Universal health care in a universe created by God

[phyllo]

Check out the myths and facts about MAID on this site. It includes some of IC's 'concerns' :

https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advocac ... and-facts/

[Immanuel Can]

If a dog is suffering, you will put it out of its misery.

Very true.

But if a human is suffering, they are not to be allowed to choose to end their suffering with assisted suicide.

Here they are not only allowed...they're encouraged...invited...wanted to make the choice, and if they are incapacitated and can't speak for themselves...somebody else will make that decision for them. And consequences? What are those?

"The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." So says The Good Book.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, what evidence suggests to you that people are being "encouraged" to choose suicide, and who is encouraging them to do so, doctors, public servants in the Canadian government, or both?

It's the government, primarily. And they're doing it in the name of "compassion."

But there are two "tracks" that they have designed for MAID. Track 1 is the conventional idea of people who were going to die anyway being allowed to take their own lives to avoid possible pain and difficulty...however, even in track 1, how soon that was going to happen, and how bad they have to be before that is an option are not clearly distinguished. So a person who was perfectly healthy now, but who had a diagnosis of a fatal disease in the future might still be eligible, regardless of his or her present state.

Track 2 is the really evil one. Track 2 comes into legal effect just under a year from now. And it stipulates that anybody who can be defined as "mentally ill" is also eligible. And that "mental illness" could be anything from the extreme to mere "depression," again with no age limit, no health boundaries, no medical condition, no input from anybody but the "sufferer," and no definition of what temporary versus chronic "depression" might occasion.

Will there be a track 3? Who knows. We've already gone farther with it than the originators promised we ever would. Basically, "compassion" is being used to offer everybody every possible means to kill themselves, and the means and incentive to think they can do it with a minimum of effort, and with government assistance and blessing.

It's a kind of soft Third Reich move.

[Immanuel Can]

Or to put it succinctly, is it the case that under no circumstances should a physician help someone commit suicide?

Well, Gary, as the old saying goes, "Where there's life, there's hope." Suffering is bad, and often very bad. But is there anything worse? Reputedly so. And as a Christian, I would sincerely wish that everybody would get the maximum opportunity to avoid the worst outcome that can possibly befall a sentient creature, and one from which there is no relief. That's what compassion would lead me to believe.

I think anybody who's thinking rightly would, too.

[Gary Childress]

Or to put it succinctly, is it the case that under no circumstances should a physician help someone commit suicide?

Well, Gary, as the old saying goes, "Where there's life, there's hope." Suffering is bad, and often very bad. But is there anything worse? Reputedly so. And as a Christian, I would sincerely wish that everybody would get the maximum opportunity to avoid the worst outcome that can possibly befall a sentient creature, and one from which there is no relief. That's what compassion would lead me to believe.

I think anybody who's thinking rightly would, too.

If I were facing an excruciatingly painful death by cancer and I knew it, I would probably like the option to suffer less if I reached the point of unbearable pain. We're all going to die. Holding onto life for a little while longer in order to suffer doesn't make much sense. It's not going to win anyone a special prize. It's just going to be a lot of pain to endure. That's it.

[Immanuel Can]

Or to put it succinctly, is it the case that under no circumstances should a physician help someone commit suicide?

Well, Gary, as the old saying goes, "Where there's life, there's hope." Suffering is bad, and often very bad. But is there anything worse? Reputedly so. And as a Christian, I would sincerely wish that everybody would get the maximum opportunity to avoid the worst outcome that can possibly befall a sentient creature, and one from which there is no relief. That's what compassion would lead me to believe.

I think anybody who's thinking rightly would, too.

If I were facing an excruciatingly painful death by cancer and I knew it, I would probably like the option to suffer less if I reached the point of unbearable pain.

Okay. But now choose between cancer and an eternity without God. Which will you choose?

[Gary Childress]

Well, Gary, as the old saying goes, "Where there's life, there's hope." Suffering is bad, and often very bad. But is there anything worse? Reputedly so. And as a Christian, I would sincerely wish that everybody would get the maximum opportunity to avoid the worst outcome that can possibly befall a sentient creature, and one from which there is no relief. That's what compassion would lead me to believe.

I think anybody who's thinking rightly would, too.

If I were facing an excruciatingly painful death by cancer and I knew it, I would probably like the option to suffer less if I reached the point of unbearable pain.

Okay. But now choose between cancer and an eternity without God. Which will you choose?

Are you suggesting that if I end my life early to avoid suffering from cancer, God would condemn me to Hell? It wouldn't be very nice of God to impose such a dilemma on me, would it? Do you think that, if there is a God, a God who would do such a thing? And if so, why? Would it just be to be mean?

[Will Bouwman]

What is your evidence that the things you list are not being addressed?

Go to any city. Wander through the downtown. It will be full of the mentally ill, the homeless, drug abusers...it's so obvious you can't possibly miss it.

Mental Health: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/ ... lness.html
Homelessness: https://housing-infrastructure.canada.c ... x-eng.html
Drug abuse: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/ ... ategy.html

You might not think the above policies are effective; you might even disapprove of them, but unless you can provide facts to support your argument, anything you say will be the same impotent, gossipy nonsense you usually dish up.

So the system is quietly shutting down arms, closing departments, firing needed staff and announcing none of it loudly.

Well, where are they doing it quietly? What is your source?

Again, you can see it.

Gossip. What are the facts?

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics...

Ah, statistics. So if:

...the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program

what are the actual statistics?

[phyllo]

Are you suggesting that if I end my life early to avoid suffering from cancer, God would condemn me to Hell? It wouldn't be very nice of God to impose such a dilemma on me, would it? Do you think that, if there is a God, a God who would do such a thing? And if so, why? Would it just be to be mean?

What kind of evil god would punish a suffering person for ending their suffering?

Who would praise and worship such a god?

The mind boggles.

[Immanuel Can]

If I were facing an excruciatingly painful death by cancer and I knew it, I would probably like the option to suffer less if I reached the point of unbearable pain.

Okay. But now choose between cancer and an eternity without God. Which will you choose?

Are you suggesting that if I end my life early to avoid suffering from cancer, God would condemn me to Hell?

No, of course. It wouldn't at all be because of that.

We're all far from God, Gary, until we humble ourselves, accept His salvation, and thus decide to draw near to Him. Those who die after a long lifespan are no different from those who have, for any reason, a shorter run. It's whether or not we choose to have any relationship with God that is the decider of our eternal disposition. And that's up to us, right now, long before any end-of-life issue.

[Gary Childress]

Okay. But now choose between cancer and an eternity without God. Which will you choose?

Are you suggesting that if I end my life early to avoid suffering from cancer, God would condemn me to Hell?

No, of course. It wouldn't at all be because of that.

So a person who has established a "relationship" with God could end their own life prematurely to avoid suffering from cancer and still potentially go to heaven. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

...unless you can provide facts to support your argument...

How about the witness of everybody's eyes? Would that do for you? How about you take a look yourself? Visit, and you'll lose all doubts.

So if:

...the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program

what are the actual statistics?

Nobody knows the limit of it. Yet we know they have to be more than 16,000, because even the government's self-serving estimates are that high. And we know that MAID deaths are not always documented as MAID deaths. We don't know how many more there are. But we can be pretty sure it doesn't round off to exactly 16K.

[MikeNovack]

Please -- a thread about "universal heath care" should not degenerate into a discussion of suicide, assisted or otherwise (both should be considered, together because if unassisted OK, the question arises how much assistance makes it "assisted" ------UNDER APPLIED ETHICS?

[Gary Childress]

Please -- a thread about "universal heath care" should not degenerate into a discussion of suicide, assisted or otherwise (both should be considered, together because if unassisted OK, the question arises how much assistance makes it "assisted" ------UNDER APPLIED ETHICS?

Is it necessarily better to fragment discussions across the forum as they evolve? If so, then what does that accomplish?

[phyllo]

Please -- a thread about "universal heath care" should not degenerate into a discussion of suicide, assisted or otherwise (both should be considered, together because if unassisted OK, the question arises how much assistance makes it "assisted" ------UNDER APPLIED ETHICS?

Well, IC claimed that assisted suicide was being used to reduce costs in the Canadian healthcare system.

So debunking his nonsense is on topic.

[Immanuel Can]

Please -- a thread about "universal heath care" should not degenerate into a discussion of suicide, assisted or otherwise (both should be considered, together because if unassisted OK, the question arises how much assistance makes it "assisted" ------UNDER APPLIED ETHICS?

Go ahead, and have fun.

But the conversation here is highly relevant. Assisted suicide is a thing provided by the government, under the pretext of "health care." And they can do so, because government is dictating to everybody else what constitutes "health care." (They do the same with abortion, of course.) This is a further consequence of the universalization of health care; the government can decide what lives are worthwhile, and who gets to live and die...and back it with the force of law.

Not everything about universalization is always good, you know. And that's the topic. So we're right on point, here.