5 ms·

Assisted death is a liberal concept; social conservatives criticize it because, in the conservative worldview [1], any form of self-determined death is consider

by ttul 4y ago

Assisted death is a liberal concept; social conservatives criticize it because, in the conservative worldview [1], any form of self-determined death is considered immoral. In light of the conservative view of this issue, it is useful to apply a critical eye. 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-1.5783194 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-...

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
In the linked article, conservatives are objecting to a new legal standard which requires doctors to either kill patients themselves or find another doctor who’s willing to do it. This seems like a pretty straightforward argument for the conservative position; in just 8 years Canada has traveled from “people in extreme pain have a right to self-determined death” to “you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs”.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  We need more evidence than a handful of ancedotes to proclaim that the entire country of Canada has changed its position on doctor quality based on willingless to participate in MAiD. I get that this is an emotional thing but we're really talking to basically a mom who says she knows better than her adult son whether or not he wants to kill himself (regardless of whether or not I personally disagree with the son, that situation is emotionally totally fucked and I don't think its representative of the entire country)
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    The article linked in the comment I’m responding to is based not on a handful of anecdotes but new standards from the courts and Parliament. “ Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that doctors who have moral objections to providing health services like abortion or assisted death must provide patients with an ‘effective referral’ to another doctor.”
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      You told me that doctors who don't want to participate in MAiD can willingly opt-out of it and refer any patients to other doctors. This seems completely opposite, unless you mean doctors are being forced to not throw up barriers to access to MAiD to be the same as being forced to participate in MAiD, which seems totally backwards.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        If you don't believe in killing people, you shouldn't have to give a recommendation of someone who does.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        notatoad 4y ago
        Health care in canada is limited by availability, and there's often a wait to be able to see a doctor. If a patient has waited in line to see a doctor, but the doctor they draw fails to treat them, a referral allows the patient to see another doctor instead of being sent to the back of the line again. A doctor should not be able to impede or delay somebody's legal right to medical care just because they have a personal objection to it.
        govg 4y ago
        Good thing they're using your abilities as a medical professional, not your beliefs in your personal moral sphere. As a professional you're required to provide the same service to everyone without any regard to your own beliefs. Otherwise medicine as a national service doesn't work.
- ttul 4y ago
  I'd love to know where you're reading that "you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs." As with Canada's abortion laws, doctors aren't required to perform the procedure, but they must still provide assistance to patients who require it. If doctors are given a free hand to apply their own moral code, then what's the point in having a law that legalizes and regulates a particular medical practice?
nyolfen 4y ago
you can think that creating incentive and opportunity for the state to kill people is troubling without a religious, or even conservative framework
- ttul 4y ago
  Except that's not what's happening here. The law itself is carefully drafted and abuse of the law for deceptive reasons like saving money in healthcare would not be lawful. Secondly, if the state fails to provide a regulatory framework for assisted dying, people tend to take matters into their own hands. Recall that the Canadian system for assisted death was established as a result of a sequence of court decisions dating back to 1993 [2]. Unlike the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada is viewed as largely apolitical. Someone can only be eligible for assisted death if they have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition," they've asked for it without external pressure, AND they give their consent AFTER being told of other options such as palliative care that might otherwise serve to alleviate their suffering. The concept of a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" is also defined carefully in the law. To qualify, they must "have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable." Mental illness is specifically excluded: "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability." The government was set to allow mental illness as an eligible category in March 2023, but that has been delayed for further study. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-33.html#h-119953 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-33.html#h... [2] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/inde...
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    i encourage you to read some of the examples of people who have chosen to take their own lives in the OP. it may surprise you to learn that the actual circumstances of applied laws can sometimes diverge from the best intentions > Unlike the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada is viewed as largely apolitical. no offense, but ideology is always perceived as simple reality by those inside of it. there are plenty of canadians who do not feel this way (eg https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1082424315 https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1082424315 )

by ttul 4y ago

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

In the linked article, conservatives are objecting to a new legal standard which requires doctors to either kill patients themselves or find another doctor who’s willing to do it. This seems like a pretty straightforward argument for the conservative position; in just 8 years Canada has traveled from “people in extreme pain have a right to self-determined death” to “you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs”.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
We need more evidence than a handful of ancedotes to proclaim that the entire country of Canada has changed its position on doctor quality based on willingless to participate in MAiD. I get that this is an emotional thing but we're really talking to basically a mom who says she knows better than her adult son whether or not he wants to kill himself (regardless of whether or not I personally disagree with the son, that situation is emotionally totally fucked and I don't think its representative of the entire country)
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  The article linked in the comment I’m responding to is based not on a handful of anecdotes but new standards from the courts and Parliament. “ Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that doctors who have moral objections to providing health services like abortion or assisted death must provide patients with an ‘effective referral’ to another doctor.”
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    You told me that doctors who don't want to participate in MAiD can willingly opt-out of it and refer any patients to other doctors. This seems completely opposite, unless you mean doctors are being forced to not throw up barriers to access to MAiD to be the same as being forced to participate in MAiD, which seems totally backwards.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      If you don't believe in killing people, you shouldn't have to give a recommendation of someone who does.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - notatoad 4y ago
        Health care in canada is limited by availability, and there's often a wait to be able to see a doctor. If a patient has waited in line to see a doctor, but the doctor they draw fails to treat them, a referral allows the patient to see another doctor instead of being sent to the back of the line again. A doctor should not be able to impede or delay somebody's legal right to medical care just because they have a personal objection to it.
      - govg 4y ago
        Good thing they're using your abilities as a medical professional, not your beliefs in your personal moral sphere. As a professional you're required to provide the same service to everyone without any regard to your own beliefs. Otherwise medicine as a national service doesn't work.
ttul 4y ago
I'd love to know where you're reading that "you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs." As with Canada's abortion laws, doctors aren't required to perform the procedure, but they must still provide assistance to patients who require it. If doctors are given a free hand to apply their own moral code, then what's the point in having a law that legalizes and regulates a particular medical practice?

nyolfen 4y ago

you can think that creating incentive and opportunity for the state to kill people is troubling without a religious, or even conservative framework

ttul 4y ago
Except that's not what's happening here. The law itself is carefully drafted and abuse of the law for deceptive reasons like saving money in healthcare would not be lawful. Secondly, if the state fails to provide a regulatory framework for assisted dying, people tend to take matters into their own hands. Recall that the Canadian system for assisted death was established as a result of a sequence of court decisions dating back to 1993 [2]. Unlike the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada is viewed as largely apolitical. Someone can only be eligible for assisted death if they have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition," they've asked for it without external pressure, AND they give their consent AFTER being told of other options such as palliative care that might otherwise serve to alleviate their suffering. The concept of a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" is also defined carefully in the law. To qualify, they must "have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable." Mental illness is specifically excluded: "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability." The government was set to allow mental illness as an eligible category in March 2023, but that has been delayed for further study. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-33.html#h-119953 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-33.html#h... [2] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/inde...
- nyolfen 4y ago
  i encourage you to read some of the examples of people who have chosen to take their own lives in the OP. it may surprise you to learn that the actual circumstances of applied laws can sometimes diverge from the best intentions > Unlike the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada is viewed as largely apolitical. no offense, but ideology is always perceived as simple reality by those inside of it. there are plenty of canadians who do not feel this way (eg https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1082424315 https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1082424315 )