[RD] They passed Bill C7.

[Farm Boy]

Compulsion of the unwilling to kill and social limitation of dignified ways to die. There is no reason to overcomplicate. Funeral homes would be an easy certification and planning nexus. Vertical integration, as it were.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Compulsion of the unwilling to kill and social limitation of dignified ways to die. There is no reason to overcomplicate. Funeral homes would be an easy certification and planning nexus. Vertical integration, as it were.

So giving medical personnel a way to bow out of supporting aid in dying solves part of the problem?

 

[Farm Boy]

If there is no obligation or coercion, there is no obligation or coercion. There is still the gatekeeping.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If there is no obligation or coercion, there is no obligation or coercion. There is still the gatekeeping.

The NM law has four different listed "gatekeepers" of varied professional training. I that too many or too few or should there be none at all and the medication be OTC?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

If a new category is invented just for doctors willing to perform MAiD, there will be people who think they have the right to picket, harass, and even murder them.

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.

And I take it you're in favor of cruder, more painful, and less reliable? After all, nobody needs a prescription for a baseball bat or drinking antifreeze.

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.

Do they have the obligation to make referrals?

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

Do they not have medical professionals present at executions in the U.S.? I wouldn't know about Canada, since we abolished the death penalty decades ago.

Compulsion of the unwilling to kill and social limitation of dignified ways to die. There is no reason to overcomplicate. Funeral homes would be an easy certification and planning nexus. Vertical integration, as it were.

This sounds like you're suggesting funeral directors administer the drugs.

Newsflash: Not everyone has a funeral, or chooses to use the services of a funeral home.

Or at least any more than absolutely necessary.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Valka D'Ur I posted a link to the law; You can read it.

 

[Farm Boy]

WTH Valka, no. Baseball bats or crowbars would be insane. For the 2nd time in two pages. You don't need to buy a stone when you get cremated. They contract all those things, and yes. I think mortuarists could definitely be trained in the skills of euthenasia.

Over the counter bird? Maybe. Poisons have limitations. I have to pass tests to buy restricted chemicals. It's not an easy test but I could poison an entire village.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Over the counter bird? Maybe. Poisons have limitations. I have to pass tests to buy restricted chemicals. It's not an easy test but I could poison an entire village.

I was just looking at what your boundaries might be.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's an hour long exam. The potential for broad harm and self harm seems greater in some ways. If I wanted to spread mammal killers, I'd need another accreditation. But again, that's to actually broadcast and place square miles of poison if desired.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Bill C7 recently passed Royal Assent.

Unfortunately, as long as death remains cheaper than properly supporting a population who is economically unproductive...

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Yeah they can't really make people.

Valka and some others are arguing about indirect participation.

"Sure I didn't do it myself but I told them where to go to get killed".

Sone don't even want to do the above and that's a perfectly valid opinion to have.

I'm fine with whoever is allowed to make those decisions opting out if they want to.

 

[Zardnaar]

Bill C7 recently passed Royal Assent.

Unfortunately, as long as death remains cheaper than properly supporting a population who is economically unproductive...

This has been pointed out by people opposed to Euthenasia.

We had referendum here last year and that exact scenario was pointed out.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah they can't really make people.

Valka and some others are arguing about indirect participation.

"Sure I didn't do it myself but I told them where to go to get killed".

Sone don't even want to do the above and that's a perfectly valid opinion to have.

I'm fine with whoever is allowed to make those decisions opting out if they want to.

Hm. So if you were to visit me and (hypothetically) say, "Valka, I want to go to church, take me to one" and I say, "You know I'm atheist and don't take anyone to church. There's one across the back parking lot, it's close enough for you to walk there."

Have I participated in you going to that church? (there really is one across the back parking lot here)

No. All I did was tell you where to find it. You made the decision to go, and got there under your own steam. Whether you go or not is not my business or concern.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hm. So if you were to visit me and (hypothetically) say, "Valka, I want to go to church, take me to one" and I say, "You know I'm atheist and don't take anyone to church. There's one across the back parking lot, it's close enough for you to walk there."

Have I participated in you going to that church? (there really is one across the back parking lot here)

No. All I did was tell you where to find it. You made the decision to go, and got there under your own steam. Whether you go or not is not my business or concern.

Weak. Going to church isn't participating in killing someone.

Personally I would make the referral but I wouldn't expect others to do so.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Weak. Going to church isn't participating in killing someone.

Personally I would make the referral but I wouldn't expect others to do so.

It's "indirectly participating" in something I don't approve of.

And how do you know that the second doctor might not have some other solution or the patient might change his/her mind? Sometimes a change in doctors can lead to very different decisions.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's "indirectly participating" in something I don't approve of.

And how do you know that the second doctor might not have some other solution or the patient might change his/her mind? Sometimes a change in doctors can lead to very different decisions.

True but that's up to the individual patient.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

True but that's up to the individual patient.

Yes, it is. But the patient might never have that choice without a referral.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, it is. But the patient might never have that choice without a referral.

Well they need to find a doctor that's willing to give said referral. Or said doctor has to idk the specifics of each location.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well they need to find a doctor that's willing to give said referral. Or said doctor has to idk the specifics of each location.

And in the regions of the country that are heavily faith-based and/or remote, that means the patient will not be able to access a legal health procedure, which is contrary to the Canada Health Act (equal access is part of it), which in turns brings up issues of human rights violations and Charter violations.

 

[Zardnaar]

And in the regions of the country that are heavily faith-based and/or remote, that means the patient will not be able to access a legal health procedure, which is contrary to the Canada Health Act (equal access is part of it), which in turns brings up issues of human rights violations and Charter violations.

If that's what Canadian law says they'll either have to do it or go elsewhere. If it's that important those areas might not have any healthcare professionals. Or a shortage.

Or the whole lot refuse and then they have to make a decision to fire all of them.