Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Canada's Assisted-Suicide Express

  1. #11
    Frozen Chosen A.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    8,050
    Thanked: 6089
    I had an article come through my FB newsfeed today that said that in Quebec, where they already have been practicing assisted suicide and euthanasia that when people are brought to the hospital because they have attempted suicide, they aren't trying to resuscitate even those they know they can save because they have chosen to end their own lives.

    Here's a quote:

    Now we learn that some Québec physicians have been withholding life-saving treatments that could save lives with possibly no after-effects from suicide victims. In response, the Québec's College of Physicians have issued an ethics bulletin telling all physicians that their is an ethical and legal guideline to provide care even to patients seeking to end their lives.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...cide-in-quebec

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to A.J. For This Useful Post:

    CatchyUsername (03-22-2016)

  3. #12
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    On one hand we see a total reverence for the human being and its choices (including to commit suicide) and irrespective of the rationality of the choice made, as if the human being is some sort of deity whose whims are divine and unalienable. On the other hand we see a total disrespect for human beings who somehow fall from this pedestal and become a challenge to the comfort of other human beings and their 'perfect life'. Or even to the concept of a 'perfect society' inhabited by human beings with a right to 'perfect lives'. There is a thin line between being a deity and being an expendable lump of flesh. The reason why is that the latter becomes the default in the absence of a more deeply rooted morality and the former is just a brittle construct.
    In societies made totalitarian like the Soviet Union or Maos China, this dividing line between perfect citizens and dissidents/expendables was readily observable because of the abrupt change their communist revolutions implied. But then they attempted to brain wash their societies until there would be a new generation that saw this dividing line as natural and began to see perfect communists as the REAL human beings and the rest as dysfunctional and therefore expendable.
    In Nazi Germany there was no revolution, just a swift consolidation of absolute power and their main dividing line making the Jews the ill of society was already in vogue in the general population. They didnt need to brainwash their way to a new, perfectly nazi generation. They only needed to cement and protect a mindset that was already there.
    Likewise, there are signs that society is moving slowly towards something like that again. Not by revolution or by upheaval but rather in a gradual manner to where segments of the population are again seen as dysfunctional or simply inherently expendable. Nazism found great power in the fact that they didnt need a revolution to establish themselves, likewise there is great power involved when society gradually moves towards these things, maybe even in way that goes largely unnoticed by the general population.
    Last edited by Colonel; 03-22-2016 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by A.J. View Post
    I had an article come through my FB newsfeed today that said that in Quebec, where they already have been practicing assisted suicide and euthanasia that when people are brought to the hospital because they have attempted suicide, they aren't trying to resuscitate even those they know they can save because they have chosen to end their own lives...
    That's insane. So have they discontinued suicide hotlines and counseling too? Their attitude is that if someone wants to die, let them.

  5. #14
    I read some after this fellow...


    Euthanasia Trumps Religious Liberty in Canada

    by Wesley J. Smith March 4, 2016 1:34 PM

    I have never seen a society jump so enthusiastically into the abyss that is the culture of death as Canada has in the last year. Once the Supreme Court ended the assisted suicide debate by fiat, euthanasia boosters stopped pretending to want a limited death license and let their true agenda out. Based on government and medical association proposed guidelines, Canada's euthanasia regime will soon include: ...


    ...This authoritarianism is the subject of my current First Things article, in which I urge dissenting medical professionals to take the hard course of peaceful civil disobedience rather than acquiesce to the culture of death, or simply quit. From, "Canada Declares War on Christian Doctors and Nurses:" http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...ors-and-nurses ...

    The difficult but most righteous course would be to engage in a policy of total non-cooperation with the culture of death, forcing the national and provincial governments and medical colleges either to turn a blind eye or to inflict unjust punishments on doctors for refusing to kill. Perhaps such Draconian measures would bring the country to its senses. I also offer this faint hope for heading off the looming religious oppression brewing in Canada:


    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/human-...liberty-canada
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  6. #15
    That means they won't foot anymore health costs to save them. I hate to say this, but this is the thing with government-run healthcare......they are always looking at ways to cut costs. When the godless mind with a naturalistic worldview runs healthcare....watch out. There's more where this came from.

    Quote Originally Posted by krystian View Post
    That's insane. So have they discontinued suicide hotlines and counseling too? Their attitude is that if someone wants to die, let them.

  7. #16
    Frozen Chosen A.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    8,050
    Thanked: 6089
    Quote Originally Posted by CatchyUsername View Post
    That means they won't foot anymore health costs to save them. I hate to say this, but this is the thing with government-run healthcare......they are always looking at ways to cut costs. When the godless mind with a naturalistic worldview runs healthcare....watch out. There's more where this came from.
    Whoah ..... the article doesn't hint at that at all... It says there's confusion...

    You can't judge a whole health care system by one article .... sheesh. I keep telling you guys that Canadians love their health care system. There may be challenges and difficulties, but over all, don't criticize something you don't understand... the Canadian POV is so completely different than US citizens. People don't die up hear because they can't afford to see a dr. or can't afford the premiums...



    Yves Robert, the secretary for the Québec College of Physicians told the National Post that:

    An unspecified number of doctors were interpreting suicide attempts as an implicit refusal of treatment. They “refused to provide the antidote that could have saved a life. This was the real ethical issue.”

    “If there is a life-threatening situation, you have to do whatever is possible to save a life, then you treat the underlying cause.”

    According to the article by Graeme Hamilton, published in the National Post, the four page ethics bulletin states:

    “From a moral point of view, this duty to act to save the patient’s life, or to prevent him from living with the effects of a too-late intervention, rests on principles of doing good and not doing harm, as well as of solidarity.”

    “It would be negligent not to act.”

    According to the National Post the ethics bulletin states that treatment can only be withheld when their is irrefutable proof that the patient does not want treatment. It then states:

    Once stabilized, a survivor of suicide may require psychiatric treatment, the bulletin says. “Recognition of psychological suffering can allow a person who wants to kill himself to picture his life differently,”

    But the Québec euthanasia law permits euthanasia for people with psychological suffering.

    Is it possible that the confusion concerning the withholding of beneficial treatment is directly related to the legalization of euthanasia in Québec?

    A survey of Québec doctors (April 2015) indicated that there is significant confusion concerning withholding and withdrawing treatment and an earlier survey of Québec medical specialists (October 2009) indicated that there was significant confusion concerning what constituted euthanasia and palliative care.

  8. #17
    AJ....this is just the normal course for any government run system to take. The Brits have their "complete lives" system, and it bases costs on many factors. I'm not slamming your healthcare system at all. I'm slamming how the godless think about these matters. This is why we didn't want government run healthcare here:

    Ezekiel Emmanuel's Reaper Curve
    By Fred N. Sauer

    Ezekiel Emanuel has written extensively, before and after he helped draft ObamaCare, about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

    True reform, Emanuel argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

    In numerous writings, Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

    Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that singleminded devotion. But Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008)

    In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and coauthors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others.

    "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.”

    "However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear…When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...”

    Zeke has summarized his thinking in a very curious graph published in The Lancet on January 31, 2009. The Y-axis is labeled “probability of receiving an intervention” (medical treatment), and the X-axis is labeled “Age in years.”

    “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” The Lancet, January 31, 2009

    If you are lucky enough to be born, you had better be very healthy, for it looks like you have to be alive for about 2 years before you have an even 25% chance of getting needed medical care. By the time you are 10 years old you just have a 50% chance for critical care. Too bad for you if you have an early or complicated birth. And you’d better live a pretty protected childhood.

    Don’t get into too much trouble before you are about 18. This is coincidently when you can start to vote, and therefore when you begin to arrive in the zone of maximum probability of an intervention (i.e. getting some health care). But maximum probability does not mean a certainty of intervention at any time.

    The period of maximum probability continues until you are about 33 years old. By 50 you are down to only a 75% chance of receiving a needed intervention. By your late 50s you are down to only a 50% chance of getting what you need. And just about the time you turn 65, the very time you would have expected to begin to be eligible for Medicare after having paid payroll taxes for years, you will only have a 25% chance (or less) of getting a needed intervention.

    This is worthy of being repeated. You have paid your payroll taxes for 40 years or so in the expectation that you will receive full Medicare benefits for your health care needs. Then you discover that under Emanuel’s “Reaper Curve,” you will only have a 25% chance or less of receiving medical intervention when you reach a health crisis

    The truth of Emanuel’s Reaper Curve and his writings are playing out now in ObamaCare’s implementation. As more and more Americans are dropped from their healthcare plans and are forced to switch to an ObamaCare plan, as more people sign up for Medicaid and President Obama pushes more cuts in Medicare, American’s are faced with the reality of less choice in picking their doctors and health care plans and less health care for them in times of need as government bureaucrats look for ways to cut health care costs.

    But, as Ezekiel Emanuel points out in this graph, at the very age that you are most likely to need medical intervention, his “complete lives system,” will increasingly not provide it to you. The older you are the more likely you will die from not receiving medical care. Isn’t that comforting?
    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...#ixzz43fwln5cc
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


    Quote Originally Posted by A.J. View Post
    Whoah ..... the article doesn't hint at that at all... It says there's confusion...

    You can't judge a whole health care system by one article .... sheesh. I keep telling you guys that Canadians love their health care system. There may be challenges and difficulties, but over all, don't criticize something you don't understand... the Canadian POV is so completely different than US citizens. People don't die up hear because they can't afford to see a dr. or can't afford the premiums...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Volvo. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.