The tricky religious debate over assisted death

[rug]

LORNA DUECK
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Sep. 08, 2015 3:00AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 08, 2015 10:09AM EDT

A most polarizing issue needing political leadership has yet to make the election campaign trail, but recently Canada’s doctors reminded us that dying awaits a legislative response.

This is the grim reaper no political party can avoid: a Supreme Court of Canada deadline that Parliament must craft a law by February, 2016, that allows for assisted dying upon demand. The court ruling is broad, allowing killing to be done by “persons familiar with end-of-life decisions,” in situations that are “grievous and irremediable.” The court ruled that denying assisted suicide infringes on our individual right to “life, liberty and security of person” – Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Understanding each party’s view on a law to facilitate this ruling is a tricky question to throw into a campaign soundbite scrum. Canada is turning a new page in responding to a rights-based argument for autonomy over death, and a careful law for our actions is now required. Political silence on death care is not an option. This is a law that will affect every family in the land, and, as our doctors have reminded us, the personal morality and conscience rights of medical teams is intimately involved with it.

In June and July, the Canadian Medical Association polled members on their views on the legislation, and announced the results at its annual meeting: 63 per cent of doctors declared that “they would refuse to give medical aid in dying.” Saskatoon hematologist Sheila Harding told the CBC: “I feel strongly that hastening death is not part of medicine. I think it eviscerates what medicine is intended to be. I think that asking physicians to be killers is contrary to the very core of medicine.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-tricky-religious-debate-over-assisted-death/article26227601/

[haikugal]

1. Why would the religious have any say over my choices regarding assisted death? N/T

[rug]

3. The article is about mandated new legislation. Everyone has a say.

Depending on the law in your jurisdiction, your choice can have great impact on your survivors.

[haikugal]

5. Religion doesn't belong in legislation...laws.

Why would anyone have a problem with assisted death? It's like the abortion argument. I don't think everyone has a say...just the patient and the doctor.

[rug]

6. Why not? Do you think religious people should not be heard?

[haikugal]

7. I don't see the point of their input in either case, assisted death or suicide p, as I said.

[rug]

8. Whether you see the point of their inpt or not is immaterial.

The question is whether or not they should be heard on pending legislation.

[Downwinder]

11. Why should their religion control my life or death?

Would they allow me that control of themselves?

If I am not allowed to die with dignity, I will make it as messy and disruptive as possible.

[rug]

12. Do you think listening to them can control your life or death?

As it is now, the vast majority of state governments are doing that.

[Downwinder]

14. Listening does not affect me. Doing their bidding does.

They complain about religious law and then use religion to promote their religious law.

[rug]

22. There is the difference.

Everyone can and should be heard. But when the power of the state is used to enforce religious views, the line has been crossed.

Before that, it's an ongoing political struggle of different ideologies.

[LeftishBrit]

20. 'Heard' is one thing...

But in 2010 (I know I keep referring to this; I will NEVER forgive or forget it, nor will I ever forgive myself for failing to see what was happening in my backyard until too late), the Rev. Lynda Rose, local representative of the anti-abortion LIFE charity, distributed vicious smear leaflets against my pro-choice MP, calling him 'Dr. Death' because he was in favour of keeping legal abortion, and of right-to-die legislation. She did NOT mention her connection with LIFE and presented herself just as a 'concerned citizen'. A couple of RW journalists jumped on the bandwagon and printed vile stuff. He lost by 176 votes. The local religious right gloated, and recommended that the same be done to other pro-choice MPs.

This is not all religious people, of course not; and indeed in England they're a minority; but I will NEVER accept such tactics from anyone!

Also: there is a mixture here of genuine concerns (though in my view addressable) and foisting personal beliefs on others. There are genuine concerns that people might come under pressure to die sooner for the sake of others, rather than respecting their own wishes; and that sometimes it is not clear whether an illness is truly incurable. However, there is also the attitude that people should not be allowed to end their own life to save themselves from intolerable suffering, because their life belongs to God, not to themselves. If a religious person believes that, fine for themselves; but it should not be foisted on others who don't share that belief.

[rug]

23. I didn't hear of that case but it sounds like typical dirty tricks in a political campaign.

Bluntly, politics is all about getting other people - and governments - to do what you want.

To oppose someone else from succeeding at that is a matter of vigilance. All do it.

I'm still pissed at Obama for the pandering speech he gave at West Pont in December 2009 announcing his surge in Afghanistan.

Regarding this law in Canada, there are a lot of viewpoints, religious and nonreligious to be heard. The question below that is more fundamental: Is it the role of government to say anything at all about assisted death?

[LeftishBrit]

27. Political dirty tricks of this sort are relatively rare in England

There is a lot of smear-campaigning against political parties and their leaders, and would-be leaders. But ordinary MPs - not so frequently; the attacks would normally be on their party rather than on them as individuals; and certainly the political 'pro-life' movement would not normally get involved. This was quite exceptionally ugly by British standards.

And yes, as one of your founding fathers said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

'Is it the role of government to say anything at all about assisted death?'

Less than it does now, I'd say; but I think government need to provide some supervision and safeguards against, for example, Junior assisting his father's death so as to get the inheritance; or Stingyshire County Council putting pressure on its local hospitals to encourage assisted dying so as to reduce the number of patients on whom money needs to be spent. But it is not government's job to insist on people having a moral duty to suffer because their life belongs to God.

[Nay]

56. The role of government is to decide whether assisted death requires prosecution

of the assistants, really. As it stands now, doctors or relatives could be brought up on murder charges for assisting. There are pros and cons to the practice, of course. It's relevant to ask whether assistants have a financial stake in the death; it is NOT relevant for religious groups to decry assisted death because their god(s) are against it because that is an irrelevant reason for anyone not of their religion.

[Trajan]

60. NOT when the conservation is between the doctor and his patient

Maybe we should have clergy available for every action ...

Maybe a clergy member can be assigned to follow you around, and intercede on every action ... 'no , Jesus would not want you to drink that beer' ... 'I'm sure that Yahweh would frown on your purchase of those condoms!' ... 'Baby Jesus does NOT like ghost peppers!'

Yeah ...I need a religious intercessor to tell me what I can and cannot do ... Right ....

Otherwise; get them the hell out of the way of me and my freedoms ... They can tend to their dedicated flocks, and stay in their gilded manses, away from the organs of government ...

[rug]

65. Get a grip. No one has mentioned a "religious intercessor" except you.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Legislation regarding the implementation of a medical option

CERTAIN Religious groups have a history of attempting to block left right and center.

[rug]

24. And they should be blocked. Silencing is not the way to do it though.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. That's a horrible thing to say.

You'd deny a basic, humane end that any of us would give to a pet, for why? What is it about the person who seeks this option being a rational, human being, capable of actively choosing it, disqualifies them from the option?

Oregon's DWD law has been in place since '97, so I'll use their data. More of it. Of the 1,327 people who have utilized the prescription, ~70% were dying of malignant cancers, and 16% from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) when they tapped the option.

ALS kills you by respiratory failure. Usually pneumonia, or your lungs/throat just give out. It's a shitty way to go.

As in previous years, the three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of
autonomy (91.4%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86.7%),
and loss of dignity (71.4%).

So, you would choose to force these people to endure a loss of autonomy, shut-in and loss of dignity. That's what you are saying when you say that sort of relief should be blocked.

You're the worst sort of judge and jury. You'd inflict your beliefs on people who may not even share your worldview. (Indeed, race and education levels of those who have used this option suggest a higher than average percentage are indeed Atheists/Agnostics.)

You'd tell dying people who are done, who are ready to go, 'no, you can't do that, it concerns *me*'.

And worst of all, you'll couch it in claims of compassion. That's the fucking be-all end-all of 'worst'.

[haikugal]

81. Bravo!

That's it exactly! Thanks for that!

[rug]

86. Did you reply to the wrong post?

My past said precisely two things:

1) And they should be blocked.

2) Silencing is not the way to do it though.

Which of those statements is "a horrible thing to say" ?

Unless you believe in silencing people, you should have your knees checked. One of them is jerking inexplicably.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Who is 'they' in your post?

It's slightly ambiguous. I interpreted they as the people pressing for the law, but perhaps you meant the religious people trying to prevent a legal physician assisted suicide option.

[rug]

89. Ah, I see the problem.

"CERTAIN Religious groups have a history of attempting to block left right and center."

I was referring to the subject, "CERTAIN Religious groups", and you read it as referring to the object of, "attempting to block".

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Perhaps if people would stop acting like dolts

by continuing to give money to these organizations that promote vile right wing legislation the problem would be minimized.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. You're lucky enough not to live in a partial theocracy

unlike the UK, where 26 seats in the House of Lords are reserved for Church of England bishops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

and they stick their oar in on the bill currently going through parliament:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/05/religious-leaders-urge-mps-throw-out-assisted-dying-bill

and Welby will no doubt lead his minions against it in Lords' votes, as in the past:

The bishops will remain, and will likely continue their attempts at blocking overdue social legislation. All 26 of the Lords Spiritual turned out to vote against the Assisted Dying Bill in 2006, contributing to its defeat, while opposition from bishops disrupted the eventual passage of the Equality Act last year.

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2550/saving-the-lords-spiritual

[haikugal]

10. I had no idea...that's even worse!!

England's population is more enlightened and less religious than ours...how can this still be happening? Unreal...we all need to throw off the yoke of theocratic lawmakers and policy...damn!

[AtheistCrusader]

16. These people will lie for Jesus like you would not believe.

Brace yourself for an all out propaganda war.

[haikugal]

17. I'm ready and yes they will.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Because they are numerous, have money, are willing to lie and your rights take a back seat

To the desires of their imaginary friend.

I-1000 was our initiative to legalize it down here in Washington. Wall to wall catholic opposition, money, ads and the ads mostly consisted of outright lies. Delivered by Martin Sheen no less.

third state in the union to legalize it.

Good luck crafting your new law, it won't be easy but it'll be nationwide when you get it, which is pretty awesome.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Because a certain segment of the religious population...

have spent the last 30 years trying to legislate their beliefs on us. Why would they stop with just this country?

[Angry Dragon]

2. this article speaks of doctors not religion

this should be moved to General

[rug]

4. Complain to management.

You are wrong though.

[Cartoonist]

18. Whose life is it?

Does the individual own his life, or does the State?
Or worse, does the Church own your life? They sure act like they do.

[rug]

29. No man is an island,

Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

Autonomy versus interdependence.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. You have no dependency upon a terminally ill person to

Justify forcing them to die of natural causes when they seek a more humane alternative.

[rug]

35. It's about interdependence, not dependence.

Do you think there should be any safeguards regarding a person's capacity to make that choice? Do you think depression, unrelenting pain, lack of financial options can be factors affecting one's free choice? Do you think society should simply take someone's word for it? Is there any duty to the person's loved ones who may want to be sure this is a free choice? Do they hany any interest in this decision?

A simple libertarian stance does not address the complexity of this issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Those issues were taken into account in the law. And I recognize a familiar refrain.

There's 'depression' again. That was a lie Mr. Sheen was repeating in the anti-I-1000 advertisements.
Our law requires that two physicians verify the patient is competent, or refer to a psychiatrist for mental health evaluation.
Odd that you would bring it up.

"unrelenting pain"

Our law requires that the patient be informed of ALL palliative care options so they may elect what option they like before obtaining the prescription.

"lack of financial options"

A minority of the Oregon data indicates financial options are a concern for the ~1300 who have used it over the last 1.6 decades. I personally have a plan/thresholds where that would influence my decision as well. The other side of that coin is non-physician assisted suicide attempts, and the cost associated with that. (Nearly 400 million to the state of Wisconsin in inpatient and emergency visits for self-inflicted harm.)

You want to fix that? Fine. Single payer, national. It's not an issue specific to or interesting to suicide/physician assisted suicide.

Do you think society should simply take someone's word for it?

Multiple someone's, actually. Have you not read our law or what?

Is there any duty to the person's loved ones who may want to be sure this is a free choice?

A loaded question if ever I've seen one.

Do they hany any interest in this decision?

This seems loaded as well. Please re-phrase for clarity. Interest as in, is it their place to allow it? Do we default to allow, or deny? What are you getting at?

How many fucking people do we need to turn the key on this launch sequence? AS our law stands, the patient must meet multiple requirements, their competence must be apparent or evaluated, and multiple attendant physicians must verify the request.

[rug]

64. "Does the individual own his life, or does the State?"

While you answer Cartoonist's question, explain why the state mandates two physicians approve the decision.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Why would the state set qualifications on providing a prescription medication via those physicians?

Remember, we're talking about legal access to a MEDICAL option for euthanasia.

I own my dog but you won't see me bitching about the state's requirement that I bring the dog in to be evaluated by a licensed Vet before dispensing prescription medication to me to administer to the dog.

If you want me to answer Cartoonist's question, I answer it in the context he asked it; set against the Boolean 'legal/not legal' or 'allowed/not allowed' context.

I advocate for free and easily accessed abortion, but that doesn't mean I advocate for it on every street corner by unlicensed non-physicians with rusty coat hangars. Context matters.

Cartoonist's question comes into play in the context of a 'No' across the board by the state, as advocated by various groups we've been talking about.

[LeftishBrit]

21. The only aspect of this that is new, is that people nowadays can be and are kept alive for far

longer than in the past.

100 years ago, most people died before the age of 50. Even 50 years ago most people in developed countries could expect to reach their 'three score and ten', but not much beyond that. And until recently, while some people suffered greatly with terminal illness or the consequences of accidents, most people with such conditions died relatively quickly.

So the whole question of 'assisted dying' was a problem only for a minority. The sole medical issue was generally how to assist people from NOT dying, against major odds. This is of course still a frequent issue - but the other is also becoming increasingly common.

For that minority, assisted dying has always been practiced. Sigmund Freud managed with medical help to keep his jaw cancer at bay for 16 years, but when it was clearly terminal he got a medical colleague to administer a fatal dose of morphine. King George the Fifth's death is known to have been hastened by his doctor. There were no doubt cases where doctors made such decisions without consulting their patients. It is much better if patients are allowed to make such decisions themselves.

[cleanhippie]

28. Like women's choice, this shouldn't be a "religious debate" at all.

Personal religious beliefs have no place in laws that affect us all. Or in any legal issue.

Religious opposition is what's mucking things up when it comes to personal choice and freedom, and equality for all.

[rug]

30. It is. Get over it.

[cleanhippie]

31. Huackabee, Santorum, Kim Davis?

Is that you?

Sure sounds like it.

[rug]

36. They're more likely to support your view that there should be no debate.

[Cartoonist]

32. Never.

The fight against ignorant superstition is gaining ground. Despite the presence of an avowed Catholic on the SC, gays can now marry. This is the biggest defeat for the RCC since Roe vs Wade. They only disgrace themselves further by continuing the fight on both fronts. They do this even as their numbers decline.

Do you or any Catholic believe that the Church will someday prevail? Why do they do it?
How are they doing on that Sun orbiting the Earth thing?

[rug]

37. The fact that you recognize a "fight" is acknowledgement that there is a debate.

Do you you believe they should shut up?

[Cartoonist]

41. They should accept reality.

Oh wait, what am I saying?

At any rate, they should know when the fight is over.

No, I'm not surprised you didn't answer my question.

[rug]

45. Or else what?

That, of course, assumes that what you consider reality is in fact reality.

No, the RCC hieraarcy's fight against legislation will go nowhere. The RCC itself will continue to thrive.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. And you wonder why I work so hard to discredit and dismantle organized religion.

This is why. Your post and your attitude.

You have no say and no interest when a terminally ill person is ready to go, on their own terms. It's offensive that you pretend you have any place in that decision at all.

[rug]

38. And you wonder why I work so hard to take you seriously.

Fuck libertarianism.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. That's nice, but I'm a progressive.

I think the term you were looking for is 'self ownership'. Because that's what I base my viewpoint on.

NO ONE but me has sovereignty over my life. My meat, my life, my decision.
I don't suppose this mysterious 'interest' and 'interdependence' you keep describing...

Tell me again, do you personally approve of legal access to abortion?
Let's see how principled your stance is.

[rug]

43. I'l take your word for it even though you consistently take a libertarian stance.

"Self ownership" is no more than a species of libertarianism.

As your second paragraph demonstrates.

Yes, I do. Legal access to abortions has nothing to do with religious views.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Well, self ownership is part and parcel of right, left, anarchist and marxist libertarianism.

So I don't know that bringing that up is anything more than an attempt to smear by association. There are important distinctions between a personal philosophy and political philosophy. There's no conflict between personal libertarian philosophy in that context, and Political Progressivism.

I am me. This meaty thing I inhabit? That's mine. I decide what may be done with it. (Barring due process stripping me of that right, if I misbehave) If you want to call that 'libertarian', ok, but I'm going to take it as an attempt at invective, not a casual observation.

Yes, I do. Legal access to abortions has nothing to do with religious views.

Be nice if you could convince evangelicals and catholics(up the hierarchy to and including the Pope) of that point. Abortion wouldn't even be an issue in the U.S. if those two populations would shut the fuck up about it.

[rug]

47. Life would be idyllic if people "would shut the fuck up about it."

You really can't single out groups to silence.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Reading your response to AH downthread I sense a disconnect.

We're using different meanings of 'voice' and 'silence'.

I don't give a rip if the individual or even the aggregate of a faith say 'I don't like euthanasia, I won't use that option.'.
Just like I don't care if they say 'I don't like abortion, and I would never have one'.

Ok. Peachy.

It's when they band together to try and strip EVERYONE of that right/access/means that I get upset. That's not 'voice' to me. That's force.

The people like me that advocate FOR legal access to abortion and euthanasia certainly aren't forcing anyone like that contrarian bloc to USE the option. I simply advocate it as a valid option.

Abortion should be accessible.
Euthanasia should be accessible.

Both are susceptible to coercion. Both can be legally defined constructs that protect against that sort of abuse.

[rug]

62. By that definition, every legal advocacy group is employing force.

Personally, I don't care what anyone advocates for or against. If I agree with them, I'll support them. If I don't I'll oppose them. What I don't support is arguing to shut anyone up.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. When it comes to denying people inalienable rights, yup.

I'm disappointed people don't know better than to attempt that.

[Lordquinton]

50. "Legal access to abortions has nothing to do with religious views."

[rug]

57. Get off the ground and face the facts, Quinton.

If you think it does then you support the religious right's attempt to outlaw it.

[Lordquinton]

77. "If you think it does then you support the religious right's attempt to outlaw it."

HAHA, Oh wow...

[rug]

84. You and they share a passion for silencing people.

I didn't realize the difficulty u o'clock have with the word "it".

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Ow my whiplash.

You owe me a new logic bone.
There's no way they can pin this one back together.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. the stuff one gets to read here

[rug]

66. If you revisit your alleged ignore list, you'd learn a lot more.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. What's wrong with social libertarianism? Are you against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage,

legalization of drugs, etc.?

What is your argument here? You continue to say that religious people should have a voice in what should be a medical decision between doctors and patients. Why should they have any say?

[rug]

44. Social views based on libertarianis, as opposed to more rational and realistic bases, never end well

Start with their premise and you'll end up with capitalism.

I'll ask you: Are you against private property, corporate freedom, landlords controlling their property, free ownership of guns, etc.? It's a tea party wet dream.

My argument, contrary to yours, is that everybody should have a voice in public policy, whether that voice is right, wrong, left, or insane.

What I did say is that includes a voice in the legislation pending in Canada. The circumstances of anyone's death, including euthanasia, does affect society. Silencing any segment is a step towards fascism. I'm confident enough in my views to voice them against opponents without silencing them. Are you?

[Humanist_Activist]

48. You are confusing economic libertarianism with social libertarianism. In addition, I didn't argue...

they can't speak, I just think they should be ignored.

Also, what more realistic and rational bases are you talking about?

Balanced social libertarianism applies to liberties that generally don't effect others without reasonable restrictions. Classic example, you have every right to get fall down drunk in your own house, just don't go on public roads in your publicly registered vehicle and drive in that condition, that endangers others, and you should be arrested for that.

Is there a similar restriction that should exist to protect others, for example, when it comes to euthanasia or abortion. No, those are private medical decisions that apply to the patient. I do agree with regulations when it comes to making sure patients are in their right mind(for euthanasia), but that's about it.

[rug]

52. They both start with the same premise. Individual autonomuy uber alles.

Generally espoused by those able to exercise it in an economically oppressed system.

"Social" libertarianism, by name alone, is much different from civil rights. Not to mention human rights. The latter two have entirely different bases.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Fine, I'll abandon the term since you are so uptight about it, doesn't change my argument...

especially when it comes to bodily autonomy, I believe we have a very strong right to bodily autonomy and the government would have to come up with a damn good case to restrict that right under any circumstances.

Arguments against abortion and euthanasia fail in this regard.

[Lordquinton]

51. "Are you against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage?"

And there is the age old question that gets you running.

[rug]

53. "Are you against private property, corporate freedom, landlords controlling their property,

free ownership of guns, etc.?"

Start running, Quinton.

[Lordquinton]

67. And he's off!

I assume your answers will come in a timely never as usual?

[rug]

69. Right after yours.

[Lordquinton]

73. Order of operations Rug

We'll get to your completely off topic questions as soon as you answer the questions you've been repeatedly asked over the course of years.

[rug]

83. This isn't math, Quinton.

It's scarcely a discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I'll answer.

"private property"
No, not against.

"corporate freedom"
I like a mixed market economy.

"landlords controlling their property"
Tautology. Possible loaded question. As with my first two answers, I'm ok with it, provided adequate protections for the renter. (Again, an example of a mixed-market economy)

"Free ownership of guns"
Nope, Mixed market. Regulations are cool beans with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Well we know he helps fund institutions that promote legislation against all three.

So it really is not a leap to assume that he knows that, certainly it has been pointed out to him repeatedly here, so he cannot claim ignorance, not that it would be possible for him to admit to ignorance on any subject. At some point if people continue to act like dolts, pretending somehow that their money going to these institutions is not being used to promote hateful laws that hurt people, it is fair to assume that they actually support the positions advocated by those institutions, regardless of the words they utter here, or their tendency to run away from the subject.

[rug]

63. And "we" know you think that of every Catholic who goes to Mass on Sunday.

Let's hear it, Warren. back up your bigoted statement. Or own your trolling.

[Lordquinton]

78. Given his staunch, several year refusal to say where he falls on the issues

It kinda draws a sad picture.

[rug]

87. If that's what you think, you'r obtuse.

Maybe something is blinding you.

[Lordquinton]

90. You're not as acute as you think you are

There may be a speck in my eye, but you should do something about that beam.

[rug]

91. Why are you quoting from a book filled with genocide?

Matthew 7:3-5

3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

One might suspect you're complicit.

[Lordquinton]

92. It's your book, I was just speaking in words that you'd understand

So why do you have anything to do with a book that supports genocide, as you so quaintly put it.

[rug]

93. Excellent backpedalling!

[Lordquinton]

94. Poor attempt to evade

Now, in addition to the ther questions you are trying to ignore, we can add why do you worship a book that (in your own words) condones genocide?

[rug]

95. You are an endless source of amusement, quibnton.

[Lordquinton]

49. Once again Catholics are giving more rights to corpses

than they are to living humans.

Blinded by his own privilege, he thinks that Davis would be with you because of the lack of debate, and ignores that she would stand with him on the grounds that religion should have a say in public policy. And sadly his church has found a way to impose their religious will on the unwilling masses by buying up health care services across the country, leaving no alternatives, because they are also churning out massive amounts of restrictive laws, leaving women no choice.

This fight has been going on for a long time, and again we find religion standing in the way claiming others shouldn't be allowed to do what they don't believe in, because suffering is a gift from god, or some other BS.

[rug]

68. If you read the OP, and not simply checked your list of biases,

you'd see the OP talks about the Canadian Supreme Court mandate to write a new law on assisted death.

If you want to bring up your bigotry against Catholics again, go start a thread about pedophilia and see how many flies it collects.

[Lordquinton]

76. Ah yes, the bigtory of pointing out bigotry

Is the RCC not opposed to assisted death? Please inform me instead of just deflecting everything regardless of content. Your current tactic of accusing anyone pointing out the oppression that your church is responsible for of bigotry is lame, and actually quite offensive.

[rug]

85. Oh, this is good, now you're claiming the RCC is expresing "bigotry" against the dying.

Your dictionary must be made out of rubber.

[Trajan]

61. What is sad ... Doctors willing to allow their patients to suffer

To satisfy their own petty desire to be holy ...

I'd say, I want a different doctor, thanks ...

[rug]

70. That's a rather shollow response to a very grave issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. The stakes are high, but it's a very simple issue.

High stakes doesn't change the equation.

[Trajan]

79. What is grave is the suffering of the patients and their families

What is shallow is your insistence that a religious person be allowed to extend that suffering, to suit ONLY their sense of duty to the canons of theology ...

I completely and utterly disagree with you nearly every damned time, for every damned question ...

I live in Oregon ... Nuff said ...

[rug]

82. why don't you admit you simply object to them speaking.