Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place
Hosted by Showtalk
Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
- 5001
MEMBERS - 130070
MESSAGES - 4
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
Assisted suicide/euthanizia... The Newsy You: News of Today
Started 11/1/22 by WALTER784; 11088 views.
Staff
From: WALTER784
May-28
The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...
what isn’t true at all is that this is spreading to people with financial vulnerabilities, I can’t pay my bills or have 30,000 in credit card debt so I’m going to get assisted dying is not even at all how that works, that’s how throwing yourself off a bridge works.
That seems to be exactly how it IS going to work in Canada.
Canadian academics write paper arguing in favor of euthanasia for poor people
Considering how rapidly Canada’s suicide regime has grown and the Trudeau government’s determination to expand it further, I think we should treat proposals like this one with deadly seriousness.
Jonathon Van Maren
Sat May 13, 2023 - 6:29 pm EDT
(LifeSiteNews) — As support for assisted suicide in Canada climbs despite an excruciating series of stories reporting that the poor and disabled are opting for lethal injections out of pure desperation, we are witnessing the emergence of a truly post-Christian culture. As a headline in the U.K. magazine The Spectator asked last year: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” The response from some bio-ethicists appears to be: Well, why not?
In fact, a new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. Kayla Wiebe, a PhD candidate in philosophy, and bioethicist Amy Mullin, a philosophy professor, wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics that:
To force people who are already in unjust social circumstances to have to wait until those social circumstances improve, or for the possibility of public charity but unreliably occurs when particularly distressing cases become public, is unacceptable. A harm reduction approach acknowledges that the recommended solution is necessarily an imperfect one: a ‘lesser evil’ between two or more less than ideal options.
The horror stories of Canadians seeking assisted suicide because they cannot get the social assistance they need are “worst-case scenarios,” the bioethicists write. “One way of responding to these cases is, ‘Well, clearly then, medical aid in dying should not be available to them,’” Mullin said in an interview. “We just don’t think the fact that social conditions are contributing to make their lives intolerable means that they don’t have the wherewithal to make that choice. People can make their own determination about whether their lives are worth living, and we should respect that.”
Wiebe and Mullin reject the idea that the circumstances driving Canadians to suicide are coercive, and that refusing to kill them upon request “amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world.” In their view, the best “harm reduction approach” would mean that “the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.”
We are seeing what happens when we redefine words; when suicide and lethal injections can be considered “medical aid” or healthcare at all — bioethicists can write that suicide is “harm reduction” and that offering suicide to those with intolerable social conditions is “the least harmful way forward.” According to Wiebe: “All options on the table are really tragic and said. But the least harmful way forward is to allow people who are competent to make decisions to have access to this choice, even if it’s a terrible one.”
It is easy to mock or dismiss this paper, but keep in mind that a very short amount of time ago euthanasia activists were insisting that nobody was asking for assisted suicide because of their social conditions. Some, it appears, have already moved on to admitting that it is happening and that it should be permitted. Considering how rapidly Canada’s suicide regime has grown and the Trudeau government’s determination to expand it further, I think we should treat proposals like this one with deadly seriousness. Canada has decided to define suicide by lethal injection as healthcare. How can this “healthcare” be justifiably denied to people?
As Yuan Yu Zhu, a Canadian research fellow at Harris Manchester College at Oxford who writes regularly on euthanasia, stated: “It is more than tragic: it is a moral stain on our country, for which future generations will have to atone for.” He is correct. Things are going to get much, much worse before — or I should say if — things get better.
FWIW
Host
From: Showtalk
May-28
They may have written the paper but is anyone listening to them or creating policy based on it? They may be shunned in the scientific community.
Staff
From: WALTER784
May-28
I'm not so sure, they seem to slowly encroach and push the limits of euthanasia further and further as the years pass.
I wouldn't put it past them if they finally went through with this... a few more months and we'll probably see more news on this.
FWIW
Staff
From: WALTER784
Jun-3
Showtalk said...
I doubt it will become commonplace.
Canada is expanding its assisted suicide regime while ignoring a decaying health care system
The reality is that in Canada if you need palliative care and cannot pay for it yourself, you are likely out of luck.
Jonathon Van Maren
Wed May 17, 2023 - 9:30 pm EDT
(LifeSiteNews) – The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) describes itself as an “organization… made up of clinicians who provide MAiD services including assessment for eligibility and provision of MAiD itself.” Interpreted, “MAiD” stand for “Medical Aid in Dying,” the euphemism invented by euthanasia activists when they realized how difficult it was to destigmatize suicide. As journalist Alexander Raikin revealed in his investigation into Canada’s euthanasia practices in The New Atlantis, “No Other Options,” this organization has been decidedly promiscuous in its approval of “patients” eligible for a lethal injection administered by one of their professionals.
With a track record like this, CAMAP is naturally eligible for government funding. As blogger Pat Maloney noted this week, CAMAP received $3,287,996 in government funding in 2021; in 2018, two years after legalization, they’d received only $41,480.
With the number of Canadians requesting euthanasia skyrocketing and the Trudeau government constantly moving the border between those pre-approved for state-sanctioned and -facilitated death and the rest of us, business is booming. If you’re in the death business, you’re making a killing. Maloney also noted that since 2021, CAMAP is a charity (like Dying with Dignity, one of the most dangerous organizations in the country) and some donors have left endorsements:
‘Both of my parents benefited from your work. Thanks!’ – Donor
‘My husband died with dignity thanks to MAiD. I am very thankful that this option was available.’?– Donor
‘I can’t think of a more deserving charity. Count me in as a strong supporter and believer in your charity’s mandate!’ – Donor
‘I can’t possibly thank you enough for your most needed work and compassion.’?– Donor
Read those again, if you will.
How did mom and dad “benefit” from this work, do you think? How do you thank someone for giving your husband a lethal injection? How is a group of people specializing in euthanasia a “deserving charity”? Consider the ghoulishness of donating to a group of people whose entire “mandate” is to end the lives of Canadians – and increasingly, Canadians who would not die if a medical professional had not killed them. When our euthanasia regime is expanded to the mentally ill, the tragedies will be legion. Donating to kill the depressed – what have we become?
If you’re in the death business, you’re making a killing.
Maloney had previously noted that Dying with Dignity was also receiving donations – $1,653,893 in 2021, and $204,655 in federal funds (that is, money taken from the paycheques of Canadians). I’m aware that it isn’t quite accurate to point to one area where the government is burning money by the fistful and then to another desperately under-funded area and demand an explanation for the disparity, but in this case it is difficult not to. Why is the government giving enormous amounts of money to euthanasia groups – not to mention funding abortion at home and overseas – while we seem to be incapable of expanding the number of palliative beds during a crisis shortage?
The reality is that in Canada if you need palliative care and cannot pay for it yourself, you are likely out of luck. If you need mental health assistance, you’ll be put on a waiting list. If you need disability assistance, it is incredibly difficult to obtain. Some of those shortages are staffing shortages. Some of those shortages are funding shortages and government bureaucracy. Because as one disabled Canadian currently applying for MAiD told me, the Trudeau government is eager to expand access to euthanasia – but seems intent on ignoring the desperate cries for help coming from the vulnerable and the pleas of the disability and mental health community. When we consider those facts for a minute, what conclusion, exactly, are we supposed to draw?
Canada is expanding its assisted suicide regime while ignoring a decayin...[Message truncated]
Host
From: Showtalk
Jun-3
It covers up the lack of money spent on medical care as a result of those who are denied expensive life saving medical treatment.
Staff
From: WALTER784
Jun-3
Yep...
Hiding their footprints under the auspices of assisted suicide.
FWIW
TOP