• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quebec passes 'dying with dignity' bill

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,331
Reaction score
26,992
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quebec passes 'dying with dignity' bill - Montreal - CBC News

A committee on dying with dignity was assembled during Jean Charest's tenure as Quebec premier to study the issue and produce a report.
Its massive report, filed in March 2012, provided the foundation for Bill 52.​


However, Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard refused to play ball with the PQ when the party tried to force the bill into passage right before calling an election. Bill 52 died on the order paper as a result.


During the 2014 Quebec election campaign, Couillard promised to reintroduce the bill as it was drafted at the earliest possible moment during the new parliamentary session.


He also got the support from all four parties to reintroduce the bill at the stage it had died, instead of starting from square one.
Click to expand...

While I'm all in favor of the idea behind it, I have some reservations about the way it will be implemented. Will doctors be forced to comply with this law? What happens when they refuse to grant services? My daughter had dual citizenship (Canadian and American) and I'm well acquainted with some of Canada's more questionable healthcare laws. I think in practice this is a viable option for people who are non-religious and facing terminal illnesses and don't want to suffer. However, there are too many questions left open.
 
From what I read in the law, it appears as if any physician can refuse the request, however they must forward the request to someone else higher up so that the request can go to someone willing to grant the request.
 
I'm glad to see the first steps on the subject have been taken.

Yes, it most definitely needs to be well defined, with all measures in place to prevent abuse of the right to die by anyone other than the terminally ill person. I hope that the US sees the benefits of such a measure, and enacts it also.
 
Hatuey said:
Quebec passes 'dying with dignity' bill - Montreal - CBC News



While I'm all in favor of the idea behind it, I have some reservations about the way it will be implemented. Will doctors be forced to comply with this law? What happens when they refuse to grant services? My daughter had dual citizenship (Canadian and American) and I'm well acquainted with some of Canada's more questionable healthcare laws. I think in practice this is a viable option for people who are non-religious and facing terminal illnesses and don't want to suffer. However, there are too many questions left open.
Click to expand...

It sounds like too little and they can keep the dignity. Pain free and when I want it, is fine by me.
 
roguenuke said:
From what I read in the law, it appears as if any physician can refuse the request, however they must forward the request to someone else higher up so that the request can go to someone willing to grant the request.
Click to expand...

Apperently that is what they say. It is amazing because aside from ads against the bill I didnt hear much about this. But they were talking about it last night as they voted and again this morning.
Seems kinda strange to me that this would only really start making news here as it passed. But then maybe I was just being oblivious.
 
Quebec does not need this.

Just refuse to speak to a Quebec francophone doctor in French and many will just deny you medical care out of spite.

It's called Bill 101M (M for Medical).

;)
 
roguenuke said:
From what I read in the law, it appears as if any physician can refuse the request, however they must forward the request to someone else higher up so that the request can go to someone willing to grant the request.
Click to expand...

Hmm..

It seems to me that is forcing physicians to be accessories.
 
Henrin said:
Hmm..

It seems to me that is forcing physicians to be accessories.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. People have a right to die if they wish. They should not have to turn in government paperwork (which is required) to several different people just to find that one who will help them die with dignity. We are talking about people who are already dying and in great pain here.

And considering the majority of them are likely to ask for something like this through a hospice, it shouldn't matter anyway.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't. People have a right to die if they wish. They should not have to turn in government paperwork (which is required) to several different people just to find that one who will help them die with dignity. We are talking about people who are already dying and in great pain here.

And considering the majority of them are likely to ask for something like this through a hospice, it shouldn't matter anyway.
Click to expand...


If someone doesn't desire to take part in a certain act and makes that desire clear, but the law requires them to find someone else to take part in the act in their stead, they are an accessory to the act since they assisted in finding someone that would do it.
 
Hatuey said:
Quebec passes 'dying with dignity' bill - Montreal - CBC News

While I'm all in favor of the idea behind it, I have some reservations about the way it will be implemented. Will doctors be forced to comply with this law? What happens when they refuse to grant services? My daughter had dual citizenship (Canadian and American) and I'm well acquainted with some of Canada's more questionable healthcare laws. I think in practice this is a viable option for people who are non-religious and facing terminal illnesses and don't want to suffer. However, there are too many questions left open.
Click to expand...

Religion has nothing to do with dying with dignity.

Doctors shouldn't be forced to comply. There will be many who don't want to be involved. There will be many who will have no problem with it. Seems like those same politicians who want to get into our bedrooms want to get into our heads. If someone has a terminal illness...or an illness that profoundly effects their quality of life...it's no one else's business WHAT they want to do.
 
Henrin said:
If someone doesn't desire to take part in a certain act and makes that desire clear, but the law requires them to find someone else to take part in the act in their stead, they are an accessory to the act since they assisted in finding someone that would do it.
Click to expand...

The act is not illegal. It is like refusing to refer a patient who needs/wants to be put on birth control or to have a tubal ligation/vasectomy or who is HIV positive but you don't agree with those things (and yes, there have been doctors who believe that HIV is just a hoax and not deadly at all). Your referral is necessary for them to get their medical needs met. If you can't handle that, then don't work in the medical field in this place.
 
roguenuke said:
The act is not illegal. It is like refusing to refer a patient who needs/wants to be put on birth control or to have a tubal ligation/vasectomy or who is HIV positive but you don't agree with those things (and yes, there have been doctors who believe that HIV is just a hoax and not deadly at all). Your referral is necessary for them to get their medical needs met. If you can't handle that, then don't work in the medical field in this place.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using the word accessory as a legal term, but to suggest that the individual that must find someone else to do the service for the patient is contributing to or aiding an activity to take place. Technically that is exactly what a referral is and exactly what is happening here. If a doctor is against something being done they should not be required to find someone else to do it.
 
Henrin said:
I wasn't using the word accessory as a legal term, but to suggest that the individual that must find someone else to do the service for the patient is contributing to or aiding an activity to take place. Technically that is exactly what a referral is and exactly what is happening here. If a doctor is against something being done they should not be required to find someone else to do it.
Click to expand...

They aren't personally required to find another doctor. They simply pass the request up to a supervisor who has that as part of their job description.
 
roguenuke said:
They aren't personally required to find another doctor. They simply pass the request up to a supervisor who has that as part of their job description.
Click to expand...

Ok, but that would still make them an accessory.
 
Henrin said:
Ok, but that would still make them an accessory.
Click to expand...

No more than the doctor or pharmacist who has to refer a patient/customer to someone else when it comes to birth control or certain other drugs that they may disapprove of/take moral offense to.

Again if they can't do this job, then don't be in this job. In reality, the majority of doctors are not going to have to deal with this because they are not going to be the main doctor dealing with terminally ill patients. And this law is designed for a specific, very limited patient type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom