Poll of the Day > Canadian Doctors have helped 2000 People Commit SUICIDE since it was LEGALIZED!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Doctors in Canada have helped nearly 2000 people suffering an incurable illness to committ SUICIDE!!

Medically Assisted Suicide was legalized last year by the Liberals and since then, 1982 people have chosen to end their lives with the help of a lethal injection at a hospital or at home according to Health Canada

Canadian Bishops have since instructed their clergy to deny religious funerals to those people that end their lives this way!!.

The number of assisted suicide is set to rise but remain at less than 2% of all deaths nationwide

The doctor assisted suicide is only for adults suffering serious problems who want to end their sufering, most are cancer patients

The law was altered to expand and include Canadians suffering from wasting diseases but not facing immediat death such as spinal muscular atrophy, MS, Spinal Stenosis, locked in syndrome, traumatic spinal injury, Parkinsons and Huntingons.

The Conservatives have long fought to have this law shut down but it was easily passed by the liberal majority

Do you support Doctor Assisted Suicide?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/07/11/451E864900000578-4958072-image-a-2_1507370799582.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/07/11/451E865500000578-4958072-image-a-3_1507370803842.jpg
---

yes, i do. but it should meet certain requirements first, i dont think anybody should just be allowed to walk in and have it done. but in cases where people are facing terminal illnesses with no hope of recovery it seems selfish to tell them they must live for some reason.

yeah i'd support assisted suicide. if someone is in pain and misery why force them to stick around. I mean a lot of people are fine with putting their pets down when they are in too much pain and misery to lead a happy life.

just have the Doc make sure the person has all their affairs in order (will and what not) before going through with it.
---

Good, 2000 people finally freed from their suffering.
---

More like legalized murder.

Also turns to Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath

TheWorstPoster posted...

More like legalized murder.

Also turns to Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath

no its still suicide. the person choose themselves to die, if you must tie a derogatory term to the doctor, more like accomplice to suicide.
---

argonautweakend posted...

but in cases where people are facing terminal illnesses with no hope of recovery

That's basically what the law is, but it now includes incurable conditions that cause a lifetime of severe suffering as well.
---

I had to watch a man slowly die from brain/lung cancer before, and he tried killing himself via pistol in mouth, but he lacked the strength or motor skills (dunno which I wasn't present) to pull the trigger. the whole ordeal was really sad.

now imagine had he been able to pull that trigger. my family would have had a mess to clean up on top of the trauma of coming home to find him with his brains blown out. legalized assisted suicide would have made it so we'd have no mess to clean up (imagine cleaning up a loved ones brain splatter from the wall) and we'd have a little time to come to terms with his decision thus softening the blow.
---

Good. I hope some doctor is able to legally help me end my life if I ever end up with a degenerative terminal disease.

The idea that someone can be painfully dying and the government intervenes to tell them that they just have to deal with it and suffer is incredibly cruel.
---

mrduckbear posted...

Do you support doctor assisted suicide?

I support any assisted suicide. The choice to live or not should be down to the individual and sometimes it's not possible for them to do it themselves.
---

Yeah I respect Kervorkian. And not just because Al Pacino portrayed him in a documentary.

It's hope vs suffering. And there is rational humanitarianism. Vonnegut understood it and so did Hunter S Thompson.
---

didn't know that happened. that's really weird. I think I'm for it, but you have to be careful, too. slippery slope argument, but you don't want to be in a situation where you're encouraged to, or where news that's given to you is spun worse sounding than it really is, or other things like that.

it's similar to the death penalty, where the idea sounds good, maybe, as long as the error rate is zero. but the error rate will not be zero...
---

Why would a doctor do it? It can't be that hard, stick an intern on the job.
But yeah assisted suicide is a good call.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

Why would a doctor do it? It can't be that hard, stick an intern on the job.
But yeah assisted suicide is a good call.

doctor is probably mostly the one who gives the go ahead and authorizes it.
---

The population of Canada is 36.29 million. The doctors there must be doing a very bad job of getting just only 2000 of them to allow them to help them kill people or they are doing a great job of getting people to not want to kill themselves. In any case it is a really small percentage of people.

Full support. Wish it was free game instead of illness only though.
---

Canadian Doctors have helped 2000 People Commit SUICIDE

Doctors in Canada have helped nearly 2000 people suffering an incurable illness to committ SUICIDE!!

1982 people have chosen to end their lives with the help of a lethal injection

Was it actually 1982 though? Maybe it was rounded up from 1976?
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

More like legalized murder.

Also turns to Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath

"First, do no harm" has never been an absolutism. Virtually every medical treatment involves inflicting some sort of harm on the body, with ethical practice demanding that the benefit outweigh that harm. Here, the choice is between helping somebody who - in sound mind - wants to die to achieve that end, or continuing to pour resources into saving the life of somebody who doesn't want to be saved. There's a pretty solid case to be made for calling assisted suicide the best harm/benefit trade-off.
---

adjl posted...

"First, do no harm" has never been an absolutism. Virtually every medical treatment involves inflicting some sort of harm on the body, with ethical practice demanding that the benefit outweigh that harm. Here, the choice is between helping somebody who - in sound mind - wants to die to achieve that end, or continuing to pour resources into saving the life of somebody who doesn't want to be saved. There's a pretty solid case to be made for calling assisted suicide the best harm/benefit trade-off.

depends... 'do no harm' is 'don't increase suffering' not necessarily 'strive to reduce suffering'.

the cost/benefit of normal medical treatment is to improve the person's *life*. to attempt to maximize the quality of their life, not to remove their life.

I'm not arguing for or against, but your analogy just doesn't work. normal medical treatment is an attempted improvement of quality of life. assisted suicide is a whole other thing, where you accept that quality of life can be low enough that life is not worth living at that level. that's a completely different concept.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

More like legalized murder.

Also turns to Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath

no its still suicide. the person choose themselves to die, if you must tie a derogatory term to the doctor, more like accomplice to suicide.

Why can't they just commit suicide themselves then? Why do they need to selfishly involve someone else into the act of ending their life.

And yes, it absolutely does go against the Hippocratic oath.

You want to end your life? Stop being a coward and do it yourself.

BeerOnTap posted...

Why can't they just commit suicide themselves then?

It varies by person. Some of them are just too injured, or too ill, to move properly. Earlier in the topic someone mentioned a man with cancer who didn't have the motor skills to operate a gun any more.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Why can't they just commit suicide themselves then?

It varies by person. Some of them are just too injured, or too ill, to move properly. Earlier in the topic someone mentioned a man with cancer who didn't have the motor skills to operate a gun any more.

that was me,though as said he may have simply lacked the strength too. man withered away pretty quickly once the cancer went full blown. (gun didn't exactly have a light trigger pull) and also I mentioned it leaves the persons loved ones to clean up the mess. in the case with the doctor. paid professionals deal with it. and the way a doctor would do it. it would simply be moving a corpse. no brain splatter, or blood everywhere
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

More like legalized murder.

Also turns to Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath

You're the most socially unaware user here, ok?
---

And they say America has a bloodlust.

dedbus posted...

And they say America has a bloodlust.

When the moon is full and tinted with a maple coloured hue, the werebeavers howl and feast on the hearts of the dead, with harrowing cries of "sorry" echoing through the chilly northern air.

Blightzkrieg posted...

dedbus posted...

And they say America has a bloodlust.

When the moon is full and tinted with a maple coloured hue, the werebeavers howl and feast on the hearts of the dead, with harrowing cries of "sorry" echoing through the chilly northern air.

Now I'm going to have to leave cartoons on when I sleep tonight.

I'm kind of shocked spinal stenosis is a listed condition. I've had it for years, and it really sucks, but it's not at the level of cancer. I've been looking for a surefire way to do it for a long time; does this suicide system allow people from other countries?
---

Once I finish my education, there is a chance I will have to help clients make that choice... that will be tough.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Once I finish my education, there is a chance I will have to help clients make that choice... that will be tough.

I personally wouldn't help them make the choice. I could never talk someone into something like that. but if they want it give em what the want.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

Once I finish my education, there is a chance I will have to help clients make that choice... that will be tough.

I personally wouldn't help them make the choice. I could never talk someone into something like that. but if they want it give em what the want.

Its one of the hard choices Ill have to make... another is if and when children need to be placed in foster care.
---

I'm glad there are people like Icoyar successfully keeping terminally ill people from pulling their own plugs and instead dying in complete agony for a good slow month or week or so.

@TheWorstPoster

BeerOnTap posted...

You want to end your life? Stop being a coward and do it yourself.

Pretty sure most of them literally could not do it considering they're hospital-ridden, but you are a valiant person, I can tell.

I'm glad for this law honestly. And the fact that the church hates it, is proof that the law is right. The church always hates what's good and right.
---

Sahuagin posted...

adjl posted...

"First, do no harm" has never been an absolutism. Virtually every medical treatment involves inflicting some sort of harm on the body, with ethical practice demanding that the benefit outweigh that harm. Here, the choice is between helping somebody who - in sound mind - wants to die to achieve that end, or continuing to pour resources into saving the life of somebody who doesn't want to be saved. There's a pretty solid case to be made for calling assisted suicide the best harm/benefit trade-off.

depends... 'do no harm' is 'don't increase suffering' not necessarily 'strive to reduce suffering'.

the cost/benefit of normal medical treatment is to improve the person's *life*. to attempt to maximize the quality of their life, not to remove their life.

I'm not arguing for or against, but your analogy just doesn't work. normal medical treatment is an attempted improvement of quality of life. assisted suicide is a whole other thing, where you accept that quality of life can be low enough that life is not worth living at that level. that's a completely different concept.

Depends if you're talking about the quality of their day-to-day life, or the quality of their entire life as a unit. You're correct that you aren't going to improve the quality of somebody's day-to-day life by taking that life away from them. That just wouldn't make much sense. Cutting a few weeks or months or even years of intractable suffering off of the end, however, can make them feel like they're dying after having lived a better life than they would otherwise, and that's not something to discount in the quest to improve patients' quality of life.

Now, that is a decision to be made exclusively when the patient expresses such a wish. The "mercy killing" sort of euthanasia is absolutely no good, even if it's conceptually not that far removed from taking somebody off of life support based on the quality of life they'd have if they recovered. But in the form of assisted suicide? I'm in favour.

Yes
---

Depends on the situation, but is it really any different than a "Do Not Resuscitate" order?

Also I find it strange that there's no stigma for putting your cat or dog down if they're in too much pain and can't survive, but there is for humans. What is the argument here? That a dog's life is less valuable, or that human pain doesn't count?
---

I'm Canadian and I still wonder if there's a possibility it will expand to include mental illness/depression too?
---

Ferarri619 posted...

I'm Canadian and I still wonder if there's a possibility it will expand to include mental illness/depression too?

to be honest I wouldn't care if they did, provided the doctor does nothing to push them in that direction. and tries to talk them out of it at least. but I got this hang up about the world being overpopulated and any option to help that without killing unwilling people or forcing people to do things they don't want to do appeals to me.
---

I find the practice of assisted suicide simultaneously barbaric and practical. I'm sure it certainly helps to curtail health costs, which is why Obama suggested implementing his -- to use the commonly accepted phrase, "death panels" -- as part of his initial progrom.
---