• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Assisted Dying.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260
whiskey601 said:
WRT the post above that there are people in NL that are being euthanized against their will  - what is the hard, verifiable and reliable proof of this?

The post above is about Colorado. If you quote the post, we can answer your question.

whiskey601 said:
Re: DNR, why not a secure NFC medallion that authenticates the identity of a person who  can choose to wear it (or not). In Ontario, the e Healthcare records system should be able to handle this.

Interesting idea. This is the law in Ontario if paramedics arrive on scene,

"In Ontario, paramedics can only follow DNR Orders in the presence of a form issued by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Called “Do Not Resuscitate Confirmation Form” (Ontario Publication Number 4519-45 (07/10)). This document is the only order paramedics can accept as a true medical directive—one that allows them to NOT initiate resuscitative measures when a person loses vital signs outside of a healthcare facility. It is important to note that the DNR Confirmation Form is not a DNR order—but rather confirms the existence of a duly filled and signed DNR order.

When called to respond to a scene where a person has lost vital signs, and in the absence of a confirmation form (DNRCF), even if a DNR Order is presented to attending paramedics, under regulations of the MOHTLC, paramedics must begin resuscitative measures.

With an expectation from family members that paramedics will follow the final wishes of their loved ones, the absence of the DNRCF can result in a massive case of misunderstanding and a lot of pain and stress for family members."
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ehs/docs/ehs_training_blltn108_en.pdf
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
This subject is close to me as in the last few years I have dealt with the prolonged dying of three people I loved. Two cases played out within a year each, but were very painful and distressing. The third took several years, but subjected the person to an "existence" rather than a "life": something I know very clearly that person had said, over and over again, they would never want. Death, when it finally came, was a release.

My wife and I are both Christians (me being perhaps rather a struggling and backsliding one, but, anyway...): she is a Catholic and I am Anglican. Neither of us regard suicide lightly. We have discussed this issue at length, but we have come to share the same views:

-your life is your life: when an adult of sound mind decides they don't want to go on, we should respect that. And, I specifically mean "an adult of sound mind"-not a minor or a person who is mentally unfit;

-people need to plan for their deaths (most people don't want to do this but, believe me, it is one of the kindest things you can do for your survivors);

-you must make sure you appoint a Power of Attorney for Care, in writing, while you are still of sound mind and body. This allows the PoA to make important decisions. Without PoA you actually have very little or no legal status (a surprising thing I learned);

-you should tell your family what you want. Everybody dies: get over it, and sort it out with your family;

-no doctor should be forced against their belief to participate in assisted death. (And, some suggestions above to the contrary, I don't think any jurisdiction in Canada actually forces this on medical professionals);

-we should be very careful to avoid laws that are susceptible to such loose interpretation that we can easily pull the plug on Uncle Bill just to get our hands on the cash.

I'm not familiar with the situation in NL but it seems to me their law is too permissive and thus open to abuse. But that is only my opinion.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,815
Points
1,160
Sadly we have a friend dying of ALS who is likely to take this option in the next 3-4 months based on his rate of decline. Terrible things happen to nice people  :'(
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260
pbi said:
I'm not familiar with the situation in NL but it seems to me their law is too permissive and thus open to abuse. But that is only my opinion.

For reference to the discussion,

Euthanasia in the Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
mariomike said:
For reference to the discussion,

Euthanasia in the Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
Now that I've read the provisions, I agree with all of them except the one allowing minors to select euthanasia. I'm not comfortable with that bit, although I note the requirement for parental consent.

...the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options
there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present
the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
The doctor must also report the cause of death to the municipal coroner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Burial and Cremation Act. A regional review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria. Depending on its findings, the case will either be closed or, if the conditions are not met, brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor. Finally, the legislation offers an explicit recognition of the validity of a written declaration of will of the patient regarding euthanasia (a "euthanasia directive"). Such declarations can be used when a patient is in a coma or otherwise unable to state if they wish to be euthanized.

Euthanasia remains a criminal offense in cases not meeting the law's specific conditions, with the exception of several situations that are not subject to the restrictions of the law at all, because they are not considered euthanasia but normal medical practice:

stopping or not starting a medically useless (futile) treatment
stopping or not starting a treatment at the patient's request
speeding up death as a side-effect of treatment necessary for alleviating serious suffering
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260
Thinking of getting a DNR tattoo?

QUOTE

March 27, 2018

Beware: Hospitals think ‘do not resuscitate’ means you don’t want to live

When you’re admitted to a hospital, you’re routinely asked if you want to sign a Do Not Resuscitate order. Don’t assume it’ll apply only in extreme circumstances.

New research shows having those three letters — DNR — on your chart could put you on course to getting less medical and nursing care throughout your stay. Fewer MRIs and CT scans, fewer medications, even fewer bedside visits from doctors, according to the Journal of Patient Safety. A DNR could cost you your life.

They misconstrue DNR as Dying Not Recovering.

They even hesitate to put DNR patients in the ICU when they need intensive care.

No wonder patients with DNRs have far worse recovery rates than patients with identical conditions and no DNRs, new findings in Critical Care indicate. Women are especially affected, data show.

END QUOTE

More at the link.
https://nypost.com/2018/03/27/beware-hospitals-think-do-not-resuscitate-means-you-dont-want-to-live/

See also,

DNR Order 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/67123.0/nowap.html
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260
Users would first take an online test to determine whether they were sane. If they cleared the test, they would be sent an access code, valid for 24 hours. They would then get into the capsule, close the door & press a button to have the nitrogen pipe in.

15 April, 2018
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/15/a-euthanasia-expert-just-unveiled-his-suicide-machine-at-an-amsterdam-funeral-fair/?utm_term=.5997ef2fd012

 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
How about this?  I've always liked it.


https://youtu.be/EbmQxZkSswI
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,380
Points
1,160
We're not the Good Guys. Right up there is China's One Child Policy?

It might be comforting to dismiss the Canadian experience as an aberration and Canada as an alien country inhabited by a barbarous people.



Canada's harrowing euthanasia experiment should be a warning to the world
Parliament is now calmly discussing whether disabled children could be euthanised by doctors. In other words, infanticide

YUAN YI ZHU
14 November 2022 • 1:40pm
Yuan Yi Zhu

The representative of the medical regulator spoke in a straightforward, unemotional voice, as though his statements were self-evidently true. Sick children between the ages of 14 and 17, he told the parliamentary committee, should be allowed to choose to commit suicide with medical assistance.

Parents of babies who are born with severe disabilities should be allowed to kill them. Elderly people for whom “life no longer makes any sense” should also be able to end theirs. And so should the mentally ill, and so on and on. Members of the committee ask some follow-up questions, but no one pushes back.

Ever since it burst into the public consciousness almost a year ago, details of Canada’s assisted suicide scheme, known euphemistically as MAiD — medical assistance in dying — have shocked and astonished people around the world in equal measure. Harrowing tales of disabled poor people choosing to end their lives because they could not survive on paltry benefits have since proliferated, as have horror stories of doctors and bureaucrats trying to pressure patients into ending their lives.

Yet the parliamentary committee charged with reviewing the regime seemed to take for granted that access to euthanasia should be expanded to include even more people. The only remaining question will be by how much.

True, there had been warnings that once euthanasia became legal in Canada, its scope would widen rapidly beyond the initial target group of terminally ill people, as had happened in almost every country where it had been legalised. But the Canadian supreme court loftily dismissed these concerns as a “slippery slope” fallacy when it struck down the criminal prohibition on assisting suicide in 2015.

Then a Quebec court ruled that to limit euthanasia access to those whose deaths were “reasonably foreseeable” discriminated against those whose illness were not terminal — euthanasia was, after all, a human right according to the courts.

Fast-forward a few years, and the Canadian parliament is now calmly discussing whether disabled children could be euthanised by doctors. In other words, infanticide. Nor will euthanasia be limited to physical illness: from next year, mental illness will become a qualifying condition. Already, depressed teenagers on social media are speaking about applying to die once they turn 18.

It might be comforting to dismiss the Canadian experience as an aberration and Canada as an alien country inhabited by a barbarous people. But Canada is a country with a culture much like that of the UK, with an overextended healthcare system, a social care system that is perpetually near collapse, a strained exchequer, and an ageing population.

The perverse incentives which led to Canada’s predicament, in other words, are all present in the UK as well. As is the same heightened culture of human rights discourse, whereby any rights-based claim is given automatic deference, and which has made opposition to euthanasia so politically toxic in Canada. No politician, after all, wants to be seen as taking away rights from the people.

Indeed, the cultural centrality of the National Health Service may make the UK an even more fertile ground for abuse. “Protect the NHS” was a powerful unifying message during COVID, but it is not difficult to see how a society in which such a slogan kept people from receiving cancer treatment might also be fertile ground for euthanasia-related abuse.

And one only needs to remember the Liverpool Care Pathway scandal, when elderly patients were denied basic medical care and even food and water without their consent, to see how catastrophic systemic failure may easily happen once again and shorten many lives.

The Scottish Parliament will shortly be debating a bill to legalise euthanasia. Its proponents will make the same usual arguments about choice and autonomy, trot out heart-rending cases, and talk about the ironclad safeguards within their proposed system.

While our sympathies will be with those at the end of their lives suffering from great pain, the Canadian experience should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks euthanasia will be confined to those cases. After all, the idea that the murder of disabled children could become legal was once far-fetched in Canada too.



Conservatism comes in all sorts of shapes.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
757
Points
840
It is only a issue if you view suicide as a sin.

My issue with the arguments against euthanasia is basically we don’t believe people have the right to die usually based off a religious conviction of some sort (life is sacred, etc.).

Personally I tend to fall a lot closer to the Futurama suicide booth set up. To me suicide isn’t always a bad thing and can be honourable in some cases (ex. your becoming a burden and you have no prospects of getting better, etc.). Not to mention I believe its your life therefore you should have the right to end it if you wish.

Most the euthanasia legislation simply provides the option for individuals who wouldn’t be able to on their own or would be forced to do it in a cruel manner.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,380
Points
1,160
It is only a issue if you view suicide as a sin.

My issue with the arguments against euthanasia is basically we don’t believe people have the right to die usually based off a religious conviction of some sort (life is sacred, etc.).

Personally I tend to fall a lot closer to the Futurama suicide booth set up. To me suicide isn’t always a bad thing and can be honourable in some cases (ex. your becoming a burden and you have no prospects of getting better, etc.). Not to mention I believe its your life therefore you should have the right to end it if you wish.

Most the euthanasia legislation simply provides the option for individuals who wouldn’t be able to on their own or would be forced to do it in a cruel manner.

My problem is with "power of attorney", "in loco parentis", "ward of the state".

I can't see inside another mind.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260
See also,

 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,701
Points
1,110
I am an ASIST facilitator and this discussion comes up every time. We try to steer the discussion away from this and towards your "typical" suicidal person.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,759
Points
1,160
The problem is when people start nudging other people and the process is permissive rather than obstructive.

Like in Holland?

Historically, the Netherlands was the first European country to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide by a law passed in 2001. The number of individuals who have been euthanized has grown steadily every year, constituting a worrisome cultural shift, which is especially troubling for the most vulnerable in society.

This report provides an in-depth review of the current situation, including statistical data, existing laws, and laws currently being debated to broaden its scope. This report examines the main ethical infringements observed, demonstrating an increasingly loose interpretation by the supervisory bodies, to the point that even the United Nations is concerned.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands for over 15 years, since the April 12, 2001 law was passed, and came into vigor on April 1, 2002. Historically, the Netherlands was the first European country to authorize euthanasia. Since legalization, euthanasia has more than tripled. The figures presented each year by the regional euthanasia review committees also show an increasing number of infringements, and a looser and looser interpretation of the stipulations of the 2001 law.

Even though the precise conditions established by law have not changed “stricto-sensu”, their very extensive interpretation has created increasingly disputable situations. For example euthanasia on people with psychiatric disorders, dementia, those who are very old, or those suffering from several pathologies, has nothing to do with the initially established legal requirements. Other opinions are being voiced, notably by some doctors who deplore that euthanasia has been trivialized.

While some denounce the infringements of the law, others wish to broaden the conditions of access to euthanasia and the practices. Parliament is being pressured to allow assisted suicide for people over age 70 requesting it, with no other motive but their age and “being tired of life”. Thus, the association “By Free Will” (Uit vrije will) organized a citizen’s initiative petition early in 2010, in order to force a Parliamentary debate. A draft bill tabled by the government in October 2016 is currently being studied.

 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
402
Points
730
They are also making it so children who are considered "mature minors" can get assisted suicide without parents knowledge.

Your 15 year old could go to school and tell someone they are depressed, go to a hospital and commit suicide and you would be left wondering why they didn't come home on time

Madness! :mad:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,759
Points
1,160
They are also making it so children who are considered "mature minors" can get assisted suicide without parents knowledge.

Your 15 year old could go to school and tell someone they are depressed, go to a hospital and commit suicide and you would be left wondering why they didn't come home on time

Madness! :mad:

This article suggests that kids over 12 need 'parental permission', you know, like for the typical school out trip ;)


The Dutch government has approved plans to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children aged between one and 12.

On Tuesday, Health Minister Hugo de Jonge said the rule change would prevent some children from "suffering hopelessly and unbearably".
Euthanasia is currently legal in the Netherlands for children older than 12, with mandatory consent from the patient and their parents.
It is also legal for babies up to a year old with parental consent.

 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,469
Points
1,090
They are also making it so children who are considered "mature minors" can get assisted suicide without parents knowledge.

Your 15 year old could go to school and tell someone they are depressed, go to a hospital and commit suicide and you would be left wondering why they didn't come home on time

Madness! :mad:
Have you reviewed the MAiD processes? Or are you just spewing FUD?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top