Canadian parliament passes assisted suicide bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:41:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Canadian parliament passes assisted suicide bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Canadian parliament passes assisted suicide bill  (Read 1989 times)
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 18, 2016, 07:27:36 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36566214?SThisFB

Assisted suicide may cause me to change my position on abortion. I've long been moderately pro-choice out of ambivalence, but now I realize that abortion on demand was just the first domino. I know the West Coast states already legalized it, but this was a supposedly conservative Senate capitulating to a radical secular humanist agenda. It's going to gain traction at the federal level here next.

Who decides who is eligible for "assisted suicide"? The government does, regardless of whether a doctor signs off on it or not. When government passes laws that determine who can live and who can die, it is the deification of government and an affront to liberalism. We don't loan power to the government so that they usurp the sovereignty of our creator. It is not inconceivable that this road leads to literal death panels for disabled people whose families do not want to take care of them. When the left in Canada wins, it emboldens the left in America, and I have to draw the line here. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2016, 07:37:31 PM »

This has majority support in Canada, so it's not going to be controversial.

As for the Tory senate, we're talking about a group where barely half of its caucus can be mustered up to try to ban sex selective abortion, let alone anything that would be considered "pro-life" in the states.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2016, 07:49:53 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 07:53:29 PM by New Canadaland »

I haven't been paying too much to this case, but there is a significant chance that the Supreme court (which ruled in favour of euthenasia under Harper) could strike this down as being too restrictive.

If so that may be why the senate rushed to approve it; from a socon perspective they might just have been happy that the Liberals chose to water it down.

Edit: It seems like what I said is true. More Liberal senators voted against it than Conservative senators because they preferred a more liberal bill. Trudeau did mention that they would build on this bill, so maybe he's going for an incrementalist approach.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2016, 07:55:30 PM »

Okay, but none of that changes the point I was making. By passing such laws, the government is, by definition, dictating who can live and die. That is an affront to liberalism.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2016, 07:59:15 PM »

the government is, by definition, dictating who can live and die. That is an affront to liberalism.
I agree that "dictating who can live and die" is an affront to liberalism, but to me euthanasia doesn't fall under that umbrella because it is voluntary. The government isn't deciding, it's just leaving the choice up to the person.

Where as, say, the death penalty is an affront to liberalism to me because the government is literally deciding somebody should die.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2016, 08:04:55 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 08:24:50 PM by Santander »

the government is, by definition, dictating who can live and die. That is an affront to liberalism.
I agree that "dictating who can live and die" is an affront to liberalism, but to me euthanasia doesn't fall under that umbrella because it is voluntary. The government isn't deciding, it's just leaving the choice up to the person.

Where as, say, the death penalty is an affront to liberalism to me because the government is literally deciding somebody should die.
Okay, the government isn't literally telling people to kill themselves. However, suicide remains illegal in Canada. By deciding which individuals have this right and which individuals do not, the government is defining who can live and die.

(I don't support the death penalty either, other than as a deterrent for extremely serious military offenses)
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2016, 08:16:23 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 08:20:35 PM by New Canadaland »

The morality of assisted suicide vs suicide is a bit difficult to answer for me considering I don't think suicide should be legal.

In my opinion, the main reason assisted suicide is more acceptable is because we believe that a terminally ill patient that is on expensive life support has better cause for ending their life than some depressed teenager. We're giving these patients want in a way that reduces the strain on the system.

I'm not the right person to make a moral argument for assisted suicide. I don't think it's the right cause for the left to get caught up over. I'm actually surprised at how fast it became morally accepted in Canada.

As for:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This isn't really a victory for the left, considering that it's so watered down that it drew more opposition from Liberals than Conservatives. The actual "victory" for the left came a couple years ago as opposition to euthanasia started vanishing.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2016, 08:40:04 PM »

I'm with Santander on this one. I'm deeply concerned and unhappy about this. I'd be even more concerned and unhappy if this included acceptance of the Groningen Protocol, which provides a legal framework for implicating parents in the deaths of their children.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2016, 09:32:28 PM »

I'm glad people who are suffering in agonizing pain with no possibility of recovery can choose a dignified way out instead of being forced to suffer because "muh morals"

FF move.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2016, 09:42:29 PM »

Is this really a priority right now? Trudeau should focus on a lot of other issues before getting to this.

Repealing half the laws passed between January 2006 and October 2015 would be a nice place to start.

Also, Yukon and the Northwest Territories should merge, that should have been done as soon as Nunavut was created.

Also they need to resolve that oil pipeline being built towards the northern British Columbia coast. I can't decide which is more important, the Canadian Oil that would flow from there, further impoverishing Saudi Arabia, or protecting one of the most beautiful regions in North America from environment-destroying oil companies. Decisions, decisions.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2016, 09:52:26 PM »

Is this really a priority right now? Trudeau should focus on a lot of other issues before getting to this.

Repealing half the laws passed between January 2006 and October 2015 would be a nice place to start.

Also, Yukon and the Northwest Territories should merge, that should have been done as soon as Nunavut was created.

Also they need to resolve that oil pipeline being built towards the northern British Columbia coast. I can't decide which is more important, the Canadian Oil that would flow from there, further impoverishing Saudi Arabia, or protecting one of the most beautiful regions in North America from environment-destroying oil companies. Decisions, decisions.

But, but it's 2016!
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2016, 10:10:54 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36566214?SThisFB

Assisted suicide may cause me to change my position on abortion. I've long been moderately pro-choice out of ambivalence, but now I realize that abortion on demand was just the first domino. I know the West Coast states already legalized it, but this was a supposedly conservative Senate capitulating to a radical secular humanist agenda. It's going to gain traction at the federal level here next.

Who decides who is eligible for "assisted suicide"? The government does, regardless of whether a doctor signs off on it or not. When government passes laws that determine who can live and who can die, it is the deification of government and an affront to liberalism. We don't loan power to the government so that they usurp the sovereignty of our creator. It is not inconceivable that this road leads to literal death panels for disabled people whose families do not want to take care of them. When the left in Canada wins, it emboldens the left in America, and I have to draw the line here. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

Can't people just kill themselves anyway in messier ways with a handgun or a bottle of pills?  If so, how is allowing them to do it with the assistance of a doctor an affront to liberalism?  Wouldn't liberalism say that people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies?

Is your point that you are afraid the government will start pressuring terminal people to kill themselves, I guess?

I have ambivalent feelings about both, but I'm much more in favor of assisted suicide than abortion.  I think assisted suicide is pretty sad for anyone not in extreme pain, but I don't know that there is a big imperative here for the state to take away someone's right to self-determination, like there is with so many other issues.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2016, 10:44:21 PM »

Also, I'm not sure what 'muh morals' is supposed to indicate here, other than 'a shorthand for any or all of the various reasons one might have qualms about assisted suicide'.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2016, 10:54:05 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 10:55:45 PM by Santander »

Can't people just kill themselves anyway in messier ways with a handgun or a bottle of pills?  If so, how is allowing them to do it with the assistance of a doctor an affront to liberalism?  Wouldn't liberalism say that people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies?

Is your point that you are afraid the government will start pressuring terminal people to kill themselves, I guess?

I have ambivalent feelings about both, but I'm much more in favor of assisted suicide than abortion.  I think assisted suicide is pretty sad for anyone not in extreme pain, but I don't know that there is a big imperative here for the state to take away someone's right to self-determination, like there is with so many other issues.
Liberalism, to me, means a belief that society and government should be built around individuals. That doesn't mean that we should not respect social norms or established standards of morality. Perhaps a libertarian society could justify suicide (of any sort) by saying people have a right to do what they want to themselves, but I don't think that is a valid justification for legalizing assisted suicide under liberalism.

Suicide laws don't prevent people from killing themselves. Suicide laws exist partly to codify established social norms. When someone tells you that they want to end their life, social norms demand that you protect that person, not volunteer to clean up the mess. The government legalizing assisted suicide sets a precedent, both in law and morality, that the destruction of human life is okay under certain circumstances, and that the government has the right to define those conditions. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Logged
Edu
Ufokart
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865
Argentina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2016, 11:53:26 PM »

Suicide laws don't prevent people from killing themselves. Suicide laws exist partly to codify established social norms.

From what I read, suicide (or attempting suicide) hasn't been illegal in canada for quite a while:

"The common law crimes of attempting suicide and of assisting suicide were codified in Canada when Parliament enacted the Criminal Code in 1892.[7] Eighty years later, in 1972, Parliament repealed the offence of attempting suicide from the Criminal Code based on the argument that a legal deterrent was unnecessary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#Canada
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2016, 11:56:32 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 11:58:54 PM by RaphaelDLG »

Can't people just kill themselves anyway in messier ways with a handgun or a bottle of pills?  If so, how is allowing them to do it with the assistance of a doctor an affront to liberalism?  Wouldn't liberalism say that people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies?

Is your point that you are afraid the government will start pressuring terminal people to kill themselves, I guess?

I have ambivalent feelings about both, but I'm much more in favor of assisted suicide than abortion.  I think assisted suicide is pretty sad for anyone not in extreme pain, but I don't know that there is a big imperative here for the state to take away someone's right to self-determination, like there is with so many other issues.
Liberalism, to me, means a belief that society and government should be built around individuals. That doesn't mean that we should not respect social norms or established standards of morality. Perhaps a libertarian society could justify suicide (of any sort) by saying people have a right to do what they want to themselves, but I don't think that is a valid justification for legalizing assisted suicide under liberalism.

Suicide laws don't prevent people from killing themselves. Suicide laws exist partly to codify established social norms. When someone tells you that they want to end their life, social norms demand that you protect that person, not volunteer to clean up the mess. The government legalizing assisted suicide sets a precedent, both in law and morality, that the destruction of human life is okay under certain circumstances, and that the government has the right to define those conditions. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Remind me, are you also okay with the death penalty?  That would be an example of the state setting a strong precedent that the destruction of human life is okay under certain circumstances, and that the government has the right to define those conditions.

What about the current reckless extrajudicial killings of anonymous noncombatants?

Is this a slippery slope argument, or a blanket prohibition against the destruction of human life?

(There isn't meant to be a ton of sarcasm implied in my above questions, FYI)

ETA:
Also, personally, I'm not in favor of a mommy state because I think there are some holy norms that we need to promote, I'm in favor a mommy state because I think there are certain outcomes that the state needs to try to promote regardless of how we get there (everyone has some privacy, ability to be themselves, ability to thrive and be happy, to contribute to their community, to live in peace, etc).  Though maybe that's a semantic difference, and maybe if you examined the full range of my political opinions, it'd reveal that I'm talking hypocritically RN.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2016, 12:00:42 AM »

Is this really a priority right now? Trudeau should focus on a lot of other issues before getting to this.

Government had no choice, Supreme Court gave until June to the government to write a new law or it would have been plainly stuck down.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2016, 07:37:20 AM »

This has majority support in Canada, so it's not going to be controversial.

As this forum's resident pollster, I can confirm this. It's not just a majority, but an overwhelming (surprising, even) majority. This is fairly uncontroversial. The only people who are opposing it are pro-life nutjobs* (and I'm not talking about anti-abortion people here) and people who don't think the bill goes far enough (and are opposing it out of spite).

* From anecdotal evidence, these people come from across the spectrum, kind of like the anti-vaxxer crowd.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2016, 11:53:55 AM »

Also, I'm not sure what 'muh morals' is supposed to indicate here, other than 'a shorthand for any or all of the various reasons one might have qualms about assisted suicide'.

Because, like opposition to abortion it is moral grandstanding. You aren't offering a solution to a very real and very tangible act of suffering that a human being is going through and requires release from. Instead wheels are left spinning; you doubt the intent of the state, you doubt the intent of the family, you doubt the intent and the state of mind of the person who is suffering.

Instead you elevate (and even you do this) the physical over the psychological. Is a man the sum of his thoughts, or the vessel in which his thoughts reside? What are you preserving, what are you protecting and defending him from. Himself? Is that your responsibility? 

Why should someone be forced to live with intractable pain, whether physical or psychological? And if it's not moral grandstanding, could you go to someones bed and look into their eyes and no matter how much they sweat, or cry, or shy from touch, of if their heart pounds or their concentration wanes, could would tell them 'no'? It's inhuman.

And if you were the master of this, if you were in some position where you held the power of life and death in a nefarious manner, in a controlled situation, in a time of war or battle, what sort of torturer would you make? Would you be the one who lets them die? Or would you be the one that only stops at death?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2016, 01:18:30 PM »
« Edited: June 19, 2016, 04:11:32 PM by Poo-tee-weet? »

I know this is, like, my solution to everything, but I'd have a lot of sympathy for some sort of affirmative defense of...maybe not necessity, necessarily, but something similar in malpractice or wrongful death suits in which a doctor has agreed to help somebody who's suffering without hope end their life. I'd still have personal qualms about that situation but would probably be comfortable jerry-rigging some sort of ad hoc way of accepting that these things happen and I wouldn't think it would (necessarily) set or further sociologically, legally, or morally unacceptable precedents. What I'm more roundly opposed to is institutionalizing those situations as a 'normal' part of medical practice, partly since I'm--and I recognize you may find this deeply weird or even repugnant--taking a rather 'doctor-side' approach to this issue. I'm not invested in this to enforce some sort of ironclad rule that one mustn't ever decide to die. (For one thing, I think the boundary between suicide and martyrdom is too subjective and porous for me to sincerely commit to that. Also, my current username is a Kurt Vonnegut reference; I'm familiar with the admirable and morally serious body of thought and literature surrounding these issues beyond the 'muh morals'/'muh autonomy' dichotomy--which I think, or want to think, can be shown to be a false dichotomy much of the time.)

Of course my preferred solution only works in common law countries and I'm not sure how to resolve that. In the case of Canada I'm not sure how it would apply or fail to apply to Quebec.

I'm taking a bioethics class in the fall and would love to revisit this issue (and abortion tbh) once I have. I'm open to having my ideas on appropriate legal and professional standards change, although I doubt my personally preferred forms of moral grandstanding will; elements of the way the culture of chronic and end-of-life care often changes in countries that legalize assisted suicide personally scare me as a disabled person too much for that.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2016, 05:30:37 PM »

As this forum's resident pollster, I can confirm this. It's not just a majority, but an overwhelming (surprising, even) majority. This is fairly uncontroversial. The only people who are opposing it are pro-life nutjobs* (and I'm not talking about anti-abortion people here) and people who don't think the bill goes far enough (and are opposing it out of spite).
How is it a nutjob position to have reservations about allowing government to dictate under what circumstances ending your life is okay or not?

Because, like opposition to abortion it is moral grandstanding. You aren't offering a solution to a very real and very tangible act of suffering that a human being is going through and requires release from. Instead wheels are left spinning; you doubt the intent of the state, you doubt the intent of the family, you doubt the intent and the state of mind of the person who is suffering.
Except it's not moral grandstanding. This is equal parts a morality and freedom issue. This is government stepping into territory which is normally considered out of bounds in a liberal democracy.  It has nothing to do with the intent of the state and everything to do with where the state belongs in the lives of individuals.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2016, 05:40:23 PM »

As this forum's resident pollster, I can confirm this. It's not just a majority, but an overwhelming (surprising, even) majority. This is fairly uncontroversial. The only people who are opposing it are pro-life nutjobs* (and I'm not talking about anti-abortion people here) and people who don't think the bill goes far enough (and are opposing it out of spite).
How is it a nutjob position to have reservations about allowing government to dictate under what circumstances ending your life is okay or not?

Because, like opposition to abortion it is moral grandstanding. You aren't offering a solution to a very real and very tangible act of suffering that a human being is going through and requires release from. Instead wheels are left spinning; you doubt the intent of the state, you doubt the intent of the family, you doubt the intent and the state of mind of the person who is suffering.
Except it's not moral grandstanding. This is equal parts a morality and freedom issue. This is government stepping into territory which is normally considered out of bounds in a liberal democracy.  It has nothing to do with the intent of the state and everything to do with where the state belongs in the lives of individuals.

But it is. If the state does not legislate to allow it or to not prosecute those who assist with it, then the individual has no freedom of choice of personal end of life matters.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2016, 06:04:15 PM »

But it is. If the state does not legislate to allow it or to not prosecute those who assist with it, then the individual has no freedom of choice of personal end of life matters.
Unless the state allows for unrestricted assistance of suicide (which would be a moral issue), it is choosing who is and who is not eligible for assisted suicide, which is way outside of the role of government. A prohibition on assisted suicide may not be perfect, but it is the only way to avoid the discrimination and deification of government of restricted assisted suicide and the obvious moral and practical issues of unrestricted assisted suicide.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2016, 06:38:49 PM »

As this forum's resident pollster, I can confirm this. It's not just a majority, but an overwhelming (surprising, even) majority. This is fairly uncontroversial. The only people who are opposing it are pro-life nutjobs* (and I'm not talking about anti-abortion people here) and people who don't think the bill goes far enough (and are opposing it out of spite).
How is it a nutjob position to have reservations about allowing government to dictate under what circumstances ending your life is okay or not?


It's not.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2016, 09:38:52 PM »

But it is. If the state does not legislate to allow it or to not prosecute those who assist with it, then the individual has no freedom of choice of personal end of life matters.
Unless the state allows for unrestricted assistance of suicide (which would be a moral issue), it is choosing who is and who is not eligible for assisted suicide, which is way outside of the role of government. A prohibition on assisted suicide may not be perfect, but it is the only way to avoid the discrimination and deification of government of restricted assisted suicide and the obvious moral and practical issues of unrestricted assisted suicide.

As long as the patient in question retains complete autonomy over the matter, it's quite a stretch to suggest this would be an instance of the government deciding who lives and who dies; rather, it's whether the doctor should be prosecuted for fulfilling the desires of their patient, who of course could easily seek alternative (and arguably more destructive or ineffective) methods of suicide.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.