[RD] They passed Bill C7.

[Samson]

If they have an affirmative right to have it done for them, if you can obligate society to kill you, there is still absolutely no justification for not putting in a system that makes it so that nobody who has a problem with killing is pressured to do so either through their profession or their pocketbook. Doctors will bill like doctors. Hospitals will bill like hospitals. There is no reason to pay those rates, that gatekeeping. There is no need to be stupid, ****** little gangsters over a basic right if that's what we're discussing. And no. While euthenasia is life planning and medicinal treatment is life planning, euthanasia is not the same skillset as medicine. It's really not. It's much less complicated. Even when it's done with respect, and professionalism, and best practices.

There are loads of things you may be asked to do as part of a job, that some people object to. Animal experimentation, cell stem therapies, "use[ing] the knife" and charging your teachers child for teaching are all things that doctors could get asked to do, depending on their career choices, and may conflict with their personal morals. Just like everyone else they are free to choose the jobs they apply for, but if the role they choose requires a certain level of care they should provide it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why is the alternative to a doctor somebody "off the street?" Like a mistake leading to "whatever next crowbar comes to hand." That's insane.

It does not take medical school itself to competently run an IV.

It takes somebody who is trained. Is that going to be the average person? No. They will need to be taught.

I used the "off the street" in reference to myself. If I were to have a sudden incident of a high or low when out shopping, for instance, if I couldn't manage the situation myself, I'd want to have somebody who knew what to do, or could follow instructions without panicking at the necessity of sticking a needle into me. Some people are just that afraid of blood (I keep gloves with me all the time so if I do need help they won't have to worry about any contamination).

After all, even the cops are often ignorant enough that they interpret a diabetic person in distress as nothing more than a drunk. As a result, there have been needless deaths.

Obviously with MAiD, you'd want a medical professional available, not just anybody. Or if there isn't a medical professional available, you'd want whoever was in charge of administering the drugs to have been taught how to do it.

I do not see any inherent reason why euthanasia drugs should need to be IV, but we clearly should not be giving them out without a prescription.

Sometimes they are (IV, I mean).

Why does that prescription require a doctor? It does not. Clean, humane ways to die, if there is a right to die, being more tightly controlled than messy nasty ways to die that are uncontrollable is just damned mean. The diagnosis of terminalness(if required) does need a doctor. After that, the doctor can be asked to help, or they can go **** off. Unless we have some weird ass fetish here.

Who else can write a prescription except a doctor?

Sure, there are other ways... but they're not legal. A farmer, Robert Latimer, spent over a decade in prison for the mercy killing of his daughter, Tracey. His daughter was in unremitting pain, still faced multiple surgeries, and nothing the doctors said they would do would ever give her a pain-free, meaningful life. He put her in his truck and asphyxiated her. Sure, it was painless, and didn't need a doctor. MAiD legislation didn't exist at the time, and it wouldn't have been granted anyway, since Tracey was underage and incapable of communicating in a way that the average person could understand.

If they have an affirmative right to have it done for them, if you can obligate society to kill you, there is still absolutely no justification for not putting in a system that makes it so that nobody who has a problem with killing is pressured to do so either through their profession or their pocketbook. Doctors will bill like doctors. Hospitals will bill like hospitals. There is no reason to pay those rates, that gatekeeping. There is no need to be stupid, ****** little gangsters over a basic right if that's what we're discussing. And no. While euthenasia is life planning and medicinal treatment is life planning, euthanasia is not the same skillset as medicine. It's really not. It's much less complicated. Even when it's done with respect, and professionalism, and best practices.

You're just so friggin' obsessed with the notion that doctors will have to actually do it if they don't want to. They don't. Referrals are not the same thing. If I am asked to do something and say no, but refer the asker to someone else who would be willing to do that thing, does it mean that I did in fact do that thing myself?

No, it doesn't.

I guess on a farm, if you want something dead, you shoot it. No doctor need be involved. That's not how it works elsewhere.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are loads of things you may be asked to do as part of a job, that some people object to. Animal experimentation, cell stem therapies, "use[ing] the knife" and charging your teachers child for teaching are all things that doctors could get asked to do, depending on their career choices, and may conflict with their personal morals. Just like everyone else they are free to choose the jobs they apply for, but if the role they choose requires a certain level of care they should provide it.

I'll reiterate: Pure, naked, evil.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're just so friggin' obsessed with the notion that doctors will have to actually do it if they don't want to. They don't. Referrals are not the same thing. If I am asked to do something and say no, but refer the asker to someone else who would be willing to do that thing, does it mean that I did in fact do that thing myself?

For the record, the above post is what I've been addressing. It's what I've reiterated I'm talking about. I have not challenged any issue of doctors being forced in Canada. You keep telling me this, ok fine, you've said it again.

I guess on a farm, if you want something dead, you shoot it. No doctor need be involved. That's not how it works elsewhere.

Now you're just being a deliberate jackass. Again, fair enough.

 

[Samson]

I'll reiterate: Pure, naked, evil.

I really do not know why our points of view are so different in this matter. I wonder if it is to do with how much we are used to doing what others tell us. Would I be correct in assuming you have spent a lot of time as your own boss? I have always worked for someone else, and have done some pretty morally questionable things under orders. It has always seemed like a choice between that and resignation.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, no I have not. I've been a secretary for almost the entirety of my working career. It's (would be) evil to compel somebody to do this and there is no justification under the system we seem to have other than conceit and malice.

In Canada and the UK we have health services paid for through taxation. The patient is not billed for using them.

Taxes allocate, but they do not make something free. Any professional time a doctor spends working comes with the opportunity cost of their schooling and support. Their working time is finite, and it should be. They aren't machines. There isn't a great reason to allocate them in this manner, where there would certainly be caring people who would be willing to do it, professionally, for a fraction of the overhead cost of medical school in allocating work and skillset. Everybody pays for it, and specifically somebody pays for the opportunity cost when it was their opportunity that gave, but that's hard enough to track down that it's invisible or somesuch.

 

[Gorbles]

Now you're just being a deliberate jackass. Again, fair enough.

Yeah, none of that anywhere else in here, huh?

Were not talking about killing people, we're just talking about helping them to die as a direct result of our verbs at a time of intentional behavior! Feelings, sheesh.

It's one thing to have a difference in opinion. It's another to beat people around the metaphorical head with moral condemnation. I thought that was something you weren't a fan of, but I guess you're bored of late.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I'm a jackass fairly frequently. But I do, at least generally, try to do it for things people say rather than about where they come from. But fair enough.

I'm not, usually, but this is an extraordinarily evil opinion to argue.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No, no I have not. I've been a secretary for almost the entirety of my working career. It's (would be) evil to compel somebody to do this and there is no justification under the system we seem to have other than conceit and malice.



Taxes allocate, but they do not make something free. Any professional time a doctor spends working comes with the opportunity cost of their schooling and support. Their working time is finite, and it should be. They aren't machines. There isn't a great reason to allocate them in this manner, where there would certainly be caring people who would be willing to do it, professionally, for a fraction of the overhead cost of medical school in allocating work and skillset. Everybody pays for it, and specifically somebody pays for the opportunity cost when it was their opportunity that gave, but that's hard enough to track down that it's invisible or somesuch.

Who do you suggest? I'm a trained first aider. I can use an epipen and a defribrillator but I've never used a syringe to inject someone. I don't know if these drugs are ones that are required to be injected into a vein or not.
It could be paramedics but the issue of conscience would still come up. My point would be that it is the responsibility of the medical authorities to make sure that the treatment is available whoever is going to administer it and if the doctor, paramedic or medical institution they go to isn't willing to the medical authorities should ensure they can still access it.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would put money that if you regulate into existence a classification that is authorized to ascertain, obtain, and administer single lethal doses of euthenizing chemicals conditional on demonstrating appropriate skill in their use, there will be people called to provide the service for either love or money. And they'll be good at it. And some of them will be doctors. But they need not be.

 

[Gorbles]

No, I'm a jackass fairly frequently. But I do, at least generally, try to do it for things people say rather than about where they come from. But fair enough.

I'm not, usually, but this is an extraordinarily evil opinion to argue.

"evil" is extraordinairely relative depending on the context. Regardless, if everyone agrees doctors aren't being forced, you're arguing a non-point. It can't be an evil opinion if it doesn't exist.

Samson is trying to address the greater, wider point that I raised earlier in the thread. Where does anyone go with this, structurally. What is the hard line that turns "doing something icky" into "doing something evil"? It seems to be an incredibly personal yardstick, and dependent on ones' life experiences. If you recognise that, then fair enough. If you don't, where are you going with this other than the moral stick beating?

Who do you suggest? I'm a trained first aider. I can use an epipen and a defribrillator but I've never used a syringe to inject someone. I don't know if these drugs are ones that are required to be injected into a vein or not.
It could be paramedics but the issue of conscience would still come up. My point would be that it is the responsibility of the medical authorities to make sure that the treatment is available whoever is going to administer it and if the doctor, paramedic or medical institution they go to isn't willing to the medical authorities should ensure they can still access it.

Exactly this.

If your answer (directed at Farm Boy) is "invent a new job", then maybe stop and think about why that hasn't been done yet. Ideas are ten a penny. Implementation is rarer, and more difficult.

 

[Farm Boy]

If I go dress up in bedsheets and argue that certain people are more desirable when they're on fire, but do not do it, it is still an evil opinion.

It hasn't been done yet because it's been illegal, the tools have been illegal to access and gatekept, and people have done it anyways. They do it every day, anyways.They just use cruder, more painful, and less reliable ways.

That whole post is wrong. Sorry man.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have not challenged any issue of doctors being forced in Canada.

You've done little BUT rant about doctors being 'forced'. I'm just saying there are conscience laws here. Who knows what the U.S. would do? From the pov of Canada, just about every system of rules and laws down there looks like a chaotic mess.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, that is what I've been talking about, yes indeedy. And there are people to talk about it with from a variety of places and systems. Who knows what any US state would do, or the Fed. Lots of very different people in those groups. You're right. Maybe there would be a northerly wind and methane poisoning! Or a sudden burst of grace from our posteriors.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I would put money that if you regulate into existence a classification that is authorized to ascertain, obtain, and administer single lethal doses of euthenizing chemicals conditional on demonstrating appropriate skill in their use, there will be people called to provide the service for either love or money. And they'll be good at it. And some of them will be doctors. But they need not be.

It would have to be done over the vested interests of doctors. There are a great many medical procedures that could be carried out by trained medical staff but doctors have always resisted others being able to do them.
Its still sidetracking from the main issues raised in this thread.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you have a right to it, doctors should have no right to gatekeep it. It's directly on point. And you are correct. It's a vested interest of some.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If you have a right to it, doctors should have no right to gatekeep it. It's directly on point. And you are correct. It's a vested interest of some.

But they should have the right to refuse to do it and not tell you who will do it according to you?
Thats gatekeeping too.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In the actual NM law that is up for senate approval (and posted up thread) multiple professional (not all of them MDs) have the ability to prescribe the drugs and all of them have the right to refuse to if they choose.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

whatever happened to judges signing death warrants? now we need doctors to do our killing for us?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Farm Boy I am a bit confused by exactly what you see as "evil". Could you please explain it for me?