Sunday, February 8, 2015

More debate on the doctor-assisted suicide

Phil Horgan, Catholic Civil Rights League:


Sun News panel, Jerry Agar ++:


Sun News panel, Faith Goldy, JJ McCullough ++:
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think this was a good ruling and its unfortunate it came down to this. While I realize its an emotional thing and many have strong feelings, I believe the decision should be up to the individual not the state. We can put our pets down when they are suffering and as such I see no reason why an individual who has a terminal illness and wants to die shouldn't be allowed to get assistance. I would though put the following three restrictions to prevent abuse.

1. Most have a terminal illness where there is no realistic chance of recovery and this would be verified by at least two doctors.
2. Most be at least 18 years of age or older.
3. Must be mentally competent.

I think allowing under those three circumstances is a fair and reasonable compromise that both allows those to die with dignity, while prevents abuse.

February 9, 2015 at 2:47:00 PM PST
JR said...

There are many valid objections to the SSC's ruling, not the least of which is the fact that the current batch of Supremes over-rode the Supreme Court ruling of 1993 and, subsequently, 6 clear votes by Parliament (all parties) against legalization. The main concerns in all seven instances were public safety and the slippery slope.

In every jurisdiction where assisted suicide or euthanasia was legalized safeguards have been eroded and misuse and abuse of the law have occurred. While some (eg. Belgium) have been much worse than others (eg. Oregon where it was enacted relatively recently), the pattern is clear. The slippery slope is real and serious. Yet the Supreme Court judgement gave this very short shrift devoting far more time to compensation of those who brought the case.

For these reasons I do not wish to have the medical system, particularly my doctor, involved in killing people as a solution to medical problems. The potential conflict of interest is huge. As it is now, access to palliative care is very poor. Do you seriously believe that it will improve once the option of legalized killing is available? There will also be less incentive to search for better treatments.

And, there is nothing particularly "dignified" about being put down like a dog. I wish people would stop using such emotive euphemisms to try to soften their arguments for killing people.

February 10, 2015 at 1:24:00 PM PST
Anonymous said...

I see it differently, what if a person is in pain and wants to die. Why should we deny it to them. Lets remember under the proposals I listed above, it would only be for mentally sane adults who are terminally ill and don't wish to suffer. If I was in a situation where I knew I was going to die and was in pain, I would like to have that option of assisted suicide rather than have the state tell me I cannot get it. This does not mean I endorse killing and although I fully support the right of someone to commit suicide as denying this means that you are property of the state, not owner of your own life.

February 11, 2015 at 3:35:00 PM PST

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)