Canadian Supreme Court Rules Ban On Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Ban On Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 8, 2015 @01:26AM from the ask-your-doctor-about-the-black-capsule dept.

BarbaraHudson writes with word that Canada's Supreme Court has issued a strong statement in defense of Canadians' right to choose assisted suicide: [A] judgment, which is unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court, says the current ban on assisted suicide infringes on all three of the life, liberty and security of person provisions in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness. The court agreed with the trial judge "that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. While there are risks, to be sure, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them." Parliament has one year to enact new legislation modifying the Criminal Code to conform to the judgment.

156 of 231 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yay Canada! by SternisheFan · 2015-02-08 01:34 · Score: 1

First in..., death? Wait...
1. Re:Yay Canada! by dreamchaser · 2015-02-08 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well to be fair they also do it very politely when they kill anyone.
2. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's got to be better than forcing people to continue to live an unbearable life. If you were to do that to a dog, you'd be charged with cruelty, but ending a human's suffering in a dignified fashion? "Oh noes!!" The people who are against assisted suicide need to stop trying to impose their religious or other beliefs on others, same as same-sex marriage. When their time comes, they're free to tough it out til the bitter end, but I suspect that some of them will change their minds.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:Yay Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And paradoxically, the option of assisted suicide is also provides a backstop to suffering that empowers patients to hang on, or attempt painful therapies that they might not otherwise have the will to try.
  Knowledge that it's always an option if the suffering becomes too much to bear is of enormous psychological benefit.
4. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's right. And we can bring back the T4 program and end all the suffering we see fit. With enough controls, it will bever morph into death camps for the politically undesirables. But at least the murderers can berate someone into wanting to die because they are defective in some way like being homosexual or transgender or diseased in some way. It will be more humane and give them a chance ay dignity.
5. Re:Yay Canada! by Kernel+Kurtz · 2015-02-08 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, in a perfect world only those who believe others should suffer as long as possible would be the ones who die slow painful deaths, but the world is not perfect, so it unfortunately happens to decent folks as well. We do treat animals better and that is a sad commentary on society.
  Even more sad is the old laws forced some people to cut their lives short earlier - killing themselves when they are still physically able because they fear the day they won't be capable of doing it themselves.
  Certainly tight controls need to be in place, but most important - and this was important even before this ruling - make sure your family and friends knows your wishes. Many people already have "living wills", I would suggest everyone should make sure their wishes are known before hand. It may not make for the happiest dinner conversation, but it is a conversation well worth having sooner rather than later.
  Here is a template from our local health authority. You will find many others on the internet.
  http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/li...
6. Re:Yay Canada! by Nemyst · 2015-02-08 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How someone can twist the ability for a suffering human to request, of their own volition and under extensive medical supervision, assisted suicide, and turn it into a slippery slope fallacy of death camps and selective culling of the population is beyond me. There is just no connection outside of your ever so slightly deranged brain there.
7. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Fortunately in Canada there's no insurance company to put pressure on people to off themselves. It's not an ideal world, but it's the one we've got, so we do our best.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:Yay Canada! by kuzb · 2015-02-08 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  This might be the dumbest thing I've read so far this year. It's ok for you to take your tinfoil hat off once in a while.
  
  --
  BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
9. Re:Yay Canada! by anarcobra · 2015-02-08 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe you can do it like they do in Switzerland (at least I think it was there).
  Someone asks you three times if you are sure you want to off yourself (after you have signed the paperwork and everything), and they hand you a cup of poison.
  You have to drink it yourself.
  If you are too senile or weak to drink it yourself, tough luck.
10. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You should read some history then. Mercy killings set the groundwork for the final solution. It started by a father begging for the government to end the life of his crippled boy arguing about how shitty the quality wouls be and how dignified he could die. It ended up with the government killing anyone it didn't like. You may know its end better by the term holocaust.
  But hey, that will never happen again right? Especially if we make ourselves so ignorant of the past that we do not know it happened before.
11. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Except now that siucidal gay teen or the boy who thinks he is a girl doesn't have to kill themselves when they are tormented for not fitting into society- they can get a doctor to do it for them.
  Gays and lesbians have full rights in Canada, including same-sex marriage. If one were to turn to a doctor because they are tormented for not fitting in society, the ER doctor would have them see a psychiatrist the same day.
  As for the boy who thinks she's (gotta watch those pronouns in Canada - it's the law :-) a girl, they would also be interviewed by a psychiatrist, then a specialized team. If it is confirmed that they're transsexual (instead of going through a phase or just questioning who they are), taking the road to a future sex change is one of several options they'll be offered.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
12. Re:Yay Canada! by hrvatska · 2015-02-08 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  But certain caring individuals, mostly at insurance companies, don't like paying for his treatment since it's expensive. And yes, they've recommended and tried to convince him to move to Washington and off himself. In my mind, if you're going to legalize it, that sort of behavior should be a felony.
  What insurance companies were these individuals working for? What do they do, call up your father and tell him air fare to Seattle is pretty cheap this time of year? You said people who worked for insurance companies, plural, encouraged your father to move to Washington state, that's pretty amazing, really nearly unbelievable, that people at multiple insurance companies are urging your father to off himself. My wife has been an oncology nurse for forty years. She's had to deal with hundreds and hundreds of people who died, many of whom who took years to do it and cost the insurance companies bundles and bundles of money. I just asked her, and she's never known of a patient or their family say an insurance company encouraged someone to move to a state that has assisted suicide for terminally ill people.
13. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  And if it's causing them mental problems, they have a right to be helped.
  Plus they have the right to bring up a complaint with the human rights commission, which should end it, or at least put people on notice that hating on someone because of their sexual preference is going to cost them.
  Also, in Canada harassing someone over their sexual or gender identity is a hate crime. So there are plenty of remedies available.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
14. Re:Yay Canada! by FlyHelicopters · 2015-02-08 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Except now that siucidal gay teen or the boy who thinks he is a girl doesn't have to kill themselves when they are tormented for not fitting into society- they can get a doctor to do it for them.
  The part you're missing is that when that person goes to the doctor, they may find their first friendly voice they have ever heard.
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/...
  "When Josh Alcorn voiced a desire to live as a girl, the Ohio teenager's parents said they wouldn't stand for that.
  "We don't support that, religiously," Alcorn's mother told CNN on Wednesday, her voice breaking."
  ---
  That boy had no one to provide a friendly voice, his parents took him to a christian therapist:
  "My mom started taking me to a therapist, but would only take me to christian therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression. I only got more christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help."
  ---
  Instead of walking in front of a truck to take his own life, had he been able to go talk to a doctor, someone that his parents didn't pick, he might have found a sympathetic voice.
  Regardless if you think LGBT is "right" or "wrong", a 16 year old boy has to be in a LOT of pain to think that death is their only escape.
15. Re:Yay Canada! by ultranova · 2015-02-08 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  But hey, that will never happen again right? Especially if we make ourselves so ignorant of the past that we do not know it happened before.
  
  Every decision might end up having unintended consequences. So I suppose it's hypothetically possible that not forcing people suffer through end-state cancer might end up with Nazi death camps, despite Canada not being Nazi Germany. On the other hand, forcing people to suffer through end-state cancer amounts to torturing them to death, with no "might" about it. And an unfortunate side effect of medical science advancing is that it can keep people alive and suffering within broken bodies longer than they used to. So, the rational response would seem to be to allow assisted suicide under certain conditions and be careful to not vote anyone who starts making noises about ubermenschen.
  Besides, what right do you have to lord it over other people's life and death, to either end them or force them to go on?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
16. Re: Yay Canada! by 517714 · 2015-02-08 07:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No, the first sentence is not fine. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of rights vs law. The court ruled that people have always had the right, rights trump laws so any laws abridging the right are void and must be eliminated. Viewing this as changing laws is wrong because it would put this into the realm of debate over public policy, and rights are not subject to debate without constitutional amendment.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
17. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not missing anything. May as in might does not equal always and you will never know if the doctor is a die hard fundy, a goreific sociopath.
  This may even be especially true in situations where a government entity is directing the doctors actions.
18. Re:Yay Canada! by nbauman · 2015-02-08 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you live an ideal world where nobody would try to kill somebody for financially based motives, but I've seen that happen far too many times in the news. And I don't trust insurance companies to not bully people if they're allowed to. Those bastards are cold hearted.
  You mean an ideal world, with a single-payer health care system?
  Couldn't happen.
19. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Including doctor assisted suicide. I guess it is better for society as a whole as someone will not be dispatched to clean the splattered guts of someone jumping from an overpass right when a speeding semi truck is rushing towards them. It might be easier than cleaning brains and blood off some things.
  You cannot deny the option to kill themselves is not there to be considered as this is what the ruling is about. You even went through the motions in your original post "It's got to be better than forcing people to continue to live an unbearable life." They will know that people ridicule them behind their backs, that some people pretending to be nice to their face will always think they are freaks of nature. I would think that is pretty unbearable for some- in fact, I know it is because we see them committing suicide. We even see adults pretending to be kids on the internet who end up causing or being the driving force behind other kids to commit suicide. But now, a doc can make that so much easier.
20. Re:Yay Canada! by bsolar · 2015-02-08 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  In Switzerland the law states that you have to play an "active role". You can be assisted with a drinking straw if you are unable to actually handle the drink (e.g. tetraplegic).
21. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hate much?
  I do not remember singling jews out at all. I do remember pointing to a progression that went to killing jews though. I'm not sure why you are so upset over the truth though. Perhaps it's just a sign of why this is important to know (all of it).
22. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  So I suppose it's hypothetically possible that not forcing people suffer through end-state cancer might end up with Nazi death camps, despite Canada not being Nazi Germany.
  I'm sorry, you must be reading something different than what the rest of us are. Would you mind sharing?
  Oh and BTW, the article summery even exposes that " It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness." And it should be noted that Nazi Germany was actually held in high regard at one time before it wasn't. It was the pinnacle of progressiveness. Free education, health care, the rejection of god and all that good stuff. It wasn't until they invaded other countries and started killing all kinds of people that we changed out minds. Hell, even the US was a staunch supporter of the modern scientific theories of the time like Eugenics. We didn't exactly kill anyone but we took their reproductive rights away and in some cases removed them from society altogether. California and North Carolina were bastions of Eugenic reality. Hell, aspects of it are still practiced in the USA today with the Margret Sanger legacy. There are reasons why Planned Parenthood will only put abortion clinics in areas with a high minority population. But lets ignore reality for a while.
  
  So, the rational response would seem to be to allow assisted suicide under certain conditions and be careful to not vote anyone who starts making noises about ubermenschen.
  Again, where are you reading this limitation to terminally ill people? It is not what the court ruled, it is specifically identified as not so in the article and summery.
  
  Besides, what right do you have to lord it over other people's life and death, to either end them or force them to go on?
  I don't have that right. well, unless I'm the designated next of kin with decision making authority. However, I and society does have a right to stop others from purposely and intentionally ending the life of others for any reason that does not preserve the life of someone else. This is what this is about after all, doctor assisted- or in other words, someone else either doing so or helping to kill someone else with or without a terminal illness.
  Either you are ignoring pertinent details or have some super secret document that says something different then what was presented to the rest of the world. Please share it with us either way.
23. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's not hard to get a statement witnessed and notorized by multiple parties when requesting it.
  Indeed. However, it is hard to determine if the patient actually participated in signing that statement, was not tricked into doing so, or was even competent during the signing of the statement. The multiple witnesses would go a ways into that but is not a guarantee.
  In the op's example of insurance companies, they can employ professional witnesses just like your poor next of kin who stand to inherit your fortune might be able to find witnesses.
24. Re:Yay Canada! by meglon · 2015-02-08 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously.... for the level of paranoid delusional bullshit you've posted in this thread, you need to be sedated, medicated, and locked in a padded room in a straightjacket. What the fuck is wrong with you?
  
  --
  Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
25. Re:Yay Canada! by nbauman · 2015-02-08 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  You may know its end better by the term holocaust.
  The people I grew up with, many of whom had actually escaped from Germany, or fought in Germany, some of whom knocked out a few Nazi tanks or troop trains, usually referred to it as "The concentration camps" or just "World War II."
  The term "holocaust" didn't become popular until around 1980, when some of the Israel-firsters started using it to justify doing everything they wanted to do, like blowing up Sol Hurok's office and killing his Jewish secretary. Because -- Holocaust!
  https://books.google.com/ngram...
  The term "holocaust" was also a good draw for fundraising and for shaking down European governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  It offends me because it's a religious term, whose literal meaning is that Jews were killed as a sacrifice to God. That's an insult to every Jewish atheist who died (or survived) fighting the Nazis.
26. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with me? We have people celebrating the fact that a court has ruled it is a right for a third party to assist in killing a person because that person or their legal representative states they might want to die. It says right summery that this is not limited to terminal illness either. If it was, I could understand it better but this is anyone.
  We have seen this before. It didn't end well. No one in the know figured it would go that way when it started either. It too was celebrated as humane and the right thing to do. What the fuck is wrong with you?
27. Re:Yay Canada! by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  You should read some history then.
  
  You should realize you're living up to your UID again.
  
  Mercy killings set the groundwork for the final solution.
  As much as early surgeons paid the way for Nazis making lamps from people, sure, if you're into eighteen dumbfucking levels of false conflation.
28. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Being in denial and attempting to hurl insults does not make you right or correct or anything. This is history and all you are doing is showing that you do not know it and do not care how ignorant you look when letting everyone else know the same about you.
29. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The criminal code was revised to remove suicide as an offense in 1972. This law isn't about that - this law is specifically allowing for people to ask a doctor (actually, a team of doctors) for help in terminating their lives.
  Some people who have gone to the courts for the right for help, like Sue Rodriguez, have medical conditions (in her case advanced Lou Gehrig Disease) that make it impossible to do anything without assistance. Others are afraid of the result of a botched attempt which just makes their situation worse.
  Someone making fun of you is not an "unbearable life." I'm pretty sure that many/most of us went through periods where we were miserable because others teased of bullied us. Such cases simply don't justify assisted suicide, just as they don't justify suicide. Unfortunately, people take that route when they really don't see any other way to end the suffering and have nobody there to help them deal with it.
  That's one of the reasons to be "out" if you're part of the LGBT - it normalizes the situation in people's minds. The sky didn't fall in when TV shows started featuring same-sex couples, or when actresses are open about their previous gender. Knowing you're not alone, and having a few famous role models, makes a diff.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
30. Re:Yay Canada! by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Including doctor assisted suicide.
  
  Including even more batshit insane delusional bullshit. A doctor is going to tell you to drink Drano for an ulcer before he recommends suicide as a treatment for depression.
31. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  The criminal code was revised to remove suicide as an offense in 1972. This law isn't about that - this law is specifically allowing for people to ask a doctor (actually, a team of doctors) for help in terminating their lives.
  This isn't a law at all. It's a right found within the Canadian constitution. And yes, it is about someone helping end another person's life which is otherwise considered murder or killing (homicide).
  
  Some people who have gone to the courts for the right for help, like Sue Rodriguez, have medical conditions (in her case advanced Lou Gehrig Disease) that make it impossible to do anything without assistance. Others are afraid of the result of a botched attempt which just makes their situation worse.
  
  And this ruling isn't limited to situations like that. It doesn't limit it at all. The confused gay kid or ridiculed transgender kid or the bigshot who lost his fortune in the market collapse can declare they want to kill themselves and this ruling says it is a right to have a doctor help them do it.
  
  Someone making fun of you is not an "unbearable life." I'm pretty sure that many/most of us went through periods where we were miserable because others teased of bullied us. Such cases simply don't justify assisted suicide, just as they don't justify suicide. Unfortunately, people take that route when they really don't see any other way to end the suffering and have nobody there to help them deal with it.
  
  I do not see any limitations to "unbearable life" in the ruling. In fact, it seems to fail to limit it altogether. Even the article summery that I'm sure you read since you jumped in head first celebrating the new found right to have doctors help kill people says "It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness"
  
  That's one of the reasons to be "out" if you're part of the LGBT - it normalizes the situation in people's minds. The sky didn't fall in when TV shows started featuring same-sex couples, or when actresses are open about their previous gender. Knowing you're not alone, and having a few famous role models, makes a diff.
  And I see people here calling you names and talking about how a freak of nature you are. They do this via anonymous log in but it happens and you cannot deny it. It has even happened in this article posting over the same damn post I started replying to. Or does your LGBT club shield you from those comments? They will not shield a lot of others. And even if they did, you as well as anyone else will always know what others are thinking and saying- even if they do not say it to your face.
  But we are talking about more than just those type of people. We have adults who pretend to be kids and torment kids on the internet to the point they commit suicide. I guess we should celebrate how a doctor will have to help them do it now too. Because you know, the ruling did not limit it, it's all in what the person wants right?
32. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Who said the doctor is going to recommend it? You do not know, he might but the ruling said that you have a right to it so you requesting it is enough.
  Stop hiding the facts. Hell, just read the damn article.
33. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  You're right - it's not a law, but an acknowledgement that the right to assisted suicide a a constitutional right. Lets hope the government doesn't use the notwithstanding clause to cater to their base for the next election.
  People can suffer from a non-terminal disease that still leaves them in pain, unable to fend for themselves, and with zero hope of recovery, so I think it's a good thing that they didn't limit it to the terminally ill. If you had to decide between being hooked up to machines, unable to fend for yourself for even basic needs, always in pain, without even the hope of dying because it's not terminal, I think many would opt for help in shuffling off their mortal coil.
  
  And I see people here calling you names and talking about how a freak of nature you are. They do this via anonymous log in but it happens and you cannot deny it. It has even happened in this article posting over the same damn post I started replying to. Or does your LGBT club shield you from those comments? They will not shield a lot of others. And even if they did, you as well as anyone else will always know what others are thinking and saying- even if they do not say it to your face.
  I was outed on slashdot a decade ago, so it was inevitable that someone would eventually try to use it against me. After that had been going on for a while, I changed my signature to send the signal that I'm not ashamed of being a transsexual, and neither should others be. It's all part of "paying it forward." :-)
  If they were to log in, or at least make salient points as to why they feel the way they do, I would be happy to engage them in dialog. In the meantime, I think most people don't really have a problem with it.
  When you tell a friend and they say "Is that all? I thought it would be something bad." you know they're good with it. I lost one friend over it. I was disappointed, but that's old news. As for the people around me, we talk about it on occasion - usually after I make a joke that only works because I'm trans and someone present didn't know, so I have to explain why it's so funny to everyone else. Drives my sisters nuts, because most of them think I should be ashamed. But sometimes I get a laugh out of them, and I think that finally they're "getting it." Sort of. Hopefully.
  Yes, adults torment kids. So do other kids. And they've been charged and convicted. We also run regular PSAs reminding kids that sharing a "special" photo of another kid is distributing child pornography (yes, kids have been convicted for that. And courts are now allowing parents and the media (with the parents consent) to name the victims who have committed suicide, to put a face to the act.
  We're not there bet, but we're making remarkable progress on multiple fronts.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
34. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  May as in might does not equal always and you will never know if the doctor is a die hard fundy, a goreific sociopath.
  So why assume the worst? "Might get a supportive ear" is far better than "will not get a supportive ear." Any doctor who has ethical problems with it will usually refer the case to someone else. I've only encountered one doctor who was a little bit discombobulated by it (in the ER), and he referred me to another one right away.
  BTW, there's a huge difference between a "christian therapist" and a real licensed board-certified psychiatrist or other doctor. That girl didn't deserve to die that way, just like she didn't deserve to be told that it could be fixed by prayer and faith. But even in death, the parents still mis-gender her, because they simply don't know any alternative for dealing with this sort of situation. If you've ever heard fundies discussing LGBT, it can get pretty hateful without them even noticing because they're "doing righteous work to help the sinners."
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
35. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  I personally do not care if you commit suicide as long as you do not involve others. If you want to kill yourself, that is your choice. However, in any other facet of life, if someone helps kill you without defending themselves or someone else in the process, it is murder. But now, it's a right for that someone else to kill you if they can demonstrate you wanted to be killed.
  The problem I have is not even so much with that, it's the celebration some people seem to think is necessary because the courts said it is a right to off someone (or more specifically, a right to enlist others to aid in you offing yourself). In the past when there has been a state sponsored mercy killings, it has never ended well. This is not something that should be celebrated but something that should be carefully considered and treated with somber respect so that it does not turn into what history has showed us it is capable of.
36. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  People can suffer from a non-terminal disease that still leaves them in pain, unable to fend for themselves, and with zero hope of recovery, so I think it's a good thing that they didn't limit it to the terminally ill. If you had to decide between being hooked up to machines, unable to fend for yourself for even basic needs, always in pain, without even the hope of dying because it's not terminal, I think many would opt for help in shuffling off their mortal coil.
  
  Why are you ignoring the fact that none of that has to be present. You can just walk into a doctors office and say you want to kill yourself under this ruling. You seem to think there needs to be some medically justifiable reason behind it when nothing in the article or associated story implies that at all. It is a right in Canada to have someone kill you now- no prequalifying conditions necessary.
  
  was outed on slashdot a decade ago, so it was inevitable that someone would eventually try to use it against me. After that had been going on for a while, I changed my signature to send the signal that I'm not ashamed of being a transsexual, and neither should others be. It's all part of "paying it forward." :-)
  
  That's you. But what about Johny or suzie or whoever. They may not like it and now they have a right to have someone help kill themselves when they cannot take the ridicule any more. But it doesn't have to be about LGBT or anything either. We have hd several cases where adults pretended to be children and badgered other children to the point they killed themselves. Now it's a right to do that with someone helping them.
  
  We're not there bet, but we're making remarkable progress on multiple fronts.
  And this ruling you just celebrated makes it so easy for one of these kids to go to the doctors and say kill me. You think they would violate their constitutional rights and try to talk them out of it? It's a fucking "right" for god's sake. It's a right for the confused kid who's sisters think he should be ashamed, it's a right for the guy who wakes up one day and wonders what it would be like to be dead. Why would you expect a doctor who works for the government to talk people out of their rights? They won't, they will just say it's you right and help people kill themselves. This is the ruling you are celebrating and I didn't even get into the ability to abuse this. Ever hear of Kermit Gosnell? Not likely because the mass media attempted to ignore him. But if he exists in a medical system, so will others.
37. Re:Yay Canada! by dala1 · 2015-02-08 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not. They just told lawmakers they have to write a new, constitutional law. The old law is in effect for a set amount of time so that this can happen.
38. Re:Yay Canada! by squiggleslash · 2015-02-08 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I'm pretty sure none of the Jewish people murdered by the Nazi regime actually asked to have their lives terminated. And if your logic is "Well, it started with the state thinking there were some people it's OK to kill", then perhaps we should start disarming the police, abolish the death penalty, and stop involving ourselves in offensive wars (these are actually good ideas anyway from my point of view, but my view is highly unpopular especially amongst people who espouse the same crap you have.)
  You haven't demonstrated a slippery slope, merely some impressive leaping from one unrelated platform to another. The state feeling it's OK to kill people where X=1 does not automatically lead to the state feeling it's OK to kill people where Y=2. It doesn't work that way.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
39. Re:Yay Canada! by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 15:21 · Score: 1
  Stop hiding the facts. Hell, just read the damn article.
  O RLY? Second paragraph of the damn article:
  
  In a charter precedent that will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada, the court unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.
  
  Since we're buds, I know most of you available brainpower is consumed by keeping your heart and lungs moving, so I'll do you a solid and link the definition. So, yeah, you're gonna see Drano prescribed for an ulcer before you see suicide prescribed for depression.
  
  This is history and all you are doing is showing that you do not know it and do not care how ignorant you look when letting everyone else know the same about you.
  All the blathering butthurt on being called out on your latest musings isn't going to make you any less full of it, Dumbass. How'd you launch your self into outer space with these false conflations, anyway? Did Mama Dumbass yell at you when you were a kid:
  "Be careful with that paring knife! Right now you're just cutting apples, but the next thing we know you might be running around trying to scalp indians!!!!"
  "Be careful on your first date! Right now you're just going to see some chick flick, but I don't wanna turn on the news in five years and see you're the next Ted Bundy!!!!"
  "Be careful with that air rifle! Right now you're shooting at paper targets, but the next thing we know you could be buying real firearms and murdering 80 kids like that psycho in Norway!!!!"
  Makes as much sense as the crap you've been writing over this thread.
40. Re:Yay Canada! by ultranova · 2015-02-08 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, you must be reading something different than what the rest of us are. Would you mind sharing?
  
  So... do you often not read what you write?
  
  And it should be noted that Nazi Germany was actually held in high regard at one time before it wasn't. It was the pinnacle of progressiveness.
  
  Is that what this is really about? Good old "conservatives vs. progressives" politics? Because both have an increasing chance of spending a good long while of their final days in hospital bed, hoping death would just hurry up already.
  
  But lets ignore reality for a while.
  
  How about you stop ignoring reality and start focusing on today, not past sins of Germany or US?
  
  However, I and society does have a right to stop others from purposely and intentionally ending the life of others for any reason that does not preserve the life of someone else. This is what this is about after all, doctor assisted- or in other words, someone else either doing so or helping to kill someone else with or without a terminal illness.
  
  No. This is about people being allowed to end their own life, by using a doctor as their tool if necessary. This is about suicide, not murder or eugenics.
  
  Either you are ignoring pertinent details or have some super secret document that says something different then what was presented to the rest of the world. Please share it with us either way.
  
  Or it could simply be that I'm looking at actual facts, rather than demanding people suffer because a hypothetical Canadian Nazi government could do something bad with an euthanasia law.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
41. Re:Yay Canada! by dfenstrate · 2015-02-08 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's got to be better than forcing people to continue to live an unbearable life. If you were to do that to a dog, you'd be charged with cruelty
  Really? Where?
  Anyway, Holland is having a grand old experiment with assisted suicide. There's a great deal of debate on the matter over there, some of it worth reading. You can start this little experiment in Canada with the grandest of intentions- and then find yourself in a spot where doctors kill off the elderly and invalids to free up hospital beds.
  
  --
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
42. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-08 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious? They are saying that has to happen because there is a right being denied. How can you deny that? Do you think courts in canada just make arbitrary rulings so parliment has stuff to do?
43. Re:Yay Canada! by dala1 · 2015-02-08 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  The courts don't write laws (at least not in Canada), and this case is no exception. When the courts strike down laws, they give legislatures a set amount of time to re-write the law such that it complies with the Constitution. In the meantime, the old law stands for up to one year. So no, you can't just randomly walk into a doctors office and demand that they put you down as you suggested.
44. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-09 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I did not say it will lead to nazi genocide, i said nazi genocide grew out of it. It is not something that should be celebrated and anyone who is celebrating it needs to be watched. We have people who are histatic that it is a right to demand government workers (canadian doctor) to kill or assist in killing someone. The last time people were so excited to legally kill someone, we had genocide before the end of it.
45. Re:Yay Canada! by sumdumass · 2015-02-09 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Lol.. you are missing the message brvause of the proceedure.
  The courts nedd a reason to strike down a law. They do not just strike them down arbitrarily to give parliment something to do. Their reason here is because there is a constitutional right. This means that any law baring that right is unconstitutional unless there is a change on their charter.
  The new law will have to conform to the preceedent set by this ruling or bbe unconstitutional also. Anyone who wishes to die for any reason has a right to kill themselves and now force a doctor to make it possible. You cannot get around that.
46. Re:Yay Canada! by dave420 · 2015-02-09 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So you are using the slippery slope fallacy. You really should see how healthcare works in other countries before projecting your own paranoid opinion of your own healthcare onto it. If someone wants to die, they will be seen by doctor after doctor to ensure they are making an informed decision and not suffering from some undiagnosed mental illness, and only once they are all happy with the choice, the patient is given the tools to end their life.
  The last time people were so excited to legally kill someone, some US state flipped the switch to fry the person in question... it's strange how you forgot that example...
47. Re:Yay Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-09 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Animals, including pets, that are suffering are subject to seizure by inspectors. In addition, if the animal cannot be treated, it will be destroyed. The owner can be fined, or in the worst cases, brought to a criminal trial and sent to jail - which recently happened to one woman who was negligent in caring for dogs entrusted to her and ended up with 6 months in the pokey.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
48. Re:Yay Canada! by dfenstrate · 2015-02-09 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Your case doesn't sound like she kept her personal dog alive longer than the authorities thought proper. Negligence to the point of irrecoverable injury (as determined by 'professionals' who would have to put in the work to nurse the dogs back to health) isn't the same thing as caring for a dog when other folks think it best to put it down.
  That's where this 'voluntary assisted suicide' thing goes, by the way. To the murder of the inconvenient.
  
  --
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
49. Re:Yay Canada! by MakerDusk · 2015-02-09 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  As a canadian living in an isolated city, let me say this: the police are more likely to join in on the harassment than to stop it... if they even show up in the first place. Law enforcement seems to exist for free timmies (a coffee chain where you can't go more than 5 blocks before the next one), parking tickets, and for consuming drugs/drug money they 'confiscate'. It's hard to get police out for serious crimes, even if you have the entire affair recorded on video.
  Because of this, what rights people are actually accorded depends directly on their community. A 'we're in this together' type mentality. If you have problems, you get your friends together and go deal with it. Sadly, in more recent years, actual investigative work has become the domain of the mafia in the area (sadly that's still a thing). In a world where you call your weed dealer when you're robbed, instead of the police, do you really think Canadian civil rights count for anything? When the only source of justice comes from the criminal community, civilization has already fallen: all that remains in the illusion held within people's minds.
50. Re:Yay Canada! by david_thornley · 2015-02-09 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Can you demand assisted suicide, or is this a matter for doctor and patient to agree on? In that case, most doctors wouldn't help somebody kill themselves over something temporary.
  And, yes, some doctors will pass out the suicide pills or whatever to whoever asks, and word will get around. Is this a real problem? It's not like unassisted suicide is impossible.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
51. Re:Yay Canada! by david_thornley · 2015-02-09 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nazi Germany was held in high regard by some people, many or most of whom were serious anti-Semites. That was not the universal opinion.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Slippery Slope by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 01:46 · Score: 1

First they legalised same-sex marriage. Now they're proposing to allow terminally ill patients in suffering to end their lives with some dignity...
What's next? Legalization of marijuana?!!!
1. Re:Slippery Slope by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  There is also the case of a guy who wants to marry his Apple computer, which contains a lot of porn material. He makes very good points comparing it with same-sex marriage (ex. incompatible reproductive ports).
  Let's see if the judges allow it.
2. Re:Slippery Slope by ArcadeMan · 2015-02-08 02:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What's next? Legalization of marijuana?!!!
  I sure hope not, for three reasons:
  1. This shit really stinks, like burning old clothes which were stored in an attic for decades
  2. People who are high usually listen to loud music, and it's annoying
  3. We can only produce a limited quantity of snacks
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3. Re:Slippery Slope by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, define person. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
4. Re:Slippery Slope by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  1. This shit really stinks, like burning old clothes which were stored in an attic for decades
  Really? I have heard people complain about cigarette, or worse pipe tobacco/cigar, smoke; but not marijuana. If it is grown properly, it usually has a sweet citrus smell.
  Yes, it does stink, as do cigarettes. It wasn't a comparison. I was stuck living in a room with a frequent user who thought he could cover up the smell...idiot.
  
  2. People who are high usually listen to loud music, and it's annoying
  Are you sure it's not people who listen to loud music that often tend to smoke marijuana?
  Yes, and while I occasionally enjoy loud music, the roommate mentioned above played Meatloaf "Bat Out of Hell" about fifteen times a day at max volume. It was the late 70s, and he ruined a perfectly good album for me.
  
  3. We can only produce a limited quantity of snacks
  I believe poptarts are a renewable resource.
  Possibly, but if that drives the price up due to increased demand, I'm gonna have to hurt someone.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
5. Re:Slippery Slope by Phil+Urich · 2015-02-09 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  I believe poptarts are a renewable resource.
  Possibly, but if that drives the price up due to increased demand, I'm gonna have to hurt someone.
  Economy of stoned scale? Also, you seem to be an angry person. Here, I have a prescription for something to calm you down, although I should warn you that there are certain side-effects for at-risk groups like those who really enjoy poptarts, as this medicine has been known to amplify the consumption thereof.
  
  --
  I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
The Black Pill by rmdingler · 2015-02-08 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

With the erosion of religion and its accompanying objections to ending one's own life in most Western Nations (not including the U.S. unfortunately), I would expect to see more options for patients now facing only palliative care.
When I have no more good days left, and every waking moment is agony or drug-induced, drooling stupor, I would like the option to give these borrowed molecules back to the universe when I am ready...not after my suffering has been prolonged by pointless medical procedure(s).

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:The Black Pill by CrimsonAvenger · 2015-02-08 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  When I have no more good days left, and every waking moment is agony or drug-induced, drooling stupor, I would like the option to give these borrowed molecules back to the universe when I am ready...not after my suffering has been prolonged by pointless medical procedure(s).
  Note that you've pretty much always had that option. Or are you required to be in a hospital against your wishes wherever you live?
  Note that "assisted suicide" isn't about you killing yourself, it's about your doctor helping you to do so. Which meets the legal definitions of murder in most places.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2. Re:The Black Pill by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of patients slip slowly into worse and worse circumstances. The point where you have to be at a hospital to live may not be the point where your life is not worth living... but then you're trapped, slipping further and further into less lucidity and capability and surrounded by a health care system that prolongs an extraordinarily painful end.
  For one doctor's take on it, consider: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013...
  Doctors, who are most knowledgeable about the benefits of end of life life-sustaining treatment, by and large try to die without the intervention of medical care in extreme old age, peacefully and naturally.
3. Re:The Black Pill by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Note that "assisted suicide" isn't about you killing yourself, it's about your doctor helping you to do so. Which meets the legal definitions of murder in most places.
  According to the supreme court, it no longer meets the definition of murder. I expect to see a lot of Americans coming to Canada to seek relief from a system that insists on cruelly punishing people who can no longer bear the pain and suffering they're experiencing.
  Also, 2 states have already legalized it, so please don't blame Canada :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
4. Re:The Black Pill by thegarbz · 2015-02-08 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What is assistance? Asking advice on the most painless, quick and reliable way of doing something?
  If you're a wheel chair bound quadriplegic what is the option for suicide?
  If you're a 100 year old senile man who can't remember if he's wearing pants what are your options for suicide?
  If you're able bodied enough to actually do the work, how do you do it reliably? Carbon monoxide poisoning works well providing you have a garage and no noisy neighbours but every chance is you may wake up in hospital after some Good Samaritan saved you. Do you jump of a bridge and risk not having an instant death and instead dye in agony? Or maybe swallow every pill you find and end up with an agonizing death as your organs slowly fail? Heck there are people who have bitten the bullet and survived with half their brain missing.
  Suicide and professionally assisted suicide are not the same thing. If you're lucky enough to have the option of one, it doesn't negate the need for the other.
5. Re:The Black Pill by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 03:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).
  Giving a de facto authorisation to doctors to terminate life when someone is incapable to decide is opening the door wide to abuse by the doctors and by the government itself. In case you are not aware, the healthcare in Canada is paid by the government acting as an insurer, when times are hard, the temptation is high to end the life of many who are costing to the treasury even if they paid tax their whole life to have access to this healthcare when growing old.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
6. Re:The Black Pill by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  False, it is not to the Supreme court the make the laws and the definitions. They just said to the government to amend the law and never dictated how. The governement has to comply with the fact it cannot prevent someone to terminate his own life. The Supreme court is not the government, it just can emphasise the government must make laws complying with the constitution.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
7. Re:The Black Pill by rmdingler · 2015-02-08 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).
  Sure. If you are given that luxury. Sometimes things happen in rapid and surprising fashion, perhaps taking your ability to decide out of the equation. We could simply leave instructions. There is medical precedence for this with the widespread implementation of Do Not Resuscitate orders.
  
  Giving a de facto authorisation to doctors to terminate life when someone is incapable to decide is opening the door wide to abuse by the doctors and by the government itself. In case you are not aware, the healthcare in Canada is paid by the government acting as an insurer, when times are hard, the temptation is high to end the life of many who are costing to the treasury even if they paid tax their whole life to have access to this healthcare when growing old.
  I'd say the freedom to prematurely terminate your life should come with the freedom to extend it, as each individual sees fit. If you want to leave this life as you entered it, kicking and screaming for every breath, that is how you get to finish.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
8. Re:The Black Pill by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  People in Canada have had the legal right to kill themselves for years - 1972 to be specific. That's how long it hasn't been a crime.
  Any new laws the government proposes will have to be around regulating "how it works", because the supremes have found that banning assisted suicide infringes on 3 different constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights. If they do nothing, then it's up to the provinces to pass their own laws concerning the mechanics of assisted suicide (Quebec has already enacted its own law setting out such guidelines), though they too cannot pass an outright ban.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
9. Re:The Black Pill by Nemyst · 2015-02-08 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Medical oversight also ensures, as much as possible, that there are no treatments remaining that may be able to recover sufficient quality of life to avert the need for suicide. If the go-to response to suicidal tendencies was to go see a doctor for support, we may see a sharp decline in mental health-related suicides.
10. Re:The Black Pill by Minupla · 2015-02-08 04:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  when someone is incapable to decide
  Just to point out - that was NOT the decision the court made. instead of paraphrasing I'll quote:
  physicianâ'assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.
  Full judgement text available here
  So the decision was not to allow doctors to make an arbitrary judgement on people who could not consent. The judgement was to prevent the government from finding doctors guilty of murder for respecting their patient's clearly expressed and competent wishes to end their lives only in circumstances of nonredeemable suffering.
  Min
  
  --
  On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
11. Re:The Black Pill by Baldorcete · 2015-02-08 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why only for terminal patients? As I understand, the article is about asisted suicide for everyone who asks for it. I can be a healthy, without mental disorders or depresion individual, and decide to end my life. Why cant I go to the doctor and ask for the pills, instead of the messy options?
12. Re:The Black Pill by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was before the supreme court ruled that in one year those parts of the criminal code would no longer apply in such situations. A year from now, as I posted, it will not be murder.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:The Black Pill by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  What is assistance? Asking advice on the most painless, quick and reliable way of doing something?
  Why not look at what other countries have done?
  
  If you're able bodied enough to actually do the work, how do you do it reliably?
  Easy: nitrogen asphyxiation. More or less infallible, and not only does it not cause any pain, it actually gives the subject a sense of euphoria before death. BBC did an entire documentary on nitrogen asphyxiation in the context of replacing random drug cocktails for executions. Death penalty fetishists oppose it, though, because of the aforementioned sense of euphoria....prolonged suffering is a feature, not a bug, for them.
14. Re:The Black Pill by bmo · 2015-02-08 14:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).
  Oh please.
  Durable Powers of Attorney for healthcare have been around for ages now, and they are crucial if you don't want to suffer stuffed with medical equipment that will only ensure that your life is as painful as possible for your remaining days or hours.
  My SO was the DPoA for her ex. She got a phone call last October and said that Eric was in ICU and told me she was his DPoA. His mental state had changed and he was no longer "there" to make decisions for himself. I could have been a dick and said "he's not your responsibility anymore" especially since there was an alternate. But no, I said "You do what you have to do. Do what's right by Eric."
  He had gone in for chemotherapy. But then things started going badly very quickly and the healthcare professionals were putting out fires one after another. Eric had been intubated as an emergency measure because his body couldn't keep his airway open. He was also restrained to keep from semi-consciously reflexively trying to yank out the tubes. He was one of those people that stuff like that scared the shit out of him.
  The intubation could have kept Eric alive indefinitely were it not for his entire body failing because of the cancer. Keeping him intubated was just delaying the inevitable.
  So my SO helped him end his life by having him disconnected after his ex-wife (the alternate DPoA and still his best friend) flew in from upstate NY. Make no mistake, everyone knew that disconnecting him was killing him by many people's definitions and this required the approval of the nurse on duty, two doctors, and one of the DPoAs. He lived for hours after, so she stayed by his side, read poetry, and sang to him and said goodbye. Eric's greatest fear was that he would die in pain and alone tied to a machine (he didn't have any family here). Because he had someone to make the crucial decisions for him and be there for him, he didn't die that way.
  I learned a few things over those days.
  I learned that I needed my own DPoA, and I knew I found someone who would do the right thing if I needed it.
  Assissted suicide would be similar. It wouldn't just be /one doctor/ alone making the decision for you if you were unable - it would be two doctors, and your DPoA at least. It would simply be an extension of existing DPoA laws.
  And btw, your last thing: American insurance companies make the decisions to kill people every day by refusing to cover drugs or drag their feet covering valid treatments. So bringing up the "BIG SCARY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KILL YOU WHEN THEY HAVE A BUDGET SHORTFALL" is totally disingenuous, intellectually bankrupt, and stupid.
  --
  BMO
15. Re:The Black Pill by dywolf · 2015-02-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the assistance is really just a prescription for a drug or medication that will enable you, at your choosing, to slip away.
  No pain.
  No violence.
  No potential harm to others.
  No consciousness of the occurrence.
  You just go to sleep and not wake up.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The problem by Vintermann · 2015-02-08 02:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of determining whether your life is not worth living? Presumably they will also find that some people are wrong in wanting to die, otherwise they wouldn't need a system at all.
Which lives are worth living or not sounds to me like the kind of question it's maybe not right to set an official answer to.
I have sympathy with people who feel life isn't worth living. But I wish they would not demand that others validate their choice by killing them.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
1. Re:The problem by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should actually read the judgment It is the individual who makes the determination, not the doctor, though as a safeguard the doctors have to make sure that the person is competent to make that decision.
  So there's no "official answer", no "checklist" - it's up to the individual, in consultation with friends, family, and doctors.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:The problem by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-02-08 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Such as system does not aim to answer the question if a life is worth living; the answer to that question can only be given by the person living it. The system does set up safeguards, to ward against other people making that decision for them (in case of coma, dementia or people who are otherwise mentally incapacitated), setting conditions under which people can make arrangements for when they become mentally incapacitated (in the form of a living will or a notarized declaration), and to protect people from making overly hasty decisions (in case of depression). In other words, the system doesn't decide, but it protects against abuse.
  
  The system should also not "demand that others validate their choice by killing them". In the Netherlands, no doctor is compelled by law to assist with a suicide; no one has the right to demand to be helped, what those people are demanding is the right to be allowed to be helped. There are many doctors willing to help, depending on your reasons for ending your life. One doctor might not want to assist if you're ending your life because you are old and have nothing to look forward to, but another doctor might. What the system does is ensure that appropriate checks are cleared before the doctor actually assists you.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:The problem by Vintermann · 2015-02-08 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  They're not demanding anything of you except maybe a little compassion...
  Involving other people so they become complicit in your death doesn't sound like demanding nothing to me.
  If you know how some people use suicide threats (and even suicide attempts), that "maybe a little compassion" doesn't sound quite so innocent.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
4. Re:The problem by Vintermann · 2015-02-08 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Such as system does not aim to answer the question if a life is worth living
  If it tells some people that they are irrational in demanding to die (e.g saying they are depressed), and others that they are rational in demanding to die, then it implicitly does.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
5. Re:The problem by SuiteSisterMary · 2015-02-08 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'll tell you right now, though, they're going to need to codify, in law, that desiring to end one's life isn't prima facie evidence of not being mentally competent.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
6. Re:The problem by Vintermann · 2015-02-08 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  When the doctor decides whether you are competent to make that decision, they do give an official answer. If a healthy and normal person demanded it, they would probably say he was irrationally depressed.
  So they make a value judgment based on the contents of your life, on how much pain you are in, on what your prospects are. etc. Some lives are deemed rational to want to end, others are deemed not rational.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
7. Re:The problem by Attila+Dimedici · 2015-02-08 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal. In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
8. Re:The problem by w_dragon · 2015-02-08 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The doctor also makes the decision on if bloodwork or a CT should be done. Most patients don't question a doctor's recommendations. Which leaves the door open for eugenics with this ruling, but we'll see what kinds of regulations the various governments enact in the 12 months before the ruling takes effect.
9. Re:The problem by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Every suicidal people is already considered mentally ill. How can you then consider someone in this situation is capable to decide for his own life?
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
10. Re:The problem by itzly · 2015-02-08 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because doctors have a secret urge to kill their patients ?
11. Re:The problem by itzly · 2015-02-08 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Not necessarily. Somebody with a incurable disease and a lot of pain would be considered quite sane to wish to end the hopeless suffering.
12. Re:The problem by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Quebec has already changed its laws to allow assisted suicide. This is because they recognize sometimes, for some people, there's no point in extending the suffering. So no, the law now says that not every person who considers suicide is mentally ill.
  Also, we allow people to sign DNRs. That can be seen as a form of suicide, but it's legal and rational. What isn't rational is to only allow people to actively end their lives by refusing food and letting them starve to death. How is that NOT sick?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:The problem by miquels · 2015-02-08 04:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands"
  [citation needed]
  
  --
  Living is a horizontal fall
14. Re:The problem by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's been my experience that doctors encourage patients to ask questions about their treatment. They put the "informed" in informed consent because to do otherwise would be malpractice and/or assault.
  As for eugenics, once a person is no longer capable of reproducing, you can't "clean up" the gene pool by offing them. Also, natural selection is eugenics. It's the environment that controls who wins and who loses, and the gene pool is improved in terms of survivability.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
15. Re:The problem by itzly · 2015-02-08 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  The doctors do not make much money with eldery
  Even assuming doctors are cold calculating psychopaths, there's plenty of money in treatment of elderly. And even if they wanted to get rid of them, it would be easier to make it look like a natural death by killing them when nobody's watching. Actually putting the assisted suicide as the official cause of death is going to attract attention from the rest of the staff, and family/friends.
16. Re:The problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die.
  That is correct. Only you are conveniently forgetting that the frequency of that happening went down by a factor of 4 after euthanasia became legal in 2002. To quote from a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet: "Ending of life without an explicit patient request in 2010 occurred less often (0Ã2%; 95% CI 0Ã1Ã"0Ã3; 13 of 6861) than in 2005, 2001, 1995, and 1990 (0Ã8%; 0Ã6Ã"1Ã1; 45 of 5197). "
  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61034-4/abstract
  (And for those who are not used to reading responsible research that tries to report findings, instead of support a pre-determined position, CI refers to the confidence interval and is a measure of how certain the researchers are of their numbers. If you would like to point to other studies, don't bother if your study is not peer reviewed and does not include such basic means of determining the underlying statistics.)
17. Re:The problem by anarcobra · 2015-02-08 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Right. And we all walk around wearing “Do not euthanize me” bracelets.
  Post some evidence, or stop spouting nonsense.
18. Re:The problem by AmiMoJo · 2015-02-08 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Asking for help to end suffering doesn't sound like a demand. Anyone is free to refuse giving assistance.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
19. Re:The problem by Attila+Dimedici · 2015-02-08 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
20. Re:The problem by Attila+Dimedici · 2015-02-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
21. Re:The problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  >You are depressed or not and if you are depressed you are mentally ill.
  Let's get this straight for the benefit of those who don't understand depression. I speak as someone who was a guinea pig at Mass General in Boston for five years due to my chronic, severe major depressive illness that was refractory to ANY AND ALL MEDICAL TREATMENT; that's how I wound up at MGH. I spent 53 of my 58 years fighting a worsening disease until a new med came out (VIIBRYD*) and I actually have a life now (thriving, not surviving). And I did all this while putting together a 30-plus year resume at the top end of high tech R&D.
  When you are depressed, you may or may not be irrational, and you may or may not be suicidal.
  If you are depressed and irrational, you will be called on the irrationality and you won't do anything much until the professionals are convinced you are in the balance of your mind and won't hurt yourself or anyone else; thus patient irrationality precludes assisted suicide. You can always try to sign yourself out AMA (against medical advice) but you may well get involuntarily committed if you are in really bad shape.
  If you are depressed, rational, and suicidal, you're likely in one of two places: you actively WANT to die, or you know this suicidal ideation is a symptom and so you DON'T want to kill yourself. If you ARE suicidal, the trick is for you and the professionals to tease apart how much of that is reasonable (intractable pain, end-stage disease) or a disease symptom with no basis in fact.
  The win is to lift the depression (light therapy, herbal therapy like weed [the only thing that ever worked for me until the arrival of VIIBRYD], or drug therapy) so that the patient can make rational decisions.
  OK?
  Also, there ARE NO JOKES ABOUT SUICIDE. If somebody you know is talking/joking/whatever about suicide, it is evidence of serious trouble, of disordered thinking likely from depression. Do NOT leave that person alone until you're convinced they are OK or you've informed SOMEBODY (spouse, buddy, professionals) about your concerns (better a pissed of friend than an unnecessarily DEAD one). For example, in my mind the true tragedy of Robin Williams death is that he somehow went through the cracks: his family knew he was suicidal, he was at home waiting for admission to a mental health center for treatment of that episode, and he got away from his handlers or his handlers slipped up and in those few moments his despair overtook him. Suicide watch saves lives.
  * https://www.viibryd.com This is the first drug that has give me NO NO NO side effects (except loose stool twice in about the first 36 hours) and actually lifted my depression. Viibryd combines SSRI activity (never worked for me as my serotonin levels are so INCREDIBLY low) with shutting off the "no serotonin" signal at the receptor neuron and that, my friends, has made ALL the difference in my life.
22. Re:The problem by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since you apparently are unable to use Google
  Atillia Dimedici likes to have sex with goats. Don't believe me....use Google! It's your responsibility to disprove any bullshit asserted on the internet, and yours alone.
23. Re:The problem by radarskiy · 2015-02-08 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  "They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living."
  Doctors already do that. So do insurance companies.
24. Re:The problem by bluegutang · 2015-02-08 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  Nice sig.
25. Re:The problem by dave420 · 2015-02-09 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The first link doesn't show what you seem to think it does, and the second site is some nonsensical pro-lifer drivel, which doesn't go out of its way to provide access to the sources, making it indistinguishable from fantasy to those without access to the papers it cites. They're not really helping your argument!
26. Re:The problem by dywolf · 2015-02-09 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  He may not be able to Google, but you are apparently unable to read. Once again you prove your limited intellectual facilities, as the first link you provided actually states the opposite of what you think it does, and the other is just a pile of manure.
  
  Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
  No slippery slope seems to have occurred.
  Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases.
  Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts.
  In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.
  (Emphasis added.)
  So other than some tabloid journalism from the likes of the Daily Mail and Breitbart, ie, non-factual, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
27. Re:The problem by dywolf · 2015-02-09 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  I have sympathy with people who feel life isn't worth living. But I wish they would not demand that others validate their choice by killing them.
  Well then today is your lucky day!
  Because you don't know what youre talking about and are completely mistaken about how it all even works.
  The person who wants to die makes the choice and is the one who actually carries out the act. All the doctor typically does is discuss, in realistic and rational fashion, the patients options. Which really is what doctors do already. It's just that presently when someone has no options and there is no more that can be done, that's the end of the conversation. the patient can say "I don't want to live like this", but all the doctor can do is empathize. this simply allows the conversation, between a patient and his doctor, to continue rationally about the one option left, if the patient wants it.
  If after discussing it the patient makes that his determination, the doctor writes out a prescription. And that is the end of the doctor's participation. It is at the point wholly on the patient to carry it out or not, when they are ready. There is no violence to the self involved, as there would be in hanging, shooting, or other methods. Nor is there pain. The patient simply goes to sleep.
  It is not our place to tell someone that must keep living because it is our believe that they must.
  That's not our place. That's simply another way of forcing someone else to suffer because of our beliefs.
  Its not right.
  Yes we try to prevent the mentally ill from committing suicide.
  This is not mutually exclusive with the right of a person to choose to end their life with dignity.
  The one is an often an irrational and emotional response made in extremis, for which they can get help.
  The other is often a very rational decision because there really is no more help to be given.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 02:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe the General Attorney of Canada missed the point in this case and did not defend properly his position. If you can easily think anyone has the right to decide for his own life, the point is about asking someone else to kill him. The argument revolved around the right for an individual to put an end to his days, and this has been declared unconstitutional to force him to live. However, what about giving permission to someone to kill someone else? This is the entire point at my humble opinion and this is where there will be abuses. It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
1. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If the person has the right to end their life because it's not possible to help them and they want to end their suffering, and you deny them assistance when they are not physically capable of doing it themselves (just do a search for Sue Rodriguez), you have effectively removed the right for that person to end their life.
  And that is unconstitutional in Canada.
  And as the court noted, other jurisdictions have installed safeguards that work; there's no reason to believe and slippery slope will occur.
  
  It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.
  The conditions that the court envisions would make what you describe impossible.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-02-08 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.
  In most assisted-suicide schemes, the burden of proof is on the "killer", not on the prosecution. The killer will have to prove in exquisite and irrefutable detail that the victim wanted to die. In any good system, such proof is filed and challenged before the assisted suicide even takes place.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by thegarbz · 2015-02-08 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.
  Maybe you should read the rest of the summary before assuming they missed the point. Specifically where they say: " a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them."
  Courts to prove the killed one never asked to be killed? We have legal systems that can cover all manners of a person's life including granting a person to the right to his own identity. Is it so inconceivable that a system is designed that has effectively a statistically insignificant error and abuse rate?
4. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by fustakrakich · 2015-02-08 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  impossible? No such thing. Paperwork is easily falsified, and the authorities all have a long history. As necessary as this is, it still does provide another avenue of plausible deniability, and will always require more oversight than it is likely to get.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
5. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by FooAtWFU · 2015-02-08 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  In most assisted-suicide schemes, the burden of proof is on the "killer", not on the prosecution.
  
  Methinks you trust Systems too much.
  
  The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social "slippery slope," as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is "tired of living" is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.
  -- Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls, J. Pereira, MBChB MSc. Current Oncology. 2011 Apr; 18(2): e38-e45.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
6. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of hard to claim that a video wherein the patient outlines the reasons for their decision is faked, especially if family and friends are also present.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
7. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by fustakrakich · 2015-02-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  :-) I never said it wasn't difficult, but some families will do anything to get their hands on a fistful of dollars. I take this to such an absurd level because some people really are crazy enough to attempt it.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
8. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you don't know what you are talking about. I did try to sue a doctor for killing my own mother without her consent and before this judgment from the Supreme court of Canada. I then filed a complain to the police officiers and the province prosecutor refuses to sue. I remind you this was not even legal and this doctor did act so under the current criminal laws.
  Do you know why the police refuses to even take the case? Because, living in province of Quebec, there was a legistlative debat to make assisted suicide legal and they do not want to interfer with it. You are very naive to believe suffice for a court to put some restrictions to have these restrictions actually followed in good faith by the authority that have all the interest to not follow it. You can produce hills of administrative papers and documents to make everything appearing as legal to everyone. The larger the amount, the lower are the chances someone will have enough time to go through it.
  Supreme court of Canada is opening here a very dangerous door.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
9. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry again to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. You are living in an ideal world, an utopia and want to believe it. The reality is papers are falsifiable and are actually falsified. I have the medical records of my mother which was killed by the doctor, and I was there when it happened, they lied to us to inject her a letal dose of morphin and another 'medication' which does not figure on the medical records. The medical records are wrong on many aspect, including the description of this episode. Accordingly to the medical records, they did inject her in an inexistent catheter. I was monitoring her vitals and it is very obvious she was dying for good when they gave her the last injection (unidentified substance on the medical records), her hearthbeat quickly fall and she died after 30 minutes.
  They told us they were giving her morphin to help her sleep and recover. A plain lie in our face. I was there with four of my sisters. All witnesses and the police never investigated the case I reported to it.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
10. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry for your loss, but if there was a DNR or the doctors decided that attempts to save her life were going to be futile, nobody will prosecute because it doesn't make sense to continue any treatment in such cases.
  Living in DDO, QC., the Quebec legislation directly affects me, and I'm good with it. Completely OT, what part of town are you in?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
11. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 04:49 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Read my comments to others above. I have answered this question in detail. A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual. This is initiated by the general attorney or a representative. This attorney is due to the government, the same entity that is managing the healthcare system and paying for it, and has an interest to reduce the burden of the healthcare system on the budget.
  You are talking theory, I am talking practice. Did you ever try to sue a doctor who has kill your mother without her consent? I did and the police never investigated the case because it is medical matter and the general attorney never sue anyone. And all this before this Supreme court decision while the doctors' actions were criminal.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
12. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by itzly · 2015-02-08 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry again to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. You are living in an ideal world, an utopia and want to believe it.
  And you're projecting everything on your N=1 personal experience.
13. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  What you have is an anecdote. Do you presume that the rights of individuals to take their own lives should be limited because of the case you've cited? Should others have to live in misery? While I'm sorry for your loss, you can't project it on everyone else's situation.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
14. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by StillAnonymous · 2015-02-08 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  Your line of reasoning has consequences I'd imagine you haven't thought of, because it can be extended to abuse in ANY system than can cause death. By your logic, the fact that somebody could rig someone else's brakes to cause a fatal car accident makes allowing people to drive cars a slippery slope. You can't have electricity in your house, because someone could rig a device to electrocute someone else.
  If an abuse comes up, you deal with that abuse you don't use a small outlier as reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see from your post below that your view toward this ruling is tainted by being a victim at one point. There is good reason not to allow victims to decide on law for everyone else.
15. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry again to tell you you don't know what you are talking about.
  
  Do you say that to everyone who disagrees with you? Then there's the fact that you're wanting to manage to the exception (shut down the whole system rather than deal with the rare possibility for abuse), rather than managing the exception (put systems in place to catch abusers).
  Which is a fallacy.
16. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-02-08 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the Netherlands (a country with an assisted suicide scheme), one can initiate a procedure to compel the attorney general to prosecute, if the court decides the case has merit. I don't know if this procedure has ever been used in an assisted suicide case, but if it has, it'll be a handful of cases only. Contrary to popular belief (or whatever passes for facts at Fox News), assisted suicide is taken very seriously here, and while mistakes do happen, there's no government offing grannies to save on health care here.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
17. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-02-08 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  The title and snippet from that paper sound very much like coming from someone who had already made up their mind about euthanasia before doing the study.
  
  About that slippery slope. Yes, more and more types of cases are being allowed for assisted suicide, but that has mostly to do with social inertia. It took a long and hard fight against religious conservatives to allow even the most obvious cases to be helped: people in constant pain with no hope for a cure. Religion would prefer to have these people live out their last days (or years, if they are unfortunate) in a hell on earth. Anyway, now that this first step has been taken, legislators are indeed trying to get other types of cases accepted for assisted suicide under law. Those legislators know more or less where they want to go with this. No slippery slope, but an uphill struggle against religious conservatives.
  
  No system is perfect, but the solution is not to disallow all cases.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
18. Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual.
  Not true in Canada. From "Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Private Prosecutions":
  
  However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.
  The court then holds a special hearing, and the court decides whether prosecution will proceed.
  The Ontario Attorney General’s website was the first Google hit, but the same applies in every Canadian province and territory for which I have looked.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:20 · Score: 1

Let's see. The motto used to be "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." This is clearly Stuff that Matters.
It's definitely related to biology, which IS a science. Look at the recent articles about extending the length of telomeres to try to extend life spans. If we succeed in that, we're going to have a lot more people who are going to, at the end, need a dignified exit. The time to have that debate is before we get to that point, rather than doing it ad hoc.
Also, there are the ethical questions. Even Einstein came to recognize this after urging the government to investigate the possibilities of uranium to make bombs, when they were used against civilian populations.
And let us not forget that even geeks and nerds and their families will all have to face the grim reaper at some point. Taxes might not be a certainty if you're in the 1%, but death still is (at least until the singularity).

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ironically by penguinoid · 2015-02-08 02:42 · Score: 1

Those who would be best suited for assisted suicide would be those who are least able to properly consent to it. You could use a living will, but then what do you do if people change their minds? And what do you do about the sort of person who thinks they want to die but decided that irrationally and you expect would change their minds between jumping off a building and hitting the floor?
Also, given that for most suicide "attempts" the objective is to get people's attention rather than to die, what happens to all those if assisted suicide becomes legal?

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re:Ironically by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  "And what do you do about the sort of person who thinks they want to die but decided that irrationally and you expect would change their minds between jumping off a building and hitting the floor?"
  If the doctors believe that the person is acting irrationally and they expect the person would change their mind, it just isn't going to happen. That's the whole point of having mandatory safeguards.
  
  "Also, given that for most suicide "attempts" the objective is to get people's attention rather than to die"
  [citation needed]
  I'm pretty sure that Robin Williams would have disagreed with you. Michael Landsberg certainly does.
  And so do I.
  Like Landsberg said in one interview: "You're in a meeting and you look at your watch and say 'Sorry, I've got an appointment with my dentist.' No problem. But when you say "Sorry, I've got an appointment with my psychiatrist' ... " Look at how many people say "Gee, I never suspected they were having problems" because of the stigma of mental illness.
  So maybe some people are trying to get attention. Maybe that's their way of saying "Why won't someone help me?" But there's nothing selfish about suicide.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A good thing by Kjella · 2015-02-08 02:44 · Score: 1

If I do my math right, in Switzerland the suicide rate is 14 in 100k * 7.8mio people = 1100/year. According to the statistics (PDF) from Dignitas they assist ~10 Swiss nationals/year. What does this mean? That 99% of suicides are unassisted - or at least without official assistance. Almost everybody could find a way to kill themselves. It could be messy, it could be painful, it could fail - one of the people in Terry Pratchet's "Choosing to die" had two failed suicide attempts behind him. The worst are those who end up endangering and causing psychological trauma for others by for example head-on collision with a big truck. These are not your "spur of the moment" suicides, those people are already dead.
You can refuse to get intravenous feeding and slowly and painfully starve to death. You can not get a concoction of drugs to quickly and painlessly end it. How is that merciful? Nobody would blame the gun shop if they sold you a gun you used to blow your own brains out. I realize why you would want "death pills" administered only in controllled conditions though, but then the flip side is you know what it's going to be used for. I understand that's an ethical problem to some even though they don't "pull the trigger", metaphorically speaking.
It's more my life than anybody else's. It's not for you to say if I want to live or not, of course you can advice and suggest but ultimately it is my decision. But then there I'm at odds with many other rules of society that seek to overrule my own opinion and say no, you can't do that for your own good. I poison my body with alcohol on a regular basis, nobody can objectively say it's good for my health. Not to mention addictive, though I'm hardly in the danger zone for alcoholism but of course all alcoholics started out drinking. And it lowers inhibitions for better and worse, I've never been closer to a criminal record than while drunk. Those are all risks I choose to accept. But with a lot of other drugs I'm overruled. If I want to die the healthcare system will overrule me, no I don't. I absolutely hate it when someone claims to know me better than myself.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Life insurance by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 02:47 · Score: 1

I should imagine it's the same as any other suicide. After all, if it saves the insurance company money keeping someone alive who doesn't want to be, they're in no position to complain.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Small business owners will oppose this in USA by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-02-08 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

The small business owner is the job creator, one who takes enormous risk to put up some capital in the hopes of making insane amount of profits. There are people willing to do the work for 2$ an hour and bowl of refried beans, which is the price for labor set by Free Markets. But the onerous, oppressive and burdensome regulations thought up by the Federal bureaucrats are making them pay 7.50$ an hour several times what the Free market dictates. Further things like overtime pay, paid to wash hands after using restrooms, paid time to use restroom, costs like gloves and masks to handle chemicals....
Now this, if these people decide this life is not worth living and decide to kick the bucket legally, without any consequence, what would happen to their businesses? Who would create jobs? Nothing should put the well being and motivation of the small business owner to risk. The access to steady supply of cheap labor and over supply of laborers should be maintained by the government at all costs. Allowing legal suicides would imperil the most sacrosanct class of Americans, the small business owner.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Small business owners will oppose this in USA by fatwilbur · 2015-02-08 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment doesn't make any sense. The ruling in this case is about people with terminal illnesses and/or those in irreversible chronic agony. This is not setting up a system where any random able-bodied person can choose to commit suicide. The people this targets are definitely no longer part of the workforce.
2. Re:Small business owners will oppose this in USA by sysrammer · 2015-02-08 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent post, sir and/or ma'am. You've reeled in three and counting...
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Related debate by sansprivacy · 2015-02-08 03:15 · Score: 1

There is a really good iq2 debate about this http://intelligencesquaredus.o...
Re:How does it feel to be a dickgirl? by rmdingler · 2015-02-08 03:37 · Score: 1

Bicurious?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Cure for diseases and repairs should come first. by Zombie+Ryushu · 2015-02-08 04:17 · Score: 1

Cures for diseases and repairs should come first. While there are some unbelievably horrendous diseases out there that at present time we cannot cure. An example of this is one of the worst Cancers you can get, Transitional cell Carcinoma, which we wage an endless struggle even slowing down it moves so radically fast. That doesn't meanwe shouldn't keep looking for cures where ever is possible.
If you're a wheel chair bound quadriplegic we should be looking for a way to repair, regrow, or use a cybernetic augment your spinal column where you can move again. If you're a 100 year old senile man who can't remember if he's wearing pants then we should find a way to re-grow the failed Glial cells in your brain causing you to have de-reference failures in your brain making you unable to remember that you are not wearing any pants.
And while the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god may not exist in reality he exists in the minds of those that believe in him, and that god profits from our agony and misery. The best way to defeat that god's will, is to create conditions where Humans live healthy comfortable lives. Humans that are healthy, content, and have a high standard of living and education will not turn to "God" for help and will not be controlled as such.
Re:Life insurance by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 04:40 · Score: 2

Most insurance policies don't cover suicide in the first 2 years, but do cover it after.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Does Canada have Constitution? by mi · 2015-02-08 04:42 · Score: 1

Of course, it does not — they (along with Australia and a few others) are ruled by the British Crown. They have something, that's called "Constitution of Canada" — except it is the other way around. Whereas American Constitution was the supreme law first, and other laws were written to cover areas not covered by the document and tested not to violate it, Canada's imitation is "an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions [emphasis mine -mi] and conventions".
The worst difference, in my opinion, is that Canadian "Constitution" is easier to amend, than American, and is thus more prone to temporary opinion-swings.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Does Canada have Constitution? by mi · 2015-02-08 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  We are not "ruled" by the british crown you fucking clown.
  Yeah? Who is the Canada's Head of State?
  
  Any actual power the queen has was pretty much relinquished ages ago.
  "Actual" and "pretty much" are the evasive loopholes, through which a truck can be driven.
  Yes, the British have been nice enough of late, they let colonies run their own affairs. But you are still the Crown's subjects, which is what I said. Calling me names will not change it.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:Does Canada have Constitution? by mhotchin · 2015-02-08 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada. It just so happens that this office resides in the same person as a bunch of other heads of state, but that does *not* make the British crown our ruler.
  It's a subtle, but *very important* distinction, because the powers of the British crown are *not* the same as the powers of the Canadian crown.
  In fact it is entirely possible for one crown to abdicate one position, but not the others. They are, after all, separate positions.
Re:Cure for diseases and repairs should come first by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 04:43 · Score: 1

Three things: (1) Because I agree with paragraphs 1 and 2, I think the ruling is bad because it will give People an excuse to say, "Well, We can't cure it and They can just die. So, why bother trying to cure the disease." (2) Your characterization of the J/C/I Deity ignores the fact said Deity actually profits from the alleviation of agony and misery and not the agony/misery, per se; therefore, trying to "defeat that god's will" should not be a goal. (3) Eliminating disease will not remove the Human need for a Deity.
I for one am glad to see the ruling by msobkow · 2015-02-08 04:43 · Score: 1

While my migraines aren't making me suicidal, they do give me a lot of sympathy for people who are suffering from more debilitating and painful conditions in the later years of their lives. I can easily imagine a life that is so miserable that I'd want to end it on my terms instead of prolonging it.
I don't want to live much past 65-70 (I'll be 51 in April.) The idea of spending years in a nursing home eating shit for food, bored to tears, and listening to my neighbour tell me for the 40th time about their grandkids visiting last weekend is the most horrific existence I can imagine. So around 60, I'll be filing a "do not resuscitate" order with the local health care system.
I cannot fathom people who go to extreme lengths of diet and exercise in a futile effort to prolong their lives. No one lives forever. You will die, no matter what you do to put it off. Why would you want to exist in suffering for extra years instead of just accepting your exit gracefully while you're still a fully functioning human being?
Aneurism. Heart attack. Hit by a bus. I can't say that I really care how I go -- so long as I don't have to spend those gruel-eating years waiting to stop existing in some horrible nursing home.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:I for one am glad to see the ruling by Baron_Yam · 2015-02-09 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  >I cannot fathom people who go to extreme lengths of diet and exercise in a futile effort to prolong their lives. No one lives forever. You will die, no matter what you do to put it off. Why would you want to exist in suffering for extra years instead of just accepting your exit gracefully while you're still a fully functioning human being?
  I've known people who lived well, well into their 90s before a quick decline. The retirement home was a very brief stop for them, because when they went in it was because their bodies were already failing.
  With good genes, a good environment, and taking care of yourself, you can have a couple of decades of life and experience beyond 70.
  You only get one go... why waste any of it? Rotting in a retirement home is generally a default choice by people who don't know what to do with themselves without someone telling them first.
Re:Life insurance by AchilleTalon · 2015-02-08 04:50 · Score: 1

There is no such thing like life insurance in Canada. The system is paid and managed by the government.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2015-02-08 05:34 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:As a canadian... by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-08 06:10 · Score: 1

I knew that for at least a week now. Old news.
No you didn't because today is Sunday, Feb 8 2015 and the decision was announced Friday Feb 6 2015. That's 2 days ago, and I submitted the story the same morning.
Or you can read the date on the actual judgment, again just 2 days ago.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A modern trend by Sqreater · 2015-02-08 06:16 · Score: 1

that encourages a sociopathic focus on what one wants reqardless of a wider social good. And the right to commit suicide will inevitably become the obligation to do so.

--
E Proelio Veritas.
Right to Liberty; Freedom of Choice by rea1l1 · 2015-02-08 06:27 · Score: 1

I see you have an opinion there, sir. I'm glad you are able to pronounce it publicly. Others have differing opinions on the matter, like myself.
I believe everyone and anyone should be free to do as they please so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
The production, ownership, and use of marijuana does not infringe upon anyone's rights.
Re:Fuck anyone who is against assisted suicide. by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 07:07 · Score: 1

I am sick of idiots who think they have a right to interfere in the lives of others.
Of course the US is full of such idiots, and I am most of the time embarrassed that
I share a country with such scum.
I'm sick of idiots who think that only their opinions matter. I'm embarrassed to share the same country with such intolerance.
As for interference in the lives of others, and this is just my $.02, I'll agree up to the point where it interferes with someone else's rights (take your suicide off my lawn punk). Or, possibly is attempting to assist the suicide of someone in order to collect their insurance, inheritance, etc. As long as proper controls and safeguards get implemented...have a Kevorkian day!

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:The prison system's new torture by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 07:09 · Score: 1

Please back up your tin-foil hat argument.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:The prison system's new torture by fustakrakich · 2015-02-08 07:29 · Score: 1

What is there to 'back up'? Dead people offer no profit, comparatively speaking of course, the cadaver does have a salable value.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:The prison system's new torture by dcw3 · 2015-02-08 09:10 · Score: 1

The statement that "suicide is illegal because it is of no benefit to the state" implies that some conspiracy of the state has created the anti-suicide laws. This is patently false.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:The prison system's new torture by fustakrakich · 2015-02-08 10:07 · Score: 1

I like how you use 'conspiracy' there. Very effective way of discrediting an idea you don't like to hear. There is no reason to make suicide illegal.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
More slippery slope nonsense by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 10:19 · Score: 1

A doctor is going to tell you to drink Drano for an ulcer before he prescribes suicide as a treatment for depression. So stuff the fearmongering BS.
Parliament by Livius · 2015-02-08 13:48 · Score: 1

I find this troubling, not because I disagree with a policy of permitting assisted suicide - it's a tricky issue and I accept that there's no perfect solution - but because far too often 'unconstitutional' is a thinly disguised version of 'something the Supreme Court disagrees with politically'.
This is a political matter for Parliament, not a question of law that needed clarification. It would be nice if our politicians were not so lazy and cowardly that they decline to deal with the issue, but that does not mean it's a good idea for the judicial branch to start legislating for them. Even if you think judicial activism is a good idea - and not everyone does - it can be taken too far.
Re:Life insurance by dave420 · 2015-02-09 03:52 · Score: 1

Seeing as you got that wrong, it makes me wonder what else you got wrong with just as much conviction, without even realising you were wrong...
Competency by DarthVain · 2015-02-09 04:29 · Score: 1

Haven't read the decision, but such was my concern.
Usually it involves some determination of "Competency" which can be somewhat hard to define. In many cases legally this may be influenced by undue "Duress". Which in many of the cases due to the nature of the issue, both are at risk. As the injury or affliction may rob someone of their faculties, and being in a lot of pain could certainly be called duress. If so, the number of incidents this would actually cover might actually be quite small.
It may sound selfish, but I know I would not want to have to make such a decision for a loved family member, and if it isn't an option, then that decision is taken out of your hands. I know the only two examples of this I can recall (because they were in the media), were parents of a mentally challenged girl, and an older woman suffering from dementia, neither of which would likely pass the competency test anyway.
Then the difficulty becomes in diagnosis. About the only time this might apply is someone that gets early diagnosis of something really bad, and decides that they do not want to live through the experience. That said, just like the argument against capitol punishment, judges and the court system are not infallible, and neither are doctors or our medical system. Though presumably, one would proceed though the initial stages prior to any decision of this magnitude being made, however given the limits, if you wait too long... may no longer be allowable.
1. Re:Competency by Minupla · 2015-02-09 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have a few more examples - mostly because of situations I've been in over the years, and I know that the decisions get made today. Blind eyes get turned, "Oh dear, I appear to have left you way more drugs then required. Make sure they don't overdose on them." and then the death is ruled natural causes, all obvious evidence to the contrary.
  I think overall this ruling is good, because it will remove the necessity for such "natural cause" deaths and ensure that the framework is followed instead. There's always going to be messy corner cases in law. There are people who get sentenced for murders they don't commit too. We can't ignore the problem because the solutions are going to be imperfect.
  In the wake of this announcement there was someone who called into the local radio show. He said he had injected his loved one with a lethal dose of medication ("enough to kill a horse"). Imagine the guilt and suffering that person has gone through since, as they were unable to seek help, or therapy, etc, because what he did was technically speaking murder. We are not serving the greater good with the status quo.
  The next step is for the competent government (federal most likely in this case, since the existing law is federal, although there's a non-zero chance that the feds might leave it up to the provinces through inaction) to take a stab at answering all the messy issues like "What does competent mean in this case". Then there will be court challenges, until we come up with a law that is acceptable within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and acceptable to the government(s) of the day. It's not pretty, but it is democracy.
  Min
  
  --
  On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Solving one problem by Cro+Magnon · 2015-02-09 05:01 · Score: 1

One problem that I hear about when this issue comes up is that some greedy relative will convince the patient to off himself so they can get their money. My solution to that is to cut the relative out of my will before authorizing him to make the decision for me. What could go wrong?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Big deal - Oregon has done this for a long time by jaunty · 2015-02-09 06:21 · Score: 1

http://news.nationalpost.com/2...

--
Why did I post this? Ask me now!