Joij21

Deity
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
2,396
Spoiler Why is Canada Euthanizing the Poor? :

There is an endlessly repeated witticism by the poet Anatole France that ‘the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.’ What France certainly did not foresee is that an entire country – and an ostentatiously progressive one at that – has decided to take his sarcasm at face value and to its natural conclusion.

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

Bill C-7, a sweeping euthanasia law which repealed the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ requirement – and the requirement that the condition should be ‘terminal’. Now, as long as someone is suffering from an illness or disability which ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’, they can take advantage of what is now known euphemistically as ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID for short) for free.

Soon enough, Canadians from across the country discovered that although they would otherwise prefer to live, they were too poor to improve their conditions to a degree which was acceptable.

Not coincidentally, Canada has some of the lowest social care spending of any industrialised country, palliative care is only accessible to a minority, and waiting times in the public healthcare sector can be unbearable, to the point where the same Supreme Court which legalised euthanasia declared those waiting times to be a violation of the right to life back in 2005.

Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion. Even before Bill C-7 was enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honourable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster, which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor-

Well I guess it's all being done by liberal policies this time, guess conservatives can't be blamed for once. :thumbsup:
 

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,101
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
I think this spin on things was inevitable. There are people who're in such conditions that they'd prefer to die, and these conditions are unmasked once permission to die is given. MAID is better viewed as the 'unmasking'.

Oh, and if you're not contributing to mental health research, you should be. We deliberately underfund it, and if you're participating in that underfunding, then this discussion is just porn pretending to be something else.
 

Synobun

Deity
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
23,993
I think this spin on things was inevitable. There are people who're in such conditions that they'd prefer to die, and these conditions are unmasked once permission to die is given. MAID is better viewed as the 'unmasking'.

Oh, and if you're not contributing to mental health research, you should be. We deliberately underfund it, and if you're participating in that underfunding, then this discussion is just porn pretending to be something else.

What is this supposed to mean?
 

Valka D'Ur

Hosting Iron Pen in A&E
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
28,267
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Spoiler Why is Canada Euthanizing the Poor? :

There is an endlessly repeated witticism by the poet Anatole France that ‘the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.’ What France certainly did not foresee is that an entire country – and an ostentatiously progressive one at that – has decided to take his sarcasm at face value and to its natural conclusion.

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

Bill C-7, a sweeping euthanasia law which repealed the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ requirement – and the requirement that the condition should be ‘terminal’. Now, as long as someone is suffering from an illness or disability which ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’, they can take advantage of what is now known euphemistically as ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID for short) for free.

Soon enough, Canadians from across the country discovered that although they would otherwise prefer to live, they were too poor to improve their conditions to a degree which was acceptable.

Not coincidentally, Canada has some of the lowest social care spending of any industrialised country, palliative care is only accessible to a minority, and waiting times in the public healthcare sector can be unbearable, to the point where the same Supreme Court which legalised euthanasia declared those waiting times to be a violation of the right to life back in 2005.

Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion. Even before Bill C-7 was enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honourable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster, which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor-

Well I guess it's all being done by liberal policies this time, guess conservatives can't be blamed for once. :thumbsup:
One of the reasons I have been relentlessly advocating for disabled voters' rights and spreading the word that we even HAVE the right to vote (I've been told to my face that "oh, I didn't think people like you could vote" (disabled, mostly housebound due to mobility impairments) is to get the disabled community showing that yes, we vote, yes, we matter, and no, we are not throwaway garbage.

Oh, and this? "under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid;"... only applied to those who had been able to work and had earned a minimum amount of $$$$ over the past year. People like me got NO additional financial assistance. NONE. When the mask laws first came into effect, people like me were told to "go to the drive-thru lane at (one of three fast-food franchises) and they'll give you a pack of masks, free of charge, no purchase necessary."

This shows how completely out of touch the government is here. First of all, most people in my situation don't drive. Pedestrians are not allowed to use the drive-thru lane, and nobody was allowed to access the place any other way. Even the bathrooms were closed and locked (made it very aggravating for the long-haul truckers who usually used them; there are long distances between cities in this province and clusters of gas station/fast-food truck stops are how they manage in normal times).

So... how to get masks (before the affordable ones became available in pharmacies)? How to make sure the employees at these franchises didn't just shove armfuls of masks at people to get rid of them because where, in those cramped spaces they work at drive-thru kiosks, are they supposed to put them?

Then we were told to "go to the LRT station in Edmonton" (one of the main ones where a lot of homeless/drug addicted folks hung out) and get a package."

Um, not everyone in the province lives in Edmonton and there is no way I'd ever go near any of their transit stations anyway. They're considerably less safe now than they were 40 years ago when a friend and I took the Greyhound there and then public transit to spend an afternoon exploring West Edmonton Mall.

Now I can get a packet of 4 if I ask the disabled transit driver. So I do have a source. And thankfully there's not quite as much insistence on them now for those of us who have been double-vaxxed. It's interesting to see how people show visible relief when I tell them I've been double-vaxxed since July, got my booster and a flu shot in January, hardly ever go anywhere and never have company. I've been covid symptom-free and any health issues I have are due to chronic stuff that's already been going on long before covid. So I can get a pizza or pasta delivered to the door rather than have to meet in the lobby for "contactless" delivery.


Now, about MAID. When the first tabling of this legislation happened, the Minister of Justice was Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was the first indigenous person to hold that federal cabinet minister. Much praise was heaped on her, and much was expected of her.

The problem? Most of the time I trust Trudeau not to allow his personal beliefs to get in the way of the legislation and bills that pass and become law. I would expect the same of anyone else in that party. But the first edition of what they passed is not what was acceptable to some of us.

It's the "reasonably foreseeable death" clause that had me steaming angry. It's not that I want MAID as an option blithely presented by a social worker as an alternative to actually doing something useful. It's that some medical conditions and diseases take months or years or decades to get to the point where death is imminent - and by that time the patient may have cognitive impairments that mean they're no longer considered legally able to give consent.

This law STILL doesn't provide for advance arrangements for people who are in early stages of dementia/Alzheimers or cancer who want to make advance arrangements IN CASE they get to the point that they know now they would not want to live and would no longer have the cognitive ability to make their wishes known.

My grandmother died of Alzheimers. My dad had dementia. Every time I can't remember something now, it scares me. Being slow to understand stuff I used to be really quick at scares me. I know how my grandmother and dad existed during their last months of life, and I do not want that for myself. That's not living. It's existing in excruciating physical and mental distress, and amounts to torture when the "system" insists that people be kept alive when it's obvious that they will never get better and there is nothing positive they're experiencing.

I know my dad wouldn't have wanted this. We had a discussion shortly after my grandmother's death and he said, "If I ever get like that, take me out and shoot me." Well, of course I couldn't and wouldn't do that. But by the time he did get "like that" there was the option of MAID... but not for him, since he had been deemed legally incompetent to make his own decisions for many years previously and this is not something a family member/guardian can apply for on their loved one's behalf (for obvious reasons of doing it to get whatever inheritance might be available).

So he was forced to suffer.

There's cancer on my mom's side. My mom and two aunts died of it, and my mom's mother had it (survived). Other women in the family have had it, though I don't know if they survived. One was a cousin - my only female blood-cousin, since my other cousins were boys and the girl was adopted.

I'm not far off from the age when my mother's cancer started developing. Hers spread to her brain eventually (after surgeries and chemo over the course of several years ultimately failed). I don't want to end up like she did, unable to even recognize _herself_, let alone anyone else in her family.

So if they ever get around to making advance applications available, I would do that. There are too many things in my family medical history that render me helpless and unable to communicate my wishes to anyone in a way that they would be legally obligated to respect them.

Now that said, this doesn't mean I'm not livid about the inadequate supports for housing and other needs of disabled people. One of the home care office workers here got angry that I'd had to cancel an appointment because it fell on the same day that the water was being shut off here for necessary maintenance/repairs, and told me I should move. "What will it take to get you to move?" she snarked.

"Somewhere affordable where I don't need to worry about stairs, in a decent non-drug-infested neighborhood, and where they allow cats." is what I told her. She let out a huff that suggested that what I need is completely unreasonable. The stairs part is crucial, since they're not safe for me anymore, and I can't haul my walker with me to use when I'm at the top or bottom of the stairway.

As for chemical sensitivities... I had a talk with the manager about that. Thanks to Trudeau (I don't thank him for this), marijuana is legal, which means people can not only smoke it, but also grow it. The building I live in and its parent company decided to put it into the leases that consumption inside the suite is permissible. Consumption in the hallways or other public areas is not. And growing it is NOT allowed. Period.

Politicians count on the disabled and chronically ill to not be able or motivated to have a say. I've regularly written to the CBC about all the times when they've done articles about the disabled but not allowed comments on them. I told them that yes, you had a doctor or social worker be interviewed, but you're denying the rest of us the opportunity to speak for ourselves. We're not a one-category-fits-all population. We deserve the chance to speak for ourselves, to educate the non-disabled, and share resources and suggestions that could help others.
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
So, your disgusting hot take here is that this capitalist structure of society that treats humans as nothing but mere commodities with no social value other than their monetary value has forced the poor and downtrodden into committing suicide and by letting them commit suicide the left is at fault and is guilty of murder?

HOW ABOUT YOU GIVE THEM THE DIGNITY THEY DESERVE AS HUMANS FFS!

How about we work as a society to help these people instead of insisting they should just live longer in horrible misery?

God damn pig fudging capitalist hog fudgs.

"Breed for us, work for us, die for us, and go fudge yourselves"

fudge The Spectator, fudge your brain worms, and fudge this timeline.

./vitriolic
 

Synobun

Deity
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
23,993
It means we should look into how to help people get better and understand````` the help they need to live a dignified life.
I am not really sure positive thinking will help people living in abject physical misery, while being oppressed by their government, hold onto life in a way that's functional and beneficial.

Unless El_Mac is referring to the eventual clause where mental health disorders are eligible for MAiD, which is coming Soon™.
 

Ajidica

High Quality Person
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
21,813
while being oppressed by their government
That terrible oppression of *checks notes* ah, the notoriously oppressive Canadian Government, eh?
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
I am not really sure positive thinking will help people living in abject physical misery, while being oppressed by their government, hold onto life in a way that's functional and beneficial.

Unless El_Mac is referring to the eventual clause where mental health disorders are eligible for MAiD, which is coming Soon™.

So I think the idea is to fund mental healthcare so these people are not so despondent. I agree it sounds like it needs more than mental healthcare, and I do not know what MAiD is so I cannot speak to that.

Government is not the problem by itself, it is the entire monstrous structure and normalization of cruelty we have built.
 

Synobun

Deity
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
23,993
That terrible oppression of *checks notes* ah, the notoriously oppressive Canadian Government, eh?
Disabled people in Canada are paid half of the federally recognized minimum of survivable income. They are not permitted to save money. They are not permitted to try and earn a survivable income; if they go over a low figure, they are punished in response by having their next month's disability cheque reduced by an equal amount. They are not allowed to marry without losing their benefits. They are hounded by auditors and government panels constantly to prove, and re-prove, that they are incapable of gainful employment and limited in daily life. They are not provided access to supplements and effective mobility aids. Many medications are not covered by disability insurance. They are not provided safe and secure housing—for example, disabled housing in Vancouver is a series of hotel-style rooms with a shared bathroom and kitchen per floor, in the Downtown Eastside where all drug users and the mentally ill are disposed of by the state. These rooms don't pass building inspections, you are constantly under threat by people in fentanyl withdrawal, and there's usually always a leak or bedbug infestation to contend with.

So I think the idea is to fund mental healthcare so these people are not so despondent. I agree it sounds like it needs more than mental healthcare, and I do not know what MAiD is so I cannot speak to that.

Government is not the problem by itself, it is the entire monstrous structure and normalization of cruelty we have built.

MAiD is government-assisted suicide. The eligibility was recently expanded. I am now eligible for it, for example.
 

NovaKart

شێری گەورە
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
6,453
Location
Kurdistan
One of the reasons I have been relentlessly advocating for disabled voters' rights and spreading the word that we even HAVE the right to vote (I've been told to my face that "oh, I didn't think people like you could vote" (disabled, mostly housebound due to mobility impairments) is to get the disabled community showing that yes, we vote, yes, we matter, and no, we are not throwaway garbage.

Oh, and this? "under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid;"... only applied to those who had been able to work and had earned a minimum amount of $$$$ over the past year. People like me got NO additional financial assistance. NONE. When the mask laws first came into effect, people like me were told to "go to the drive-thru lane at (one of three fast-food franchises) and they'll give you a pack of masks, free of charge, no purchase necessary."

This shows how completely out of touch the government is here. First of all, most people in my situation don't drive. Pedestrians are not allowed to use the drive-thru lane, and nobody was allowed to access the place any other way. Even the bathrooms were closed and locked (made it very aggravating for the long-haul truckers who usually used them; there are long distances between cities in this province and clusters of gas station/fast-food truck stops are how they manage in normal times).

So... how to get masks (before the affordable ones became available in pharmacies)? How to make sure the employees at these franchises didn't just shove armfuls of masks at people to get rid of them because where, in those cramped spaces they work at drive-thru kiosks, are they supposed to put them?

Then we were told to "go to the LRT station in Edmonton" (one of the main ones where a lot of homeless/drug addicted folks hung out) and get a package."

Um, not everyone in the province lives in Edmonton and there is no way I'd ever go near any of their transit stations anyway. They're considerably less safe now than they were 40 years ago when a friend and I took the Greyhound there and then public transit to spend an afternoon exploring West Edmonton Mall.

Now I can get a packet of 4 if I ask the disabled transit driver. So I do have a source. And thankfully there's not quite as much insistence on them now for those of us who have been double-vaxxed. It's interesting to see how people show visible relief when I tell them I've been double-vaxxed since July, got my booster and a flu shot in January, hardly ever go anywhere and never have company. I've been covid symptom-free and any health issues I have are due to chronic stuff that's already been going on long before covid. So I can get a pizza or pasta delivered to the door rather than have to meet in the lobby for "contactless" delivery.


Now, about MAID. When the first tabling of this legislation happened, the Minister of Justice was Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was the first indigenous person to hold that federal cabinet minister. Much praise was heaped on her, and much was expected of her.

The problem? Most of the time I trust Trudeau not to allow his personal beliefs to get in the way of the legislation and bills that pass and become law. I would expect the same of anyone else in that party. But the first edition of what they passed is not what was acceptable to some of us.

It's the "reasonably foreseeable death" clause that had me steaming angry. It's not that I want MAID as an option blithely presented by a social worker as an alternative to actually doing something useful. It's that some medical conditions and diseases take months or years or decades to get to the point where death is imminent - and by that time the patient may have cognitive impairments that mean they're no longer considered legally able to give consent.

This law STILL doesn't provide for advance arrangements for people who are in early stages of dementia/Alzheimers or cancer who want to make advance arrangements IN CASE they get to the point that they know now they would not want to live and would no longer have the cognitive ability to make their wishes known.

My grandmother died of Alzheimers. My dad had dementia. Every time I can't remember something now, it scares me. Being slow to understand stuff I used to be really quick at scares me. I know how my grandmother and dad existed during their last months of life, and I do not want that for myself. That's not living. It's existing in excruciating physical and mental distress, and amounts to torture when the "system" insists that people be kept alive when it's obvious that they will never get better and there is nothing positive they're experiencing.

I know my dad wouldn't have wanted this. We had a discussion shortly after my grandmother's death and he said, "If I ever get like that, take me out and shoot me." Well, of course I couldn't and wouldn't do that. But by the time he did get "like that" there was the option of MAID... but not for him, since he had been deemed legally incompetent to make his own decisions for many years previously and this is not something a family member/guardian can apply for on their loved one's behalf (for obvious reasons of doing it to get whatever inheritance might be available).

So he was forced to suffer.

There's cancer on my mom's side. My mom and two aunts died of it, and my mom's mother had it (survived). Other women in the family have had it, though I don't know if they survived. One was a cousin - my only female blood-cousin, since my other cousins were boys and the girl was adopted.

I'm not far off from the age when my mother's cancer started developing. Hers spread to her brain eventually (after surgeries and chemo over the course of several years ultimately failed). I don't want to end up like she did, unable to even recognize _herself_, let alone anyone else in her family.

So if they ever get around to making advance applications available, I would do that. There are too many things in my family medical history that render me helpless and unable to communicate my wishes to anyone in a way that they would be legally obligated to respect them.

Now that said, this doesn't mean I'm not livid about the inadequate supports for housing and other needs of disabled people. One of the home care office workers here got angry that I'd had to cancel an appointment because it fell on the same day that the water was being shut off here for necessary maintenance/repairs, and told me I should move. "What will it take to get you to move?" she snarked.

"Somewhere affordable where I don't need to worry about stairs, in a decent non-drug-infested neighborhood, and where they allow cats." is what I told her. She let out a huff that suggested that what I need is completely unreasonable. The stairs part is crucial, since they're not safe for me anymore, and I can't haul my walker with me to use when I'm at the top or bottom of the stairway.

As for chemical sensitivities... I had a talk with the manager about that. Thanks to Trudeau (I don't thank him for this), marijuana is legal, which means people can not only smoke it, but also grow it. The building I live in and its parent company decided to put it into the leases that consumption inside the suite is permissible. Consumption in the hallways or other public areas is not. And growing it is NOT allowed. Period.

Politicians count on the disabled and chronically ill to not be able or motivated to have a say. I've regularly written to the CBC about all the times when they've done articles about the disabled but not allowed comments on them. I told them that yes, you had a doctor or social worker be interviewed, but you're denying the rest of us the opportunity to speak for ourselves. We're not a one-category-fits-all population. We deserve the chance to speak for ourselves, to educate the non-disabled, and share resources and suggestions that could help others.

I wanted to get a COVID rapid test for a flight I was taking back in 2020. I don’t have a car and I called the pharmacy which was one of only a very few places at the time I could get one. They had a drive thru service only and I asked if I could just wait for the results standing in the parking lot. They said no. I asked why and the only explanation I got was that I might get hit by a car. I ended up getting an Uber which was no very expensive but I could have skipped that if the regulations weren’t so unreasonable.

The next year I wanted to get a PCR test for a flight and you had to fill out their form online but their page didn’t work. I thought maybe I was just doing something wrong but later found out no one was able to make appointments through it.

My mom has a friend in her 80s who has never used the internet was living alone. She just had to stay on hold for hours to get an appointment for the vaccine.
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
Disabled people in Canada are paid half of the federally recognized minimum of survivable income. They are not permitted to save money. They are not permitted to try and earn a survivable income; if they go over a low figure, they are punished in response by having their next month's disability cheque reduced by an equal amount. They are not allowed to marry without losing their benefits. They are hounded by auditors and government panels constantly to prove, and re-prove, that they are incapable of gainful employment and limited in daily life. They are not provided access to supplements and effective mobility aids. Many medications are not covered by disability insurance. They are not provided safe and secure housing—for example, disabled housing in Vancouver is a series of hotel-style rooms with a shared bathroom and kitchen per floor, in the Downtown Eastside where all drug users and the mentally ill are disposed of by the state. These rooms don't pass building inspections, you are constantly under threat by people in fentanyl withdrawal, and there's usually always a leak or bedbug infestation to contend with.



MAiD is government-assisted suicide. The eligibility was recently expanded. I am now eligible for it, for example.

Yea this sounds like the US almost verbatim.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,187
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Okay, so.

MAID is a constitutionally protected right in Canada. Unanimous (!) Supreme Court decision in 2015. The government didn't want to have it, they tried to wiggle around it, the Supreme Court shoved it down their throat. Canadians have the freedom to die when they so chose (provided they have the capacity to freely consent), and to do so in as peaceful and dignified a manner as possible, with the cooperation of a person properly qualified to ensure their sufferings are minimized.

It's our right, it's my right, and while I have no plan to exercise it, I won't surrender that right til the day I use it. Don't like it, too bad, so sad. It's not yours to take from me.

The disgraceful treatment of disabled and underprivileged people is disgusting, albeit a largely generalized problem across capitalist nations - and certainly the countries most of the critics here hails from *coughAmericacough*. We need to do better, though, for sure.

I do not see moral superiority in forcing suffering people to continue suffering,

Claiming the two amount to an actual program of euthanizing the poor is contemptible emotional manipulation unworthy of further comments.
 

Synobun

Deity
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
23,993
Claiming the two amount to an actual program of euthanizing the poor is contemptible emotional manipulation unworthy of further comments.

Is it? Social workers and government employees recommend it, sorry, "urge you to consider" it now.
 

Ajidica

High Quality Person
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
21,813

Joij21

Deity
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
2,396
I think this spin on things was inevitable. There are people who're in such conditions that they'd prefer to die, and these conditions are unmasked once permission to die is given. MAID is better viewed as the 'unmasking'.

Oh, and if you're not contributing to mental health research, you should be. We deliberately underfund it, and if you're participating in that underfunding, then this discussion is just porn pretending to be something else.

But it is liberals who are actually suggesting that the poor kill themselves. It ain't spin, it's the truth and shows that liberals are no more empathetic than the average conservative.

So, your disgusting hot take here is that this capitalist structure of society that treats humans as nothing but mere commodities with no social value other than their monetary value has forced the poor and downtrodden into committing suicide and by letting them commit suicide the left is at fault and is guilty of murder?

HOW ABOUT YOU GIVE THEM THE DIGNITY THEY DESERVE AS HUMANS FFS!

How about we work as a society to help these people instead of insisting they should just live longer in horrible misery?

God damn pig ******* capitalist hog ****s.

"Breed for us, work for us, die for us, and go fudge yourselves"

fudge The Spectator, fudge your brain worms, and fudge this timeline.

./vitriolic

Don't attack me! It's the liberals of Canada who are actively encouraging the poor to kill themselves through a state funded suicide program called MAID.

They realized it was cheaper to spend money killing the poor through euthanasia and actively encourage them to commit suicide then actually funding programs to get them back on their feet. So much for the moral supremacy of liberals over conservatives.
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
They realized it was cheaper to spend money killing the poor through euthanasia and actively encourage them to commit suicide then actually funding programs to get them back on their feet. So much for the moral supremacy of liberals over conservatives.

I'm attacking you because this is an ignorant hot take and it is a disingenuous one. Conservatives would only insist on worse conditions if they'd have their way, and then they's kill the gays for good sport to boot. Reactionaries are the same up there as they are down here, so take your high horse and ride into your mad max sunset.

let me put it this way for you, while this story should cause a crisis of consciousness so deep as your nation to be motivated to change their entire welfare state, instead is being treated to score cheap political points without redressing any of the core problems. its hog horsehocky and you are rolling around in it instead of asking why the entire room is covered in feces.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,187
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
I've seen barely any evidence of that, and most of it from sources that are on the Rebel News level of trustworthiness.

That such testimony almost universally comes from oppnents of MAID also has me suspecting they mgiht be equating "he mentioned the possibility, that's urging me!". Which is bollocks.

The odds of a government program to actually push this through social workers and other government employees (ie, that they're actually told to encourage/urge people to chose euthanasia) that would somehow remain secret are absurdly low. All it would take is one social worker opposed to suicide (and there are, uh, a huge honking lot of those) to blow the whole things open, and medias in Canada are not that complacent whatever fringe types think. All the more so when multiple governments (social workers are *provincial* employees by and large) would have to be involved. Thie idea that this is any sort of organized program is in full on Moon Landing was Faked conspiracy theory territory: the odds of a conspiracy on that scale existing are frail.

"Brilliant" initiative by local over zealous employees or at best a local administrator, that's a possibility. But that does not a program make.
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
I've seen barely any evidence of that, and most of it from sources that are on the Rebel News level of trustworthiness.

That such testimony almost universally comes from oppnents of MAID also has me suspecting they mgiht consider "he mentioned the possibility, that's urging me!". Which is bollocks.

The odds of a government program to actually push this through social workers and other government employees (ie, that they're actually told to encourage/urge people to chose euthanasia) that would somehow remain secret are absurdly low. All it would take is one social worker opposed to suicide (and there are, uh, a huge honking lot of those) to blow the whole things open, and medias in Canada are not that complacent). All the more so when multiple governments (social workers are *provincial* employees by and large) would have to be involved. Thie idea that this is any sort of organized program is in full on Moon Landing was Faked clood****ooland conspiracy theory territory.

"Brilliant" initiative by local over zealous employees or at best a local administrator, that's a possibility. But that does not a program make.
this makes intuitive sense to me, thanks for the reassurance.
 
Top Bottom