Canada wants to start killing Children!

#1
As Canada moves to embrace assisted suicide, the country has found itself going further and further in just several short years. Assisted suicide was just legalized there in 2015, and in less than two years, the number of assisted suicides skyrocketed. The Canadian government must be pleased with these results, because it has been moving to legalize euthanasia in more and more circumstances.

Originally, the legalization of assisted suicide came with certain stipulations. People eligible had to be competent adults, able to fully consent, and be in “grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable.” In addition to this, “physicians cannot be compelled to assist those wanting to die.” But already, things are changing. Some doctors claim they are forced to participate in assisted suicide; parents are reporting that they are being pressured to euthanize their disabled children. The government is also launching a study to examine whether or not people with mental illnesses should be eligible for euthanasia, and officials in Quebec have begun considering allowing family members to euthanize their loved ones with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, even without the person’s consent.

The next stop? Allowing children to be euthanized.

According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, there are increasing requests for the euthanasia of children. The medical organization rightly said that this indicated a need for better palliative care, but did not disavow assisted suicide for minors.

“Medical assistance in dying is something that has been legislated [for adults] and stated [as] needing to be accessible … but there isn’t the same ‘oomph’ for saying that all Canadians need good access to palliative care,” Dr. Dawn Davies, chair of the society’s bioethics committee and a pediatric palliative care physician in Edmonton, said. “Where the issue of medical assistance in dying is ever raised by a child, you know, we would advocate that that should automatically be a referral for pediatric palliative care.”

Davies is chairing a review of the current assisted suicide law, which bars minors from being euthanized. The review will determine whether or not “mature minors” should be eligible for assisted suicide, meaning children under the age of 18, and capable of giving consent. The review will be presented to Parliament in 2018.

A report published last week by the Canadian Paediatric Society showed that almost half of pediatricians — 46% — were in favor of assisted suicide for minors. 29% approved it for children with an “intolerable disability.” 17 minor children explicitly requested assisted suicide, while 60 patients had “exploratory discussions” about it.

Naturally, the assisted suicide lobby was enthusiastic about this news. “For us, this is fundamentally an issue about discrimination,” Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, said. “How can we look away from the 16-year old that has enduring, intolerable suffering that can make other health-care decisions? How can we look away from them in the face of that suffering and deny them their right to an assisted death?” She also claimed that if assisted suicide was not legalized, families would be forced to take their requests to court. “We don’t want to have a situation … [where we] rely on a 15-year-old with terminal illness and their family, already grieving what they know will be the inevitable outcome of their child having an early death because of their medical condition, having to go to court,” she said.

Canadian Physicians For Life, meanwhile, has opposed the measure. “What’s really happening is that children are being unprotected whereas they were protected before from euthanasia,” Will Johnston, president, said. Davies disagreed, though, saying that better palliative care is not what is needed. “I think a lot of it has to do with control … over one’s life and one’s destiny no matter how old you are,” she said. “That’s a very personal sort of thing.”

Davies is certainly right that the issue is not about palliative care; multiple studies have indeed shown that the reason people most commonly request assisted suicide is not fear of their disease, pain, or the symptoms they might suffer. Most people feel hopeless, are fighting depression, don’t have support, or are afraid of being a burden on their families. When these issues are addressed, like the patient’s clinical depression, then the request for assisted suicide is typically withdrawn.

So why does Davies not advocate for addressing those issues, like fearing a loss of control and autonomy, for her young patients? The answer to those fears is not a death sentence. And how quickly would the option of assisted suicide turn into the obligation of assisted suicide? Doctors are already pressuring parents to euthanize their adult disabled children; does anyone really think that it will get better once minors are legally eligible too?
 
#2
Here are 3 examples of what could happen:

1. 16 year old Luke used to be a football player. He had a girlfriend and his life was going well until he had a motorcycle accident and becomes Quadraplegic. He mourns his old life and his girlfriend dumps him. Luke is heart broken. He thinks he will never find love as a Quadriplegic so he decides he doesn't want to live any more. Instead of counselling he is given a lethal injection. If he hadn't died he might have adapted to his disability and found true love with another quadraplegic. It happens.

2. 13 year old Lucy is being molested by her father. She is already suffering when she discovers she also has cancer. So she asks the doctor for Assistive suicide in a bid to end it all. The doctors can tell she's suffering but they don't know why as she is too scared to report her father. She doesn't realise this but going to a hospice for cancer sufferers will put an end to her father's nightly visits but she's so young she just doesn't think about that. In fact it's possible that she could be cured of her cancer and her father could be sent to jail where he belongs.

3. 15 year old Jane has Schizophrenia. She has many delusions. One that people are trying to poison her so she does not swallow the medication she is given. Instead she spits it out in the toilet. So nothing she is given works for her. Her parents find her hard to cope with. She keeps on waking them up in the middle of the night holding noisy conversations with 'intruders' that don't exist. To get rid of the intruders she sometimes calls the police. Then her voices tell her to commit suicide. So she asks for assistive suicide. Her parents can't wait to get rid of her and exadurate all her 'suffering'. So she is killed by lethal injection. Drugs could have helped her if she'd taken them and she could have had a reasonably good life but now she never will.
 

Bear

Well-Known Member
#3
I do not agree with euthanizing a child for any of the reasons above. HOWEVER, there are some diseases and conditions that children could have that would lead to nothing but a lifetime of severe pain and suffering. It is in those cases that I believe euthanizing would be a more humane solution. We condone euthanizing our animals so that they do not suffer but we allow the suffering of humans? This does not make sense to me. There are some ends that I can see that would justify euthanizations. I have COPD, if I go all the way to end stage, I could literally be gasping for breath. Do I want that? Do I wanna feel like I cannot breath possibly for months and days until the end? Im not so sure about that. My cousin has ms, I cant picture her wanting to be trapped inside her own body, unable to move before she finally dies. I think in those cases it is more humane to allow it. I realize it is hard to let our loved ones go but in the end it shouldnt be about us but about making their end the most comfortable and peaceful ends we can. Im in the US and I wish we were as forward thinking as to even allow it.
 

Lysander

Well-Known Member
#4
Here are 3 examples of what could happen:

1. 16 year old Luke used to be a football player. He had a girlfriend and his life was going well until he had a motorcycle accident and becomes Quadraplegic. He mourns his old life and his girlfriend dumps him. Luke is heart broken. He thinks he will never find love as a Quadriplegic so he decides he doesn't want to live any more. Instead of counselling he is given a lethal injection. If he hadn't died he might have adapted to his disability and found true love with another quadraplegic. It happens.

2. 13 year old Lucy is being molested by her father. She is already suffering when she discovers she also has cancer. So she asks the doctor for Assistive suicide in a bid to end it all. The doctors can tell she's suffering but they don't know why as she is too scared to report her father. She doesn't realise this but going to a hospice for cancer sufferers will put an end to her father's nightly visits but she's so young she just doesn't think about that. In fact it's possible that she could be cured of her cancer and her father could be sent to jail where he belongs.

3. 15 year old Jane has Schizophrenia. She has many delusions. One that people are trying to poison her so she does not swallow the medication she is given. Instead she spits it out in the toilet. So nothing she is given works for her. Her parents find her hard to cope with. She keeps on waking them up in the middle of the night holding noisy conversations with 'intruders' that don't exist. To get rid of the intruders she sometimes calls the police. Then her voices tell her to commit suicide. So she asks for assistive suicide. Her parents can't wait to get rid of her and exadurate all her 'suffering'. So she is killed by lethal injection. Drugs could have helped her if she'd taken them and she could have had a reasonably good life but now she never will.
None of these examples would ever actually happen. The laws are set up such that a mental health evaluation needs to be performed prior to granting assisted suicide. The person has to be requesting this as a means to avoid the pain and suffering of a terminal illness. These are not granted as a convenience. There are far too many debilitating, painful, and humiliating diseases to not consider these things as options. And some of those disease also affect children. If a child and both parents are requesting this, and they are all of sound mind, then why not allow this. I work in a hospital and watch way too many people suffer needlessly. And palliative care doesn't really help. All it does is makes someone "comfortable." So instead of allowing them to die, we put them in a medically induced state that is so numb that they're not actually experiencing anything while they instead continue to malinger until they die.
 
#5
We do Euthanise our pets. I have had to let go of several of my pets but there are times when I have refused to Euthanise an animal who just had hind leg paralyses and a mild case of Myco (chest infection) but was otherwise doing ok. I wouldn't want a system that kills humans just because their are no homes for them which happens to animals all the time. I only Euthanise animals as the very last resort when all other options have failed. But that doesn't always happen when Euthanasia is permitted. It's a slippery slope and ends badly for ALL disabled people.

I don't know if their are any cases that should be Euthanised but I've read cases in Belgium of Deaf twins being Euthanised because they didn't want to go blind. I'm Deafblind and think it's definitely liveable. Yet they found a doctor willing to kill them on request. So if that happens in Belgium who's to say it won't happen in Canada too.
 
#6
I've known several severely disabled people but I don't think any of them would be better off dead although Sadly they don't always live too long. For example I had a friend who used a power wheelchair and a ventilator as she couldn't breath on her own. Despite her disabilities I think she had a good life. She had helpers who took her to rock concerts. Unfortunately her life was too short which was very sad. Another friend was deafblind with Arthritis and she died from the affect of steroids that was supposed to help her Arthritis. She had a CI and it seemed to be working well and she had plans to go to college so I think her death was very sad too.
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
#7
I think it's the term disabilities that is throwing you off. Honestly they need to use different terminlogy, like extreme profound conditions. Disability can be lived with. Extreme profound issues cannot
 

Bear

Well-Known Member
#8
I think it should be up to the person. As I stated, I have COPD and I am not quite sure that if I should go all the way to end stage and gasping for every single breath I take that I would want that. I mean think about it, it is a very very scary ending. COPD is terminal anyways so as the conditions worsens....shouldn't I be able to decide how I want my ending to be? I am already dying anyways with this terminal disease. As long as I am of sound mind and body and choose to take my ending the way I want it to be. Who's business is that other than my own? I'm sorry but as I stated we humanely euthanize our animals when they get to a point where their suffering is worse by keeping them alive (usually) why cannot we do the same for humans. Yes, there can be abuses with it such as going back to the times when deaf people were sterilized (or in this case euthanized) but the probability of that happening in today's day and age would be pretty low.
 

MCB

Active Member
#9
I think it should be up to the person. As I stated, I have COPD and I am not quite sure that if I should go all the way to end stage and gasping for every single breath I take that I would want that. I mean think about it, it is a very very scary ending.
A person with terminal COPD will be unable to sleep, because his breathing is intentional, rather than reflexive. The hospice treatment is to administer pain meds to reduce the suffering of gasping for breath (even with oxygen). Pain meds will eventually do the job.
 
#10
Pain medicine tends to do the job too well. When my mum was dying of cancer she wanted to come home at easter only the hospital didn't agree. Dad took her home anyway and tried to find some gas for her ventilator. Only nobody would provide him with any and she ran out of gas in the early hours of the morning. Dad called for an ambulance and they gave her a high dose of morphine for her pain and it killed her. It also killed my friend Nikki.

I'm not against pain medicine. Nobody should be in pain if it can be helped. It's just sad that it can take people who don't want to go and people in a lot of pain would die anyway from the affects of their pain medicine so I see no need to legalise assisted suicide and particularly not for children. It will just be used for getting rid of the severely disabled and I really don't want that.
 
#11
I think it's the term disabilities that is throwing you off. Honestly they need to use different terminlogy, like extreme profound conditions. Disability can be lived with. Extreme profound issues cannot
I can't trust them just to use it for extreme profound conditions. After all in Belgium they did kill the two deaf twins just because they were afraid to go blind. Deafblindness isn't that severe. Not on it's own anyway. I should know as I'm deafblind myself. The twins needed counselling. They didn't need death.
 

Bear

Well-Known Member
#12
Yes but you cannot compare what happened in Belgium to what could happen here. That's like saying that we need to outlaw marriage here because in some countries they allow marriage to children and it MIGHT happen here. Yes, there are pain meds. However, shouldn't I have the right to decide how I want my end to be? Do I wanna be so drugged up that I can't recognize my family? Do I wanna be able to tell them everything I want to tell them before my time is over? How long do I wanna live being so drugged up? For some, these deaths can be fast. For others, they can be slow and linger on. Yes, they are on pain meds to keep them comfortable. However, I would say let's take my grandmother's death. She died of pelvic cancer and she was in hospice when she passed. She was so drugged up that she was basically in a coma for the last 2 weeks of her life. Who's to know how much pain she was really in despite the drugs? If one cannot tell you, then how do you know? Why is it ok to end a pets suffering but not a humans? I do not believe in using it as a form of suicide if they can be helped. However, if a person is in so much pain and has a terminal illness or no chance of getting better, then why do we force them to suffer? I say allow a person to chose their own end as long as the criteria is met for it.

I am not going to worry about what happened in some other country. That is there, this is here.
 

DeafDucky

Well-Known Member
#13
I can't trust them just to use it for extreme profound conditions. After all in Belgium they did kill the two deaf twins just because they were afraid to go blind. Deafblindness isn't that severe. Not on it's own anyway. I should know as I'm deafblind myself. The twins needed counselling. They didn't need death.
You're right deafblindness isn't "that severe" on its own... But there is a difference.. I am guessing you were born with your deafness & blindness? Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't recall and I'll go look through older posts of yours. With the twins blindness I don't think was a major factor in their life until the last 2 years. I can see why they'd go that direction. And I can see why it shouldn't have...

BUT... after googling a little... I found an interesting blog which explained a little more about the entire story and "behind the scenes" as it were. They had more severe issues going on too (not to mention being terrified of ending up in an institution and/or losing their independence.

Yes I can hear you cry "but there's resources!" Ah...the blog addressed that too. Unfortunately there isn't enough resources and not enough awareness- even among deafblind people- some countries have ZERO assistance. In the end it was their choice and I am sure they went over all the pros and cons along with their family (who were initially against it).
In the end we can't POSSIBLY know what the twins felt or thought... it's mere speculation 5 years after the fact. The only case I know of also.

https://tactiletheworld.wordpress.c...ehind-the-belgian-deafblind-twins-euthanasia/

As to three scenarios you mentioned... aside from Lysander's comment that- (at least in the US)- mental evaluations are done prior to any approval...

1. The key word in your scenario is MIGHT HAVE "might have adapted to his disability" . True many times it happens people do adapt well and "find twue wuv" (I still haven't FYI....)... but it feels like many times many never do adapt fully and wind up in a depression over the years.

2.
She doesn't realise this but going to a hospice for cancer sufferers will put an end to her father's nightly visits but she's so young she just doesn't think about that. In fact it's possible that she could be cured of her cancer and her father could be sent to jail where he belongs.
first yes she could have gone to hospice but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will 'put an end to her father's nightly visits'... he still can come visit her... sexual abuse predators will do whatever they can wherever...doesn't matter unfortunately. Who knows.. maybe not.. but wouldn't surprise me if it does happen. Yes it's possible she could be cured of her cancer... but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease... and the disease is still horrible... so Horrible and unbearable vs even more horrible and unbearable? Guess that also depends on the success rate of the cure. And father going to jail- that would still have to depend on in she ever SAYS anything. Lots of variables unfortunately.

3. (not sure what 'exadurate' means.. but I get the point). This one is tough.. and I do agree on that reasoning... but again... even if she did take her meds there's no guarantee that it would work- so a circus of trying different meds... then possibility of her running off and becoming homeless (a bit of a stretch but yes it happens). Frankly I don't know if this situation would even fit the criteria of assisted suicide anyway because of her mental status- that's if she didn't kill herself already WHICH I think likely would happen first. But who am I to say....

On one hand I think assisted suicide does have its place... on the other yes I can see the reasoning behind much more stringent regulations when it comes to children under the age of 16. Something like "wait 6 months or a year then decide"

It's fascinating and a bit mind boggling to me how "human euthanasia" is such a sticky and potentially volatile topic yet most people are perfectly a-ok with "pet euthanasia" (though I'm totally against those shelters that do kill... :mad:).
People have said before "we treat our pets better than our fellow man"....
 
#14
Here are 3 examples of what could happen:

1. 16 year old Luke used to be a football player. He had a girlfriend and his life was going well until he had a motorcycle accident and becomes Quadraplegic. He mourns his old life and his girlfriend dumps him. Luke is heart broken. He thinks he will never find love as a Quadriplegic so he decides he doesn't want to live any more. Instead of counselling he is given a lethal injection. If he hadn't died he might have adapted to his disability and found true love with another quadraplegic. It happens.

2. 13 year old Lucy is being molested by her father. She is already suffering when she discovers she also has cancer. So she asks the doctor for Assistive suicide in a bid to end it all. The doctors can tell she's suffering but they don't know why as she is too scared to report her father. She doesn't realise this but going to a hospice for cancer sufferers will put an end to her father's nightly visits but she's so young she just doesn't think about that. In fact it's possible that she could be cured of her cancer and her father could be sent to jail where he belongs.

3. 15 year old Jane has Schizophrenia. She has many delusions. One that people are trying to poison her so she does not swallow the medication she is given. Instead she spits it out in the toilet. So nothing she is given works for her. Her parents find her hard to cope with. She keeps on waking them up in the middle of the night holding noisy conversations with 'intruders' that don't exist. To get rid of the intruders she sometimes calls the police. Then her voices tell her to commit suicide. So she asks for assistive suicide. Her parents can't wait to get rid of her and exadurate all her 'suffering'. So she is killed by lethal injection. Drugs could have helped her if she'd taken them and she could have had a reasonably good life but now she never will.
You offer examples of what could happen then describe them as though the definitely did happen. I find this purposefully misleading.

There is always reason to fear anyone having life and death power over another. That situation will always exist in some form. Previous to the last 20 or 30 years families sometimes hastened the death of a member who lingered. There was a lady in our neighborhood who had alzheimer's and whose family ran a local pharmacy. The lady passed away unexpectedly. My dad noted the event, figured the family might have hastened her departure, but did not condemn them for it. He felt it was their business and no one else's. While undoubtedly many ugly things happened to disabled kids and adults in those quieter times that does not mean there was more preventable suffering and abuse. Your doctor or hospital is as likely to kill you as the neighborhood thug. Purely by accident, you understand. Yet having someone looking over your shoulder does not necessarily mean you practice better medicine.

Now people are more than eager to police one another's affairs and punishment is all the rage. This horrifies me. There is no way to prevent all possible abuse of power and I would prefer if people put more emphasis on "mind your own business."
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
#15
You're right deafblindness isn't "that severe" on its own... But there is a difference.. I am guessing you were born with your deafness & blindness? Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't recall and I'll go look through older posts of yours. With the twins blindness I don't think was a major factor in their life until the last 2 years. I can see why they'd go that direction. And I can see why it shouldn't

BUT... after googling a little... I found an interesting blog which explained a little more about the entire story and "behind the scenes" as it were. They had more severe issues going on too (not to mention being terrified of ending up in an institution and/or losing their independence.

Yes I can hear you cry "but there's resources!" Ah...the blog addressed that too. Unfortunately there isn't enough resources and not enough awareness- even among deafblind people- some countries have ZERO assistance. In the end it was their choice and I am sure they went over all the pros and cons along with their family (who were initially against it).
In the end we can't POSSIBLY know what the twins felt or thought... it's mere speculation 5 years after the fact. The only case I know of also.

https://tactiletheworld.wordpress.c...ehind-the-belgian-deafblind-twins-euthanasia/

As to three scenarios you mentioned... aside from Lysander's comment that- (at least in the US)- mental evaluations are done prior to any approval...

1. The key word in your scenario is MIGHT HAVE "might have adapted to his disability" . True many times it happens people do adapt well and "find twue wuv" (I still haven't FYI....)... but it feels like many times many never do adapt fully and wind up in a depression over the years.

2.

first yes she could have gone to hospice but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will 'put an end to her father's nightly visits'... he still can come visit her... sexual abuse predators will do whatever they can wherever...doesn't matter unfortunately. Who knows.. maybe not.. but wouldn't surprise me if it does happen. Yes it's possible she could be cured of her cancer... but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease... and the disease is still horrible... so Horrible and unbearable vs even more horrible and unbearable? Guess that also depends on the success rate of the cure. And father going to jail- that would still have to depend on in she ever SAYS anything. Lots of variables unfortunately.

3. (not sure what 'exadurate' means.. but I get the point). This one is tough.. and I do agree on that reasoning... but again... even if she did take her meds there's no guarantee that it would work- so a circus of trying different meds... then possibility of her running off and becoming homeless (a bit of a stretch but yes it happens). Frankly I don't know if this situation would even fit the criteria of assisted suicide anyway because of her mental status- that's if she didn't kill herself already WHICH I think likely would happen first. But who am I to say....

On one hand I think assisted suicide does have its place... on the other yes I can see the reasoning behind much more stringent regulations when it comes to children under the age of 16. Something like "wait 6 months or a year then decide"

It's fascinating and a bit mind boggling to me how "human euthanasia" is such a sticky and potentially volatile topic yet most people are perfectly a-ok with "pet euthanasia" (though I'm..
Yes, you're right. The DB twins had more complex issues going on It wasn't b/c they were DB. I do think they need to be very very careful with euthsania. But euthsania isn't automatically anti abliest b/c there are extreme profound conditions that can and do cause severe pain or profoundly limited functioning
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
#16
I can't trust them just to use it for extreme profound conditions. After all in Belgium they did kill the two deaf twins just because they were afraid to go blind. Deafblindness isn't that severe. Not on it's own anyway. I should know as I'm deafblind myself. The twins needed counselling. They didn't need death.
Again. It's the terminology that is freaking you out. There are sadly extreme profound conditions. Simply b/c it would exist for those rare conditions is NOT a slippary slope. One wonders if you read up on some of the extreme conditions if you would be so concerned
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
#17
Also...the number of kids this would affect is very small. It would be rarely seen even in the pediatric nursing home population. Very luckily the extreme profound population is very small. Ever seen end stage Tay-Sachs? Heck it prolly would be rare even in the severe cancer population
 

Bear

Well-Known Member
#18
I once watched a show that had this exact issue in it. I believe it was a Law & Order episode. Now I know that isn't factual and something to base an argument on. However, it did make me think about this and believe it or not....my postings here was with that show in mind as well. I have to agree that I find it very interesting how we are so okay with euthanizing our pets to save their suffering but not with a humans. The quote below is exactly how I feel about this topic.

It's fascinating and a bit mind boggling to me how "human euthanasia" is such a sticky and potentially volatile topic yet most people are perfectly a-ok with "pet euthanasia" (though I'm totally against those shelters that do kill... :mad:).
People have said before "we treat our pets better than our fellow man"....
I am not saying that we should just liberally apply assisted suicides and allow it for anyone who wants it. However, I do believe that with an established criteria that we should allow it. I realize that suicide goes against some religious beliefs and some moral beliefs as well. However, are we not supposed to put our feelings aside and consider what might be best for others? I believe that we need to put aside our own beliefs and prejudices and realize that it should not be our decision to make. It should be the person who is suffering from something terminal deciding what end they want.
 

Communication Software for Deaf Hard of Hearing - NexTalk

Top