Euthansia

[franzipan]

hi, I am a student in England studying French. For my oral topic I'm going to talk about euthansia.

I was just wondering what the facts are regarding euthansia in Canada? and also - does anybody know why it is considered such a taboo subject?

any replies would be much appreciated, thanks!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Ah Franzipan...I was wondering when this topic would come up...I will be posting on this...but not tonight...

 

[tibear]

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on this one Fanni. As you know people don't have the right to commit suicide unless they have been checked out by mental experts and the person has serious medical condition.

If the police find someone standing on a bridge wanting to jump and commit suicide the police will be called and they will try to prevent the person from killing themselves. The police don't move the spectators back so they can get a better view of the killing.

So regardless of what the "we have complete control of our bodies" pro-abortion people think. This is in fact not correct.

Being a person of pro-life belief, I of course don't belive that euthanasia should be something that our country should accept. Life is sacred and nobody has the right to take a life, not even our own.

Yes, many people will suffer, but isn't suffering a part of life. At what point do we agree that a person is suffering "enough"?? Is there a point scale??? If a man loses his wife and 7 children in a house fire, is this enough mental suffering that he should be allowed to kill himself??? What are the limits???

 

[peapod]

Tibear is it possible for you to have a conversation without dragging your obvious political agenda issues into it. The conversation is not about abortion. Stop trying to vilify fucci because his intellect threatens you, as does anyone else that does not think "your" way.

This topic has been discussed here before, Ricky had a Poll. And If I recall abortion was not mentioned in the discussion.

 

[tibear]

Peapod,

For the nth time. Pro-life believers see all of these discussion items as one in the same. They are all attacks on life.

Abortion, Euthanasia, mercy killing and capital punishment are all one in the same.

I realize you don't see it that way. But you don't want to push your believes onto me do you????

 

[franzipan]

wow. can someone answer my question here?

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'll give it a shot, Franzipan. Euthanasia is officially illegal in Canada. That aside though, it does happen. Terminally ill patients suffer accidental overdoses all the time, and it is never spoken about. Why not? Because doctors and loved ones could end up in prison for it.

 

[tibear]

franzipan,

I believe I answered your question. Didn't I???

 

[Reverend Blair]

All I see is yet another attack on soneone who does not share your religious beliefs, tibear.

 

[tibear]

Being a person of pro-life belief, I of course don't belive that euthanasia should be something that our country should accept. Life is sacred and nobody has the right to take a life, not even our own.

Yes, many people will suffer, but isn't suffering a part of life. At what point do we agree that a person is suffering "enough"?? Is there a point scale??? If a man loses his wife and 7 children in a house fire, is this enough mental suffering that he should be allowed to kill himself??? What are the limits???

So this is an attack. I thought I was putting my beliefs out there.

I'm still allowed to have an opinion on this forum aren't I????

 

[Reverend Blair]

My point was that your answer got lost in your rhetoric.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Rather than debate you ignore the point made and attack the manner in which the point was made.

How about debating the points???

 

[Reverend Blair]

Don't start. I'm not in the mood.

 

[marcarc]

To attempt past the personal beliefs, culturally there is a lot going on, http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04071505.html

is a good article, most people remember the Robert Latimer case of the man who 'assisted' his daughter's suicide and this organization helped with his defense. In case you aren't interested or haven't the time the article states that the 'euthanasia' organizations are more 'radical' than the british ones, however, I don't think anything has come up in Parliament on the issue, though I'm not sure.

Another good article is at:http://www.123helpme.com/assets/16820.html

which seems to have a pro-euthanasia bent to it. One interesting comment is the sentence, which could be a typo, which states that suicide was "decriminalized" in 1972. Not sure about that.

There are also, dang, what are they called? Hospices? That are growing in number all the time with many associations set up.

No doubt part of the reason that the topic is avoided is because with so much else going on the last thing we need is another 'difficult issue' to confront 'us', even though it is never 'us' doing the deciding.

Personally the issue is so complex that I don't even have a view and I think such an endevour should be decided case by case. I think it's much better to deal with such issues BEFORE they become issues so that they don't become legal issues. In the Lattimer case, one may well have sympathized with the man, however, that ONE person could decide the fate of somebody else, whether related or not, seems extreme. However, so too does the idea that imprisoning the man serves any justice whatsoever and will actively dissuade others from doing likewise.

Quite simply, agreeing or not means that only those without means are affected. Families with money can easily go to one of the european countries who provide the service. Personally, while I agree that 'life is sacred' I also believe that 'death is sacred' and it is a communal responsibility to see that it is respected. The idea that 'life is sacred' is easily dismissed by walking through downtown Toronto, through most government sponsored nursing homes, to how we treat other life forms in our environment. If anything one would think we should be paying more attention to sanctifying death since we cause it so readily.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I knew Latimer a little bit. He was a customer in the photo lab I worked in when I lived in Battleford. I also know some people who know him a lot better than I did.

That he was arrested and found guilty was a major travesty of justice. He doted on his daughter. If he would have thought for a second that there was any other way, he would have taken it.

 

[no1important]

RE: Euthanasia

What about Svend Robinson and that Sue Rodriguez (sp)? He was there when she "died" and he never let out who the doctor was with them either. He was never convicted.

That Latimer saga was sad, And I can see why he did it but he did break the law as I believe Svend did. But you know politicians are rarely convicted of anything.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Svend's case was quite different. It was assisted suicide, meaning that the crown had to prove that Svend had administered the drugs.

 

[Gonzo]

If someone cant live without machines, are they living? During the Bible times, they didn't have life support. So are you realy killing someone when you remove technology from the picture?

 

[tibear]

It all comes down to quality of life and who gets to decide whether another person has a "good enough" quality of life to warrant living.

As I stated many times before, there are alot of people in the third world who live in what we would call deplorable conditions. Is their quality of life poor enough to warrant killing them??

What about Stephen Fletcher, the quadrapalegic MP. Should he be killed??

I don't doubt for one instance that Robert Latimer loved his daughter and thought he was doing what was in the best interest of his daughter. However, he doesn't have the right to choose to kill his daughter.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Oh crap, I forgot about this thread...and I promised I would reply...

People have already gone over the legalities of the issue, so I won't go there...

The criteria to meet for consideration of euthenasia should be as follows:

Unable to communicate in any fashion.

or

Suffering from chronic pain, are of sound mind and able to communicate their wish to die.

...it is my belief that after a person has lost their mental function, and is unable to communicate in any way, they no longer offer any value to society.

My mother works in a nursing home, and I've been there to take her to lunch on occasion. I am often amazed at the state of some of the people there, unable to speak, unable to walk, unable to feed themselves or maintain any form of dignity.

I've talked with her about the euthanasia issue, and found that her views closely match mine. Her reasoning is that the family, when discussing with the doctors the issue of "Do Not Resuscitate" orders, will invariably become drama queens, and make their decisions from an emotional state of mind...some will later relent, but most will not...as if this isn't enough, she says that most of the people that reject the notion of "DNR" orders are those that never visit their relatives anyway...they've dumped them and forgotten...so every time the resident goes into cardiac arrest, or has an infection or falls and breaks a hip, the nursing staff is legally required to do their best to bring them back from the dead...

I say let them go...as tibear said earlier in the thread, it comes down to quality of life, and to me, at that point, they have no quality of life, and no there is no dignity left to them...but, I guess letting them die is not really euthenasia, really...

...that's my explanation of my views for the first point...and for the second it just comes down to dignity and how people, if found to be in sound mind, should have a right to die...