[stratos]

$1:

Click on the 'listen' button. It's a long program, but it will show you the care and attention that goes into these decisions.

Maybe this weekend if I get a chance. Doing a 12hr shift right now. Thanks though, if it is an option and or part of the treatment plan I hope people do take advantage of it.

Didn't we have a thread on this topic about a month ago?

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

Didn't we have a thread on this topic about a month ago?

Yes. There is a certain portion of the population that somehow thinks we are all going to get Logan's Runned.

[raydan]

Like the Poppy thread, it just keeps coming back, and back, and back.

[stratos]

[uwish]

I have many friends who work in the health care field. They all told me the rules were too restrictive and many people would die a miserable death while 'waiting' for assisted option approval. I believe an Oncologist more than the gov or general population, if she says people are still suffering I believe her, she sees death every day.

I think it is time we get off our high horse and realize that under the specific conditions that qualify, it is the right thing to do.

[maldonsfecht]

I always think of this scene when reading threads like this one:

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But, since we're on the topic, of everyone having access to euthanasia, are you also in favour of the gov't mandating doctors and hospitals to carry out this procedure on request or lose funding, even if it violates a personal religious or ethical position?

Another ridiculous lie! GET THE FACTS

NOBODY is being mandated by government to carry out the procedure

Nobody said anyone was "mandating the gov't to carry out the procedure" the gov't is funding the doctors and making the rules which means they mandate who can and can't receive the procedure. My concern is that the gov't being the gov't will listen to the groups that yell the loudest people and there are groups out there that want everyone mentally or physically healthy and capable to have the right of a gov't funded suicide.


Because if they start to shift in that direction which they appear to already have, it's the beginning of us becoming like the Dutch who if you'd read the link would have noticed have allowed children to decide if they want assisted suicides, allowed doctors to make the decision for comatose patients who, had in the past expressed a desire to be euthanized.

But here was what I considered the first shot in the war on the current Canadian euthanasia laws.

$1:

The physician said he fully supports the rights of medical professionals to decline to assist in a death for reasons of conscience.

“However, it is completely unacceptable for a bricks-and-mortar, publicly funded health-care institution to claim a right to conscientious objection while denying dying patients in its care a rightful treatment option,” he said.

So this clown thinks that it's perfectly fine for a gov't funded medical professionals to choose whether to perform the procedure or not based on reasons of conscience. But, when it comes to a gov't funded facility, it's not okay and they should do what they're told and their reasons of conscience be damned?

$1:

Last week, Dying With Dignity Canada called on Premier Christy Clark — as well as the premiers of Ontario and Alberta — to remove barriers to access to medically assisted deaths. B.C. has a smattering of publicly funded hospitals, hospices and long-term care homes that forbid medically assisted dying on site.

St. Joseph’s is the only such faith-based facility on Vancouver Island, Island Health said.

Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, said patients should have equal end-of-life care options across Canada: “They should not have to endure the hardship or the indignity of having to leave their hospital, and perhaps even their community, to exercise what is their right to a peaceful death.”

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/loca ... -1.2368240

Guess what they want? It's to force hospitals like St. Joseph's to perform procedures that directly violate their ethical or religious beliefs and yet some people have no problem with that because "they're gov't funded".

Go back and read the other threads. Because your excuse that I'm arguing this point is because I hate Trudeau is wrong. I hate Trudeau a fact which is irrefutable but, I also took this position long before he became PM which means your accusation is completely inaccurate or a lie.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Guess what they want? It's to force hospitals like St. Joseph's to perform procedures that directly violate their ethical or religious beliefs and yet some people have no problem with that because "they're gov't funded".

If you accept public funds, you serve the Public. It's no different if you are a police officer, public official or hospital. If the Supreme Court says people have a fundamental right to end their own suffering, every public institution will abide by that.

If you want to run a Catholic Hospital without public funding, then you can decline based on conscious.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Guess what they want? It's to force hospitals like St. Joseph's to perform procedures that directly violate their ethical or religious beliefs and yet some people have no problem with that because "they're gov't funded".

If you accept public funds, you serve the Public. It's no different if you are a police officer, public official or hospital. If the Supreme Court says people have a fundamental right to end their own suffering, every public institution will abide by that.

If you want to run a Catholic Hospital without public funding, then you can decline based on conscious.

Bingo!

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Guess what they want? It's to force hospitals like St. Joseph's to perform procedures that directly violate their ethical or religious beliefs and yet some people have no problem with that because "they're gov't funded".

If you accept public funds, you serve the Public. It's no different if you are a police officer, public official or hospital. If the Supreme Court says people have a fundamental right to end their own suffering, every public institution will abide by that.

If you want to run a Catholic Hospital without public funding, then you can decline based on conscious.

And so it starts.

You really ought to read this before deciding that religious facilities should be cut off from funding for not doing what you want. These organizations were footing the bill in the health care field long before there was a Gov't Funded Health Care System and in some cases before there was a Canadian gov't.

https://bccatholic.ca/news/canada/histo ... atholicism

$1:

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world.[1] It has around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 percent of them located in developing countries.[2] In 2010, the Church's Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Care Workers said that the Church manages 26% of the world's health care facilities.[3] The Church's involvement in health care has ancient origins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_ ... ealth_care

Although I did notice that you didn't mention medical professionals in your post. Is that because you think they shouldn't be forced to carry out something they don't agree with or you just forgot them in your attack on the Catholic Churches stance on this.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=59&p=2360291

The one thing I will say is that, if you want a medically assisted suicide, don't pick a Catholic hospital and then, try and make it about their religious beliefs trumping your right to die when they don't accommodate you. There are more than enough facilities around that would happily cater to your requests so picking the one who won't is pretty much akin to asking someone to bake you a Gay Wedding Cake when you know they won't.

Unfortunately for the Sister in these hospitals, they don't pick and choose who comes through the door based on religion so, they're going to be under constant attack from people who want to make them do things that violate their religious beliefs.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Guess what they want? It's to force hospitals like St. Joseph's to perform procedures that directly violate their ethical or religious beliefs and yet some people have no problem with that because "they're gov't funded".

If you accept public funds, you serve the Public. It's no different if you are a police officer, public official or hospital. If the Supreme Court says people have a fundamental right to end their own suffering, every public institution will abide by that.

If you want to run a Catholic Hospital without public funding, then you can decline based on conscious.

And so it starts.

You really ought to read this before deciding that religious facilities should be cut off from funding for not doing what you want. These organizations were footing the bill in the health care field long before there was a Gov't Funded Health Care System and in some cases before there was a Canadian gov't.

https://bccatholic.ca/news/canada/histo ... atholicism

I am aware of the history. But it's 2020 now.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Although I did notice that you didn't mention medical professionals in your post. Is that because you think they shouldn't be forced to carry out something they don't agree with or you just forgot them in your attack on the Catholic Churches stance on this.

You saw that as an attack? Interesting. I was only stating the facts. I am glad though that even though I forgot to mention a totally random thing in my attack, that you didn't automatically assume you knew my thoughts on the doctors that perform MAID.

Legislation for medical professionals specifically says that they don't have to do any procedure they are not comfortable with, whether that is abortion, circumcision or MAID. There are enough doctors who are willing to help patients with their suffering to counter balance the ones who have issues helping people die. And I am good with that.

[stratos]

A curious question. Is attempted suicide something that the police will take a person away and have him/her evaluated for 24hrs at a hospital? If so does that not violate the right to die law(?). At least by the spirt of the law you are discussing.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

A curious question. Is attempted suicide something that the police will take a person away and have him/her evaluated for 24hrs at a hospital?

I believe they will, yes.

stratos stratos:

If so does that not violate the right to die law(?). At least by the spirt of the law you are discussing.

No, it doesn't.

The laws regarding MAID are very detailed, and the process is long and done so that the wishes of the patient are very clear. It's not like you can walk into a hospital and ask for a needle to kill yourself.

If someone is trying to kill them self, and failing, it may be a mental health issue, not a MAID issue.

[stratos]

Okay, just wanted to check.

[uwish]

I know there were some physicians who would not only did not want to assist with euthanasia but they were also refusing to refer them to a doc who would. I do have an issue with that, it is one thing to say I won't help, but to not refer them to one that will is plain BS.