|
Post by weasie on Feb 7, 2015 1:01:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bimble on Feb 7, 2015 14:28:44 GMT
I think it absurd that someone who wishes to end their life if it has become unendurable due to an incurable condition is prevented from doing so because they are physically incapable of administering the necessary means, and that someone who is prepared to help them risks prosecution. Of course there are concerns, but if it has been established that they're of sound mind etc etc I don't see how you can deny them that right.
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Feb 7, 2015 14:46:39 GMT
Why just due to an incurable condition? Why not roll it out to everyone?
|
|
|
Post by weasie on Feb 7, 2015 14:59:37 GMT
Why just due to an incurable condition? Why not roll it out to everyone? Excellent point, donavan. I think it is the definition of who would 'qualify' is a grey area. Where should the line be drawn?
|
|
|
Post by Suzi on Feb 7, 2015 18:35:45 GMT
I do believe that in certain cases the "who qualifies" question is a grey area. My own father wasn't living the last year of his life; he was just existing. He wasn't in excruciating pain due to his illness (dissecting aorta) but basically was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off so to speak. It was presumed his aorta would burst and he would die instantly. This didn't happen.... but due to this his organs all slowly started to shut down and he passed away. If legal doctor assisted death would have been an option for him, I know for a fact he would have taken it and with our blessing.
Quality of life is something everyone has a different idea of; the dying person, family, government and doctor. More grey areas.
|
|
|
Post by bimble on Feb 7, 2015 21:47:52 GMT
Why just due to an incurable condition? Why not roll it out to everyone? Excellent point, donavan. I think it is the definition of who would 'qualify' is a grey area. Where should the line be drawn? don, I was working on the basis that you would need to have an extremely debilitating condition from which you weren't going to recover, which made it physically impossible to do away with yourself, to require assisted suicide. The whole question is, I'm sure, littered with grey areas.
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Feb 7, 2015 22:35:42 GMT
Indeed. I'm sure if it was made too readily available we would be a much less overpopulated race. Even religions make it a sin for their own reasons. My take on it is, it would make life more livable and less stressful knowing you could check out with dignity if for whatever reason life became too much. Or pointless.
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Feb 7, 2015 22:56:51 GMT
But managing this would be almost impossible. And who would you trust to do it? Every shade of grey you could think of. And then some more. But we have to address this subject if we consider ourselves a caring species.
|
|
|
Post by mxyzptlk on Feb 8, 2015 17:18:31 GMT
Where does episodic depression fit within this? Some people go through periods convinced that ending their lives is the only release from their distress- if they are deemed to have capacity to make their own informed decisions regarding ending it all despite having a diagnosed illness should they be allowed to?
|
|
|
Post by peggs on Feb 8, 2015 17:32:33 GMT
The people of Canada should be proud of their political system and its enlightened and compassionate governance in this decision. There are plenty of gray areas, such as those stated here, but the ruling is a significant first step. This issue wouldn't/couldn't have been publicly debated a generation ago.
|
|
|
Post by bimble on Feb 8, 2015 17:48:19 GMT
Where does episodic depression fit within this? Some people go through periods convinced that ending their lives is the only release from their distress- if they are deemed to have capacity to make their own informed decisions regarding ending it all despite having a diagnosed illness should they be allowed to? I think everyone should be allowed to take the decision to end their own life, and it would be damn hard to stop them anyway! It's your life, after all. But I thought we were discussing a situation in which it is necessary for someone else, be it doctor or concerned friend/family member to administer the means because the person was unable to do it themselves, and the legal repercussions on that person or persons.
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Feb 8, 2015 20:55:55 GMT
Oops, sorry, Bimble, I always get a bit ahead of myself. And a bit heady.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Tein on Feb 9, 2015 9:49:12 GMT
What Criteria do the doctors have to meet to do this under the legislation?
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Feb 9, 2015 11:06:35 GMT
In this country, legally, I don't think they can do anything. But it does happen in certain circumstances. With consent from family members.
|
|
|
Post by bimble on Feb 9, 2015 14:15:31 GMT
Oops, sorry, Bimble, I always get a bit ahead of myself. And a bit heady. S'alright, duck: wouldn't have you any other way
|
|