B.C. judge rules assisted suicide should be legal

Great news

Excellent.

Judges who legislate from the bench should be removed from the bench. What do you need a Parliament for if your judges are going to dictate your laws to you?

That's the way our system works. Parliament makes laws, Judges weigh them against the Constitution, Charter and existing laws. If a (Federal/Provincial) Supreme Court Judge rules a law unconstitutional, Parliament can fix it or the ruling stands as it's own law.

This law was declared unconstitutional, so now Parliament will have to fix it according to the Judges ruling, or let the ruling stand as law.

Good - it's not right that someone else can impose their morality upon me should I come down with a terminal disease. Just as the state has no right intruding in the bedroom, they have no right intruding at the bedside of terminally ill patient.

Most people, Christians included, don't seem to like hearing about cases of Sharia Law, but IMHO, this isn't that much different, because Christians are imposing their own religious code upon society.

If I choose to end my life - or get/not get a flu vaccination - or get/not get a blood transfusion - as an adult, it is my right to choose what I want, not the state's.

There's the rub, "If I choose". Once euthanasia is legal then the matter of the choice will become semantic and Canada will join the Netherlands in performing 'involuntary euthanasia' which is also known as murder.

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/si ... ackground/

Logical fallicy: Slippery Slope argument.

I always laugh really really hard when I read shit like that

As long as there are no rules and regs around abortion, I don't think anyone is going anywhere

Well, based on my own experience, I'll take that chance.

The doctor overseeing my father last year fought and fought to keep him alive when my father wanted to die. He actually screamed out several times, "Stop! I want to die already!" Of course, it wasn't the doctor who was slowly drowning as pneumonia filled my dad's lungs with water, so it was easy for him to make the decision to keep on trying, instead of letting my dad go peacefully in his sleep as he had asked for several times (and we as his children supported).

Instead, he was woken up several times and forced to suffer indignity and pain over and over again when they tried their intrusive efforts to save him and suffered for more than a full day longer than he should have if you ask me. As his son, personally that was the worst part of watching my father slowly die in the hospital. In fact, it was so painful for me and my siblings, that ALL of us now have documents outlining end-of-life decisions to prevent that from happening to any of us.

It would have been even worse if he had had cancer or some other terminal disease and he wound up spending the last six months of his life in a hospital bed.

Even though my father wouldn't have been eligible under these guidelines, he should have been able to make that decision when it was obvious he was beyond medical help. We (his kids knew it), he knew it, I'm sure even the nurses on the ward knew it - it was only the doctor in charge of the ward who fought and fought long after my father was ready to pack it in.

I fully understand the Hippocratic Oath and why doctors fight for patients as they do - but both doctors and society need to understand it is MY decision how my life ends, not the state's and not anyone else's.

Finally a little common sense. If i'm in severe pain with no respite and no chance of a cure in the immediate future I don't want some doctor using his hipocratic oath to prolong my agony. Let me die with dignity.

We as a species have the compassion to end our pets suffering yet for some reason we can't find that same compassion, for whatever reason, when it comes to our own.

But, I can see what Barts talking about. If they keep this ruling they'd better make damn sure that the poor, elderly, weak and the dregs of society don't end up being euthanized just to save the Government money or keep the pretty people happy.

But of course that could never happen could it?

Logical fallicy: Slippery Slope argument.

The problem is that it always seems to work that way. The 'logical fallacy' thing was thrown out about the long gun registry, too. And then damn if those 'fallacies' didn't come to pass, didn't they?

The problem with logic in matters like this is that people can be counted upon to be .

Logical fallicy: Slippery Slope argument.


Nope, it's easy to see the 'hurry up and die Mom, I want the house/car/bank already'
crowd warming up.

In principle, I support the idea of doctor assisted suicide, but this
is one situation that needs to locked up iron tight to try and prevent ANY
interference from ANYONE except the patient and the doctor.

My condolences bootlegga that you had to endure such a painful experience. In a situation such as this I fully support someone making the decision to die with dignity.

I know I would want to. With or without a doctor's "blessing".

A decision made between a patient and Dr - two consenting adults. Not sure why anyone wants the state to intrude in yet another facet of life or death.

I'm not really worried about that tired old chestnut that suddenly the elderly will be knocked off by their kids to get their houses and such. I think that's a great scary argument but I'm willing to bet that adequate safeguards will be in place.

Odd though, why does it seem those who oppose assisted suicide because they're worried about innocent elders being killed who should not have been also tend to support capital punishment?