous and a complete slap in the face to sensible thinking. How can this woman win a SCC ruling then be denied what she won by JT and his crew.

Alberta introduced it's own bill yesterday which is a complete mirror of the SCC ruling. The only requirements are "competent adult" with a "grievous and irremediable disease".

Why the liberals seek to impose so many restrictions can only lead one to believe they do not support your right to die with dignity at all.

My guess is this will be fought in the courts for many years at great expense.

 

[MHz]

It's funny how we can easily put down are family pet when it's in pain with no hope of a good life, but when it comes to being compassionate to another human being, that is terminal and in pain, well..

I support doctor-assisted death, and good for Trudeau.

You got the right forms as the condition you listed fits you perfectly?

 

[mentalfloss]

There are two really critical restrictions from what I can tell.

The first is that you basically need to have a terminal illness in order to qualify or death must be 'reasonably foreseeable'.

The second is that there is a minimum age requirement.


The Carter case validated by the supreme court has neither of those restrictions and if they remove both it will be a huge leap forward.

 

[JLM]

Judging from all the restrictions contained within the bill it would appear Trudeau is not for assisted suicide. The fact that the Liberal legislation would actually prevent the woman who brought the case to the SCC from assisted suicide seems ludicrous and a complete slap in the face to sensible thinking. How can this woman win a SCC ruling then be denied what she won by JT and his crew.

Alberta introduced it's own bill yesterday which is a complete mirror of the SCC ruling. The only requirements are "competent adult" with a "grievous and irremediable disease".

Why the liberals seek to impose so many restrictions can only lead one to believe they do not support your right to die with dignity at all.

My guess is this will be fought in the courts for many years at great expense.

To give the "Devil his due", perhaps there's a concern about free loaders wanting to be involved in the assistance.

 

[MHz]

So a person with severe injuries has to wait till 65??

Homeless should be all it takes to get an OD from morphine.

 

[JLM]

So a person with severe injuries has to wait till 65??

Should a relatively young person with injuries be a candidate for assisted suicide, generally speaking?

 

[PoliticalNick]

There are two really critical restrictions from what I can tell.

The first is that you basically need to have a terminal illness in order to qualify or death must be 'reasonably foreseeable'.

The second is that there is a minimum age requirement.


The Carter case validated by the supreme court has neither of those restrictions and if they remove both it will be a huge leap forward.

The minimum age requirement seems reasonable but there should be some provision for young adults who are able to make their own decisions. There also needs to be some provision for infants and children. Without some framework for every person to avail themselves of the right it will be back in the SCC before to long as it discriminates based upon age.

The liberal definition of "foreseeable death" appears to be you're going to be dead in a week which is also ironicly the time frame they require for 'personal reflection' after you ask and before you can actually get help. They also impose a requirement of counselling which again is a joke. I'm sure by the time you choose death you have discussed it with doctors and family and those close to you as well as put all your affairs in order. I hardly think this is a snap decision. I can see another SCC challenge of these restrictions because the SCC ruling does not require death to be imminent only that the disease be incurable and create an unreasonable level of suffering.

My personal observation is the bill is entirely designed to prevent as many people as possible from receiving assistance while the legislation spends years in various courts under different challenges. I'm hoping the deadline gets missed which effectively leaves only the limits imposed in the SCC ruling which is all that is really required.

 

[skookumchuck]

Who, other than flossy, wants to kill someone? Who wants to tell the Doctors they have to do it? I would supply the narcotics if someone had the guts to do it themselves rather than waiting until the last minute then whining for help. There is a new narcotic that would work well, Fentanyl.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Should a relatively young person with injuries be a candidate for assisted suicide, generally speaking?

If that is their choice then yes. That is the whole point of the SCC ruling, your body...your choice. It's called freedom, you should look into it sometime.

Who, other than flossy, wants to kill someone? Who wants to tell the Doctors they have to do it? I would supply the narcotics if someone had the guts to do it themselves rather than waiting until the last minute then whining for help. There is a new narcotic that would work well, Fentanyl.

The Dr doesn't have to do anything. There is no requirement for a physician to participate or even provide the means for the patient to do it themselves.

Sounds to me like you support forced suffering. What business is it of yours anyway who lives or dies and when and how they die. As long as nobody is trying to induce your death you shouldn't worry.

 

[mentalfloss]

Who, other than flossy, wants to kill someone? Who wants to tell the Doctors they have to do it? I would supply the narcotics if someone had the guts to do it themselves rather than waiting until the last minute then whining for help. There is a new narcotic that would work well, Fentanyl.

The conbot same sex marriage position of 2016.

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[lone wolf]

So a person with severe injuries has to wait till 65??

Homeless should be all it takes to get an OD from morphine.

Homeless? That's my grey zone. When does it sneak from requested (and by whom) to ordered? If I'm going due to homelessness or hopelessness, at least one of the bastards are going out with me