Doctor-assisted suicide allowed by Supreme Court in specific cases

The dam has been breached. Yahoo.

And the Reformacons going after dying with dignity didn't work out. Person from dying with dignity said their main donors will continue to donate even without the tax writeoff, and they are now free to be as political as they want.

Good news, we can now give Grandma the same consideration we give Fido.

I must admit I'm very torn over this subject. My first response is NO don't do this don't give assisted suicide and credence or ability. Then upon reflection I can see situations where I would seriously considering offing myself. Thus I start thinking who am I to say no to someone in such conditions.

I did not read the whole article but I would like to have something along the lines of a 6 month waiting period. Patient John/Jane Doe expresses the desire that they want assisted suicide to their Dr. 6 months later if they still so desire this then they may proceed. I'm not trying to be cruel I would really like for the patient to have a while to really think this over once the preverbal clock starts ticking.

It was inevitable. Progressive ideas don't go away, the Traditionalist hold-outs always lose in the end.

Give it a few years and once the Reformacons finish howling about how this is a lefist "social experiment", they'll not only be on board, they'll act like they were on board the whole time. They'll point to the one conservative who was for it the whole time and the one liberal who was against it the whole time to try and take credit for it. The "Actually, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister when it became legal which proves it was our idea" argument has already been penned and shelved for future use.

Well, here's hoping the "progressives" use this to the fullest.

There are conditions where 6 days would be torture, let alone 6 months.

I wouldn't put a time limit on it. If a doctor is convinced the consent is informed, there should only be the delay the patient asks for.

It's amazing that we can take the family pet to the vet for a humane and peaceful end to their life but we have to sit back and watch our family members suffer and die a terrible death.

A great step forward.

Didn't realize this, didn't realize the judgement was that radical. I'm a bit torn here. Emotional pain can hurt very much, but I don't think it's on the level of screaming in agony physical pain that has no cure. With emotional pain we can really say the condition is hopeless. Who knows what can come along and lift the person out of it.

Since I believe in a person's utter right to take their own life, I really have no problem enlisting a doctor to help them do it painlessly. But in this case I could see a waiting period being required, and a serious effort made to deal with the pain

Assuming of course, that all 'reformacons' don't support this which simply isn't true. There are plenty of people on the 'right' that support these types of decisions.

Now we have to see if the Reformacons play silly buggers here the way they did with the prostitution laws. Guess they figure they won't lose many votes opposing assisted death vs throwing red meat to the base.

The court's decision seems to give the yes side about everything they could have asked for including mental suffering seems to catch about every competent person that could possibly be included, not just the terminal ill.

Now what about the incompetent ones. People bring up putting dogs to sleep - they're not competent under the law, humans make the decision for them. Shouldn't we do the same for suffering humans who can't give clear consent. Obviously more safeguards should be in place, but it seems strange to say we'll withdraw life support, including feeding, but won't help them die. The exemption would be mental suffering - can't really assess that on an incompetent person.

Well, think of a situation where someone is completely paralyzed from the neck down or severely brain dammaged and unable to do anything except clearly communicate their wish to die. They are not in physical pain but nontheless every day of continued existence could be torture.

It's about damn time. I wish we had this for my grandfather 10 years ago.

Well, think of a situation where someone is completely paralyzed from the neck down or severely brain dammaged and unable to do anything except clearly communicate their wish to die. They are not in physical pain but nontheless every day of continued existence could be torture.

Good example. I would certainly want my suffering ended in that case. But I think overall, a waiting period for mental suffering would be a good idea.

I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to benefit from this decision.