250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 10:28 pm

Doherty Survey’s Constituents on Doctor Assisted Dying

Saturday, June 11, 2016 @ 2:30 PM

Prince George, B.C. – Todd Doherty wants to know where you stand on Bill C-14, the Trudeau Liberals doctor assisted dying legislation.doherty3-630x586

The Cariboo-Prince George Conservative MP has mailed out a questionnaire to all of his constituents to better find out.

“I’ve sat through every single minute of the debate – not because I was scheduled to, not because I had to, but because I felt that it’s a piece of legislation that is so important,” says Doherty.

As an MP, he says it’s important he canvas the entire riding and notes his office plans to look at every single response.

Doherty says it’s “concerning” that the government ended debate so abruptly on the matter noting parliamentarians have probably spent more time debating the words of our countries national anthem than this bill.

Other than his stated concern over the legislation, it’s still unclear where he stands though.

“I think we all have personal views on this, for me it’s as very tough one, it’s weighed very heavily on me. As a matter of fact, I called a pastor friend of mine last week because it weighs very heavily on me.

“I’ve seen loved ones suffer though terminal illness, I have an adult child that is cognitively challenged and there’s no safeguards in place for that kind of person. So regardless of what our personal views are, we need to make sure that we are hearing from Canadians and hearing from our constituents on it.”

The Senate is currently assessing the Bill.  Doherty plans to reassess it once it returns with amendments to the House of Commons.


Good to see Doherty taking this issue seriously unlike the kill em all crowd on 250news. We don’t need people that relate this issue to putting down a pet, or taking the most heinous scenario to justify legal killing of terminally ill. What we need is someone like Doherty that will take the time for consideration of probably the most important moral legislation in a generation.

This legislation if it passes needs to have clear limits that the courts can understand and follow.

Already we have nurses calling for their right to administer death of patients, we have troubled youth asking for eligibility, and we have arguments that cognitively challenged and severely disabled should be eligible as well (the senate position). To me this is a time for people to stand up in a never again kind of moment, but we get a strange silence from those who we would think should stand up, but who don’t because that only applies when it directly effects them.

This is a legal process that is ripe for the worst kinds of abuse going against a moral code of human decency and dignity if allowed to be done on a whim. Any legislation would require the strictest of legal terms because the future implications for the innocent and those that can not speak for themselves is of the highest risk.

We are a country that no longer has a death penalty because the risk is to great to sentence someone to death that may have been innocent. Yet they get courts lawyers and time and yet still no death penalty in Canada… That is unless you slip through the cracks of this legislation and are deemed no longer entitled to life by the very people that one relies on most for their wellbeing… Having committed no crime at all other than being vulnerable due to a disability.

    You certainly seem to like the sound of your own voice regardless of whether or not you make sense. I think you really need to give the general population credit to do the right thing here and quit with the fear mongering that is constantly coming out of you.

      You seem unable to make an argument there Bent. The old call a guy names , try to sound really tough, and then say trust us as your go to point your trying to make.

      What a useless contribution. So you are all for open right to kill by doctor with no limitations. Why not just say it then and be clear.

      What I am talking about is knowing what they will be voting for… What are the limitations… What are the protections for those under a legally incompetent power of attorney situation… And most of all how this legislation will deal with the disabled.

      If you don’t get it Bent and have nothing to say but insults, then just shut up if that’s all you have to contribute.

      This is the time for responsible people to speak up for those that won’t have a chance to when this court given right is exercised. For some with terminally ill cancer, then sure this new right is great for them and their families if that’s what makes them all happy, but for others disadvantaged from having their own voice this is wide open for abuse and the time to speak up is now… Not to be intimidated by a two bit internet troll and thug.

      So eagleone, when you are hopping mad you attack people by name calling not by improving the debate through looking at your original post and the ones which followed and thinking it through of how you might clarify your position.

      Good to know.

    Hope you don’t have a long lingering extremely painful down ward spiral when your time comes.

      I do not hope for a slow downward spiral either sea mutt. I am glad we are on the same page there. Any other random thoughts you might have on my health that you would like to share. If so than I am not interested in hearing about it.

      I think the discussion was supposed to be on the legislative limitations to this new court ruling, not foaming at the mouth for no limitations or restrictions on the use of assissted suicide and making ill wishes of those that make a comment on the gravity of this legislation.

      And I will bear that cross when I get there.

      Or maybe I will go hunt a grizzly bear with a bb gun long before then if I am so lucky.

    I think it’s up to the individual to decide if they want to die or not due to a terminal illness.. We have provpbably all had a relative waste away in front of us from cancer or another horrible desease. Is it humane to make them suffer? Or is it more humane to allow them to die under their own terms?

    Anytime the government gets involved you know it’s going to take forever and it will as complicated as hell.

      So why is this directed at me then? I have not advocated anyone suffer.

      I am talking about limitations that ensure human dignity for the most vulnerable. If you want to comment on that then post under my comment. If you want to make your own spin than do that under your own post.

I was going to comment but I do not have the time and I do not wish to waste the effort of pointing out the statements which are simply ignoring the facts and those which are based on poor logic.

    What cop-out. I was going to comment… But… But…

    If you don’t have anything to say, than don’t because otherwise it’s just useless noise from an incoherent rambler.

    PG supports open no restrictions assisted suicide. That’s all you have to say. You don’t have to insult the ability of other posters to make their own reasoned judgements on the matter.

      “PG supports open no restrictions assisted suicide. That’s all you have to say. You don’t have to insult the ability of other posters to make their own reasoned judgements on the matter.”

      I have already stated my opinion why I choose not to argue. Facts and logic. No cop-out.

      You have done the thing that is philosophically kind of inexcusable. As a last resort you are trying to insult me (it doesn’t work!) thereby exposing the weakness of your own arguments. Thank you!

      Why do you attack a person who wishes to state that he does not agree with some of the logic and the lack of paying attention to the facts of what the legislation actually deals with.

      For instance, the legislation is not about legislating morality. That is you interpretation. Once we start legislating morality we enter a religious state.

      We legislate the rights of people and the protection of those rights.

      When one is talking about legislating death with no regulations or limitations it goes without saying that that has moral implications.

      Are you reading what is said here Gus? I am the one that is being belittled and attacked here because I am trying to defend the lives of those that won’t have a chance to defend their own. It doesn’t get much more clear than that. If you are so insensitive that you take that as name calling than it says a lot about you through your own comments.

      I’m dealing with a pro death group here and frankly I find it rather disgusting.

Now that is seems doctor assistance is allowed
I think this issue should be between the person, their family and their doctor.

    I think that is the thinking of most. I too agree with that.

    The question is who can decide when an individual may be considered “legally incompetent” to make the decision; when there is not family; and a variety of other circumstances. What would be considered to be power of attorney over not only financial matters but also matters dealing with medical treatment, including resuscitation efforts, as well as decisions to avoid further suffering in cases where there is no likelihood of recovery. Who determines what that likelihood is? How many different expert medical opinions does it take?

      I already have my wishes in writing.

What is there to debate? This is a done deal according to the Supreme Court. It’s just the details of who and how that have to be determined. But the debate of providing medical assistance in death is moot.

    The government was given a time limit by which they would have to have new legislation in place, otherwise the court decision would be upheld.

    The government can make new legislation which will be the law once it is enacted. In the meantime, the court’s version is the law.

This is a long overdue piece of Legislation. I support “Right to Die” Legislation.

    So do you support medically assisted suicide or right to die?

      The two are typically synonymous. See the 1997 Death with Dignity Act in the state of Oregon, USA.

      Also the most recent Act signed into law in California, the fifth state in the USA to allow terminally-ill patients to legally end their lives using doctor-prescribed drugs.

      No the two are not synonymous with one another.

      The right to die is a personal decision.

      Medically assisted suicide is an institutional decision that is wide and obtuse in who can be killed… As in those under the power of attorney or otherwise unable to make their own free will decision.

      Saying that the two are synonymous is akin to saying the second group has no right to life.

Eagleone quotes:

– “Good to see Doherty taking this issue seriously unlike the kill em all crowd on 250news”

Not the way to getting support from those on 250News who do not like to be associated with the crowd you describe.

– “We don’t need people that relate this issue to putting down a pet”

Remember, the cruelty to animal acts in England as well as the USA came before legislation to protect children for example.

– “….the most important moral legislation in a generation”

This is not moral legislation. This is legal legislation to protect both the individual requesting assisted suicide to ensure that is their will, as well as medical staff ranging from doctors to nurses to ensure they are not charged with a crime.

The moral aspect has been taken care of for over two thousand years in the case of doctors by the Hippocratic Oath.

One of the many internet sites which tackle the pros and cons of euthanasia …. euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126

    What is this a personal attack. So you are saying only those that support suicide have the right to insult?

    Ask pval? Is that what he ment when he stated that it’s no different than putting down ones pet. If he had a mentally challenged family member would he still say the two are synonymous? Or did he make the comment with your historical citation of animal cruelty in mind… I don’t think so?

    And get your facts straight Gus. We are talking about a judicial ruling that allows abtuse reasoning for death by ‘suicide’… We have a senate that wants to legislate an open policy… We have a legislature that wants to define perimeters for medical ‘suicide’.

    Clearly this issue is more than just legislation but is brought about rather by a moral dilemma in how to proceed. If you can’t figure that out than you have no business in commenting on this subject and manipulating the pro and con counts.

      “Clearly this issue is more than just legislation but is brought about rather by a moral dilemma in how to proceed.”

      You forgot the words “legislation about the personal rights and freedoms”. Anyone who knows anything about the law understands a basic tenant of law and that is that it is not about morality, although far too many people attempt to legislate it, especially when it comes to municipal laws. Our City has lost twice at the SCOC on such issues when it came to zoning they implemented intended to do exactly that.

      As you say, “If you can’t figure that out than you have no business in commenting on this subject”.

      BTW, how many different names have you used on here eagleone? I am on my third one because I was kicked out, not because I chose to hide.

Eagleone is just doing what christians do, which is try to impose their own sense of morality and values on the rest of us. Its a good thing we turfed the last government and the “Office of Religion” they established.

These people have a problem with freedom of “choice” whether it be a woman’s choice to terminate pregnancy, or a person’s right to choose to end their own life instead of enduring unspeakable pain, agony, and suffering.

In the eyes of people like Eagleone, with God on their side, they are right and everyone else is wrong! This tends to happens when you live your life in a bubble of your own making and substitute that life for reality.

Good enough argument for you Eagleone?

    No rather rediculous actually. You have no idea who I am or how I live or even if I attend church. I don’t use hypothetical scenarios of other people to try and make a moral judgement on others but clearly you do.

    This has nothing to do with church or religion. I haven’t raised the issue at all. This has to do with protecting the dignity and humanity of the individuals that one day will not have their say in whether or not they are put down by the system.

    Your comments only prove one thing to me. The old adage that one can never be from the left until they are pro abortion and now pro medically induced death.

      Typical of your ilk to state; we are pro-abortion and now pro-medically induced death. NO… we are pro-choice!!!

      I am beginning to understand why you have been so obsessed with commenting on Israel and the middle east in the past, I pegged you right and your position has everything to do with church and religion!

      No I stand for the rule of law and the dignity of people that don’t have an advocate. That is why I oppose apartheid in Israel and bureaucratese decision making on life and death. I don’t support eugenics unlike you.

The proposed amendments in the senate bill simply reinstate what was laid out in the SCOC ruling:

Competent adults with a grievous and irremediable medical condition who are experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering can qualify for medical aid in dying.

The government bill added that the patient must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline” and natural death must be “reasonably foreseeable.”

By that measure these people are expected to suffer till the “finish line” is in site. ??

What I see here is the the only thing worse than the government sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong is people trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. Channeling their inner Sarah Palin with talk of death panels and other hair brained-foil hat notions. The legislation will have strict controls and suicide pills will not be handed out like candy or forced down the throat of people who cannot communicate.

This is a something that belongs with an individual and their doctor with the involvement of other health care professionals if the decision is made to end life. The laws should be passed to reflect the SCOC ruling and from there government and religious groups should GTFO.

    And in the holocaust they were all just going to ‘work camps’. At least that’s what their zionist enablers were telling the condemned as the zionist handlers in places like Hungrey assisted in the process for their own I’ll gotten gains. You are just going to a work camp, ‘trust us’.

      Now you have really gone off the deep end or are we witnessing the return(resurrection?) of Chadermando and biblebelievers.

      Forcing people to live in pain that cannot be eased by any drug is nothing short of government and religious group approved torture. Death with dignity is a right for every Canadian.

      I didn’t say that so what is your point. You want to make things up so that you can prove your point… Weak stuff sparrow.

    SCOC ruling does not deal with those under a power of attorney. They can not make the decision on their own, thus the need for legislation to put down some perimeters. So yes it is an issue for people to watch over and be involved in.

    SCOC ruling can not be the way legislation is made because it deals with case specific and not the global issue in all its detail.

      “SCOC ruling can not be the way legislation is made”

      Legislation can do anything it wants to. Of course it will not be about one type of incidence.

      Whether it will stand up in court when it comes to the Canadian Charter is another matter.

      If they take the wrong turn, then it will once again end up in the SCOC and it will, of course, be a about a case specific event.

      Legislation is never perfect. Neither are court rulings.

      The Cons had about 6 months to put something in place before the election. They could not do it. After settling in after the election, it still is not done.

      Time to get off their asses and get something on paper. It is in the Senate now. Let’s hope they get it out of there and not sit on it for years.

In Brittany Maynard’s own words as can be seen on the internet when asked about her taking her own life she said that cancer is ending her life and she is choosing to end it a little sooner with a lot less pain and suffering.

“I’ve sat through every single minute of the debate – not because I was scheduled to, not because I had to, but because I felt that it’s a piece of legislation that is so important,” says Doherty. Meanwhile his riding is losing population , jobs , schools are closing , businesses are struggling , mills idled , railway jobs cut but he knows what more important . Could anyone point to anything the cons have brought to the table ? One job? One dollar of funding ? One new idea to make things better for families ? “I’ve sat through every single minute of the debate !!! Bravo !! What a trouper !!

Eagleone:”…unlike the kill em all crowd on 250news. We don’t need people that relate this issue to putting down a pet, or taking the most heinous scenario to justify legal killing of terminally ill”

The commenters on the site are identified as a kill em all crowd…putting down a pet…to justify legal killing of terminally ill.

Possibly the most over the top extreme introduction to an opinion on a topic I have had the displeasure to read in a long time! I promised myself to stay out of it, but it is just too incredibly offensive!

    I call it as I see it. If you don’t like it than maybe some self reflection is in order.

      Everyone has a right to call it as they see it.

      I have not once called you a name on here. I have addressed your opinions with my words to also “call it as I see it.”

      While it is very tempting to do otherwise, one can see from the election campaign to the south of us where that eventually leads a society so I try to conduct myself differently.

      I am sorry to say, your have shown that you cannot act in a similar fashion during this “debate”.

      IMHO as you would put it.

      I don’t do personal attacks like you Gus. You must have a thin skin when it comes to this issue… Or an axe to grind. That said I will critisize you for using irrelevant historical tid bits to try and make a point rather than just using plain logic as it relates to today and today’s topic at hand.

    So you are offended. Great but how does that contribute to the topic at hand other than your selfish observation while the topic is people’s right to live death and dignity at life’s end.

    I would suggest if you are offended than you are half way there to making a constructive comment that contributes to the debate. Keep trying maybe you will get there eventually.

      “your selfish observation”

      So PG’s observations are selfish and yours, of course, are not. LOL

      You really have lost it today eagleone.

      This day is going to be hard to follow up.

If it’s just about her feelings and not the topic of grave magnitude at hand then yes selfish.

Comments for this article are closed.