Supreme Court of Canada overturns ban on doctor assisted suicide

[Hugh Jahrmes]

If PETA can go around breaking puppies necks under the belief a life of servitude as a pet is not worth living, it's about damn time we allow individuals of sound mind, but physically unable to act out the process themselves, a graceful exit.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The law struck down was in place well before the Harper Government took power, but nice attempt anyways?

When it comes to anti-Conservative trolling, Clay never lets facts get in the way.

Ironically, that makes him much closer to that he hates than he thinks,

[Bunk]

It always struck me as odd that we allow pets to die humanely when suffering, but not humans.

[Resolute 14]

Re: life insurance payouts, I expect the insurance companies would flatly refuse to pay, and I expect someone would turn around and sue over it. Where the courts go from there, no idea.

[Bunk]

I also find the slippery-slope argument against doctor-assisted suicide really flimsy as well. As if doctors and people are just going to go about killing people willy-nilly. It seems there are pretty straight-forward limitations and protections that can be put in place to prevent (very likely extraordinarily rare) cases of potential abuse.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Re: life insurance payouts, I expect the insurance companies would flatly refuse to pay, and I expect someone would turn around and sue over it. Where the courts go from there, no idea.

Obviously the Canadian situation could end up differently, but there must be a precedent for this in other jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide is legal, no? How are life insurance claims for terminally-ill patients who choose to end their lives handled in Oregon and the Netherlands?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When it comes to anti-Conservative trolling, Clay never lets facts get in the way.

Ironically, that makes him much closer to that he hates than he thinks,

Please. The Harper Government is strongly against this ruling (as is their base). It's a loss for them no matter how you slice it. As mentioned by others already, they'll try and find a way to work around this ruling to keep this illegal. And it'll become an election issue which they also don't want because the majority is against them.

[troutman]

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I also find the slippery-slope argument against doctor-assisted suicide really flimsy as well. As if doctors and people are just going to go about killing people willy-nilly. It seems there are pretty straight-forward limitations and protections that can be put in place to prevent (very likely extraordinarily rare) cases of potential abuse.

The slippery slope argument gains traction, IMO, from the notion of where do we draw the line on what can be treated (for the lack of a better word) in this fashion. In other words, why is one disease eligible for doctor assisted suicide and another is not when the patient could be in the same amount of pain and suffering as another individual. One thing to remember as well is some people have a higher pain threshold than others.

While in university I wrote a paper on euthanasia and I came to the conclusion that there was not a good scholarly argument for euthanasia. Generally the argument for doctor assisted suicide boils down to having compassion for the patient suffering from the terminal illness. Having compassion for others is a good thing; however, I do not believe compassion should be the sole reason for enacting policy.

You could make an economic argument for doctor assisted suicide, i.e. it is cheaper to kill them than to treat them, but that is just horrible and only something a monster would consider.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My prediction is The Harper Government will treat this exactly the same as they did with their prostitution bill from last year: that is, essentially ignore the Supreme Court ruling and table a new law that doesn't address the issues the SC told them to fix. I wouldn't expect anything to change on this issue until either this government is replaced or Harper's new, as-yet-unwritten law is also struck down by the SC.

Canadians (including their base of grey-hairs) are firmly in favor of this. It is always a cold, hard calculation of votes for the Conservatives, and I suspect any legislation that seeks to circumvent this decision would result in a net loss of votes for them.

I think the most likely scenario is they'll punt until after the election though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Please. The Harper Government is strongly against this ruling (as is their base). It's a loss for them no matter how you slice it. As mentioned by others already, they'll try and find a way to work around this ruling to keep this illegal. And it'll become an election issue which they also don't want because the majority is against them.

Speaking as part of their base, I am not against this ruling. And the high percentage of Canadians who support doctor assisted suicide in some form necessitates the fact that a very significant percentage of the Conservative base supports it.

But don't let that stop you from wielding your typically wide brush. Because whether you want to admit it or not, you will bend or break facts as they suit you.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Insurance for illness would cover treatment, I think that you can buy terminal illness insurance.

But I doubt that an insurance company is ever going to cover suicide, it opens way to many way to game the system in terms of death for profit.

As noted above, life insurance has always paid out for suicide if it occurs more than 2 years after policy initiation.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When it comes to anti-Conservative trolling, Clay never lets facts get in the way.

Ironically, that makes him much closer to that he hates than he thinks,

Its an easy mistake to make considering the amount of times the Supreme Court has had to make a ruling against this current government.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Speaking as part of their base, I am not against this ruling. And the high percentage of Canadians who support doctor assisted suicide in some form necessitates the fact that a very significant percentage of the Conservative base supports it.

But don't let that stop you from wielding your typically wide brush. Because whether you want to admit it or not, you will bend or break facts as they suit you.

So you're telling me the vast majority of CPC supporters approve of this? Considering they make up the vast majority of Canadians opposed to this, I seriously doubt it. And don't spin it otherwise, if 35% of Canadians are against this, 90% of that 35% are CPC supporters. Their base is generally pro-life, this obviously is counter to that.

This is not a good thing for Conservative no matter how much you try and say otherwise. They aren't celebrating this at all and are not happy with it because it will become an election issue and they'd rather not have this election based on social issues in any way because they most likely lose in that scenario.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're telling me the vast majority of CPC supporters approve of this? Considering they make up the vast majority of Canadians opposed to this, I seriously doubt it. And don't spin it otherwise, if 35% of Canadians are against this, 90% of that 35% are CPC supporters. Their base is generally pro-life, this obviously is counter to that.

This is not a good thing for Conservative no matter how much you try and say otherwise. They aren't celebrating this at all and are not happy with it because it will become an election issue and they'd rather not have this election based on social issues in any way because they most likely lose in that scenario.

Right. The conservatives lost the last election because the Liberal Parties prostitution law was struck down in court? And they will lose the next one because the Liberal Parties doctor assisted suicide ban was struck down in court as well?

This is a minor issue to most Canadians, and the Conservatives will honor the decision of the Supreme Court, which is exactly what most Canadians expect, by proposing new legislation next year. They will also be the best party to guide the economy, which is the number one priority of Canadians.

As another Conservative supporter, I also support the Supreme Courts' decision. It's high time we codify what is an already happening, and little talked about practice in our country.

[bigtmac19]

My policy will cover death by suicide as long as the suicide wasn't within the first two years of the policy date.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that insurance would cover assisted suicide in any form. That's a huge pandora's box.

I think this is a positive first step, but I would have to understand the frame work of what defines the ability to go through with this.

I don't think mental health issues should be something that should be on the list of reasons to die.

I would have to understand what extreme suffering involves, I would also have to understand how they can define the choice of the individual versus the choice of a family for example.

Man, this comment shows just how far we still have to go before mental illnesses are treated with the same compassion we treat physical illnesses. If you've been suffering from crippling, soul-sucking, debilitating depression with no end in site for a few decades, I don't understand what you think gives you the right to say, "sorry, you have to hang in there for another 25 years."

I absolutely think mental illnesses should qualify for doctor-assisted suicide in the same way and under similar criteria as physical illnesses qualify.

It would be much nicer for somebody to go through a doctor and the closure process of assisted suicide (which may actually lead to positive help, if available!) than to go to their garage with a rope for their wife to find them hanging.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Man, this comment shows just how far we still have to go before mental illnesses are treated with the same compassion we treat physical illnesses. If you've been suffering from crippling, soul-sucking, debilitating depression with no end in site for a few decades, I don't understand what you think gives you the right to say, "sorry, you have to hang in there for another 25 years."

I absolutely think mental illnesses should qualify for doctor-assisted suicide in the same way and under similar criteria as physical illnesses qualify.

It would be much nicer for somebody to go through a doctor and the closure process of assisted suicide (which may actually lead to positive help, if available!) than to go to their garage with a rope for their wife to find them hanging.

This is an honest question.

Is depression curable/controlable with treatment?

For me that is the bench mark, if the disease is curable then I am not sure that it would qualify.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that insurance would cover assisted suicide in any form. That's a huge pandora's box.

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Might be a weird question, but does anyone know if life insurance is paid out for assisted suicide or I guess suicide in general?

Life insurance policies have a two-year suicide clause. They pay out after two years. I doubt it will be different with assisted suicide, although insurers won't have considered this yet.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This is an honest question.

Is depression curable/controlable with treatment?

For me that is the bench mark, if the disease is curable then I am not sure that it would qualify.

I honestly don't know, man. In some cases it doesn't seem to be. I think some people can live in abject misery for way too long, though. It would be nice for them to have a humane, dignified way to take their final bow rather than in a way that must feel shameful/sad/scary/lonely/etc.