Canada's top court rules doctors can help terminally ill patients die

Another of those very few civilised nations.

No one should be prevented to go on suffering for years. But those who have actually used their time and lived, and now want to go, because they do not think going on is worth it in ruined body... they MUST be allowed to go.

You do not want to? JR, here I come in my wheelchair...

Take your pick!

Downwards on the slippery slope towards Soylent Green.

Yeah, just ask anyone in Switzerland. They're already eating it by the gallon.

Canada's top court rules doctors can help terminally ill patients die

The headline is actually incorrect, the patients do not have to be terminally ill.

A doctor-assisted death should be available to anyone who "clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her conditions."

That suffering can be either "physical or psychological," stated the ruling.

The ruling did not require that the condition be terminal.

Link: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Landmark+Supreme+Court+ruling+favouring+death+with+dignity+could/10792973/story.html

After watching my father waste away and die from starvation due to esophageal cancer, I applaud this decision. Humans should be allowed to die with dignity.

The person, their family, their doctor and their god should be part of the decision.

It's about time! A person should have the right to choose to end his/her life with a little dignity if they are terminally ill. That extra little bit of time full of pain and suffering, indignity, and medical costs (not in Canada, but elsewhere) is simply just the selfishness of those around them.

Soylent Green. Burning Bush san I think you should watch it again.

In the movie people were given the choice of ending their lives in comfort.

It was called going home. The time, place, colour scheme, theme music (light classical in the case of Edward.G. Robinson's character, Saul) and visual stimulation were all choices available to the clients

The center was clean. The staff were patient and caring. The death was painless and swift.

There was no "slippery slope"

Of course the horror aspect of the story is that the corpses were turned into high protein food and I don't find that outcome is very desirable or likely.

In fact the author Harry Harrison presented a death with dignity as an option, not a forced choice. Once the author sold his short story to Hollywood, he was denied any control over changes made to the script. That is why the movie turned ou so clunky.

I for one think that clinics like that in Soylent Green should be available to any adult of sound mind. Organs should be harvested and used.

The other social issues touched on in this movie are: climate change (Greenhouse Effect). energy shortage (Heston and Robinson are seen changing places on their charging bicycle), computer games (the first time me and most of the world had seen one) overpopulation, underemployment, the 1% percenters.