Canadian govt is contacting psychotherapists and asking them if they would be willing to recommend assisted suicide to their patients

submitted by MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work from (off-guardian.org)

all 40 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They should instead be studying why suicide is more common in some countries and less common in others.

What are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and São Tomé and Príncipe doing differently?

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They say "suicide is the easy way out". Well it is, for the Canadian government. Solving the problems that lead to suicide is hard, and perhaps impossible. But taking the "easy way out" is an act of cowardice, avarice, and laziness.

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody should have to die alone. As a show of support, the shrink should commit suicide at the same time as the patient.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Fearmongering nonsense. The government is struggling to establish reasonable rules and regulations for MAID for the mentally ill, because the courts have mandated that MAID must be available to the mentally ill. So they're sounding out the professions who deal with the mentally ill to gauge their support for MAID and so gather the necessary data to formulate policy. A psychologist has to know that this sort of survey has to be language-neutral if it is to gather reliable data. So they can't ask: "Do you want the government to murder your patients?", because that is a loaded question. The questions have to be like he reported in his article.

Regardless of what he personally thinks, a lot of people living with mental illness are suffering with untreatable illnesses and drugs that only sedate them, causing intense mental distress. Sure, he was taught that he must keep these people alive at all costs, and his religious views support that. I personally believe such persons have the right to die a dignified death if they are not encumbered with religious dogma that forbids it. It's their choice. No the government does not mandate any group of people to 'push' MAID onto anyone.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A psychologist has to know that this sort of survey has to be language-neutral if it is to gather reliable data.

But the question (or at least the paraphrase of it) is far from neutral. It seems to have been crafted to get as many yeses as possible.

If MAiD is implemented to include mental health illnesses, and you have a patient who wants to utilize the program....

Those are two big IFs to start off with. You have a patient coming to you, knowing about the program, theoretically understanding the program, and theoretically qualifying for the program.

will you help them through the process?

How could a decent therapist say no to that? The trick is the "will you be affirming in their decision" that they seemed (to me) to have stuck in there, hoping no one would notice.

The question might be "language-neutral," but it's still quite slanted. IMO, too slanted to get reliable data from it.
Depending upon what data they are actually looking for.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The courts have ordered the government to extend MAID to the mentally ill. So these aren't hypotheticals, the situation is going to arise.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You seem to have skipped past the point.

Calling it "hypothetical" at this point (because it hasn't yet happened) is simply a case of trying not to overstep the current information.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well I didn't call it a hypothetical, I said it's a case that will arise, pretty much on day 1 when the government finally issues their rules for MAID for the mentally ill. Obviously professional organizations of psychologists have to be prepared and have guidelines for professional conduct ready for when the rules go into effect, besides the fact that they're almost certainly collaborating with the Feds to write those rules. This whole thing is simply government in action, and not by any stretch of the imagination the Feds recruiting psychologists to persuade the mentally ill to off themselves.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Well I didn't call it a hypothetical,

Never said you did. You said it was not.

But until it is actually implemented ("on day 1 when the government finally issues their rules for MAID for the mentally ill" you said) it's still hypothetical.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you think the professional bodies that regulate psychologists and psychiatrists should just ignore it then, since it's only a hypothetical? Why bother working on guidelines until those patients are actually sitting in chairs across from their members? Just because the courts have ordered something and the government is working on making that something happen, doesn't mean it ever will.

Especially if the anti-MAID campaign is successful. So: more propaganda like the above!

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So you think the professional bodies that regulate psychologists and psychiatrists should just ignore it then, since it's only a hypothetical?

Well, that's awfully far afield....

It's a hypothetical up until it happens. Until it happens, technically no one knows what form it would take. In this particular case, the laws have yet to be written.

And hypotheticals should be examined to prepare for what is (possibly) to come. Best example: WOTB, October 2016. "What if Trump actually wins this thing? [At the time, a hypothetical] Shouldn't we examine that, just in case?"

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The professional psychologist's association that sent that poll is not a passive observer in this. That was my point. The government is consulting with them to write the regulations, therefore they are consulting with their members to get an idea of what to recommend. They weren't just polling their members out of the blue, much less to nudge them into recommending suicide to their patients.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The professional psychologist's association that sent that poll is not a passive observer in this. That was my point.

That was my point as well. The question (actually a paraphrase of a question) was not quite a neutral one. It seemed a bit slanted to get more yesses than nos.

They weren't just polling their members out of the blue, much less to nudge them into recommending suicide to their patients.

The concept of "recommending suicide" seems to only be in the title of this post. The reference (paraphrased) question was referring more to "will you be affirming in their decision and help them through the process" for someone who had already made the decision to do so.

I personally think that the question should have been broken into two parts: 1) would you be affirming in their decision and 2) if they are firm in their decision, would you help them through the process. Those two parts might end up, for some people, being yes on one and no on the other.

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Man you are a maniac when it comes to this topic lol. I guess you must be really eager to use MAiD yourself someday

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Have you ever watched someone you love die of ALS or pancreatic cancer?

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ALS or pancreatic cancer?

I think that those situations would fall under the "medical" branch of the MAID, not the proposed/hypothetical "Mental" branch.

The original question (although we are only getting a paraphrase of the original) seems to imply a patient that is at least of average health.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah. Ok.

You need to SEPARATE your emotions from the picture.

They are quite literally blinding you to the overt and public agenda happening in your own govt and society.

Yes, this is an incredibly difficult Ask.

You have to anyways. Or stop advocating.

The dying with dignity aspect of certain diseases in those otherwise of sound mind persons is a very VERY far cry from what has been actively promoted-

no, that is too weak a word: PUSHED

Your govt, civil servants, media, medical professionals, healthcare industry, influencers etc are all PUSHING SUICIDE AS A NORMAL RESPONSE TO TRAUMA OR DIFFICULTIES IN LIFE, OF ANY KIND.

And you are helping them to institute suicide as a cultural norm choice in an average life by INSISTING it is all just... neutral language and feeling out patient options and considering worst case scenarios alone.

I am dead serious here.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your govt, civil servants, media, medical professionals, healthcare industry, influencers etc are all PUSHING SUICIDE AS A NORMAL RESPONSE TO TRAUMA OR DIFFICULTIES IN LIFE, OF ANY KIND.

This is categorically false. I live here, I would know.

What is happening is people who oppose MAID on religious grounds are conducting a media campaign to convince you and people like you of the above.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have read the exact govt wording. I have read and watched numerous representatives and advocates and govt mouthpieces on the subject.

I have seen multiples of MSM articles advocating for it, and just skimmed a few.

I have ALSO read a couple direct quotes articles, read the directly written by info, and watched seemingly unedited fairly brief videos FROM THOSE WHO HAD MAID SUGGESTED TO ADVOCATED FOR THEM REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONDITION OR OPTIONS OR VIEWS.

I have not read or watched or seen ANY anti MAID pieces or media campaigns. Probably helps I am in the US in a huge liberal bubble zone and avoid most media anyways, but none of that has gotten in front of me.

This off Guardian piece is the closest I have seen of that type of "media campaign", and it is from a medical professional in Canada writing about the actual survey they received from the govt/advocates.

Bottom line is if you think this os a harmless and needed expansion of a govt program and any objections are religious nuts- Then you are entirely deluded.

I highly recommend you step back and consider you are NOT operating from a place of reason and honest assessment of the data.

[–]hfxB0oyA 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our government has gone full Dark Mirror.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Monsters who recommend death have no right to refer to people as their patients.

They only have victims.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Try turning the question around for a bit.

If "assisted suicide" were illegal (as it has been in several places for quite a while)...
would psychotherapists recommend it to certain of their patients, despite its illegality?

In theory, there is the rare patient (possibly extremely rare) for whom that would be the best option. Would you deny them that option?

Also, I hope the original question actually meant "mentioning the option as an option to be explored (as an option)" instead of "hey, why don't you try this? It's cheap, fun and quick."

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Those few, those rare, cases are so rare for a reason. Even if legal they should NOT increase in volume or ratio of cases.

This is the core and basic truth of valid to consider deaths with dignity cases that do not involve simply upping the morphine dose a bit in the last extant of "life".

Many who desire death be granted to them simply want an escape from life, from mental or physical pain, from being a burden on others, or from a condition they feel demeans their value or freedoms more than they can bear.

Are we then to comply rather than HELP them see their innate value, new ways of fully living even with disabilities, the joy others feel loving them and having them continue to be in their lives, fighting for physical repairs is worth it, and the real hope of healing from mental issues to be a stronger wiser person?

If it were not OVERTLY BLANKET CRIMINAL charges to help someone die with dignity, those rare cases where merit seems worth considering could be handled via ANOTHER not involved (and biased against tbqh) professional panel to review the options and case ajd PATIENT intimately and carefully in a private and dignified fashion- for any case not at imminent risk of natural death, a few months won't make much difference.

The failure here is to keep highest in the mind the REAL problem is failure to help patients or citizens to our fullest abilities in modern best medical and mental care nations.

I have no strong feelings about suicide, other than the damage to others it leaves behind and the contagious nature of cases within otherwise normal lives.

Given a right to die with dignity in a true terminal or vegetative state vs spend an obscene amount of expenditure and usually pain, the loss of control over your own choices and all to marginally increase a lifespan is.... Good.

But it should never be OFFERED by any advocate or taken lightly when demanded or brought up by a patient; this is a very serious "solution", and should remain a rare appropriate one.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if legal they should NOT increase in volume or ratio of cases.

Which raises a question I've been curious about: as the numbers of "government assisted suicides" go up, are the numbers of "unassisted suicides" going down?

it should never be OFFERED by any advocate or taken lightly when demanded or brought up by a patient; this is a very serious "solution", and should remain a rare[ly] appropriate one.

That sounds very close to what I have been saying in this thread...

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But it should never be OFFERED by any advocate

 

This is the key point. It's one thing to discuss suicide with someone who is not responsible for your welfare, or even to acquire assistance in that regard. But for a doctor to play that part with regard to a patient is an unforgivable act of corruption and betrayal.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Long ago, when I was a kid, I read an Agatha Christie book entitled Appointment with Death. One scene touched on this, and I remember that it impressed me at the time, but it was only much later that I understood how necessarily absolute this rule really is.

Suicide is not and will never be a valid "option" to be "explored" with someone under your care - someone to whom you have a fiduciary duty. The doctor-patient relationship isn't just a legal, ethical, or moral principle. It is a spiritual commitment, a sacred trust, and if you violate it, you will go to Hell.

 

They arrived at last at the summit. Sarah drew a deep breath. All around and below stretched the blood-red rocks—a strange and unbelievable country unparalleled anywhere. Here in the exquisite pure morning air, they stood like gods, surveying a baser world—a world of flaring violence.

Here was, as the guide told them, the "Place of Sacrifice"—the "High Place."

He showed them the trough cut in the flat rock at their feet. Sarah strayed away from the rest, from the glib phrases that flowed so readily from the dragoman's tongue. She sat on a rock, pushed her hands through her thick black hair, and gazed down on the world at her feet. Presently she was aware of someone standing by her side.

Dr. Gerard's voice said: "You appreciate the appositeness of the devil's temptation in the New Testament. Satan took Our Lord up to the summit of a mountain and showed him the world. 'All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.' How much greater the temptation up on high to be a God of Material Power."

Sarah assented, but her thoughts were so clearly elsewhere that Gerard observed her in some surprise.

"You are pondering something very deeply," he said.

"Yes, I am." She turned a perplexed face to him. "It's a wonderful idea—to have a place of sacrifice up here. I think, sometimes, don't you, that a sacrifice is necessary. ... I mean, one can have too much regard for life. Death isn't really so important as we make out."

"If you feel that, Miss King, you should not have adopted our profession. To us, death is—and must always be—the Enemy."

Sarah shivered. "Yes, I suppose you're right. And yet, so often, death might solve a problem. It might even mean fuller life..."

"'It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people!"' quoted Gerard gravely.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Suicide is not and will never be a valid "option" to be "explored" with someone under your care - someone to whom you have a fiduciary duty.

It shouldn't be explored even when they bring it up as was posed in the question?

So what do you do when they do bring it up? Shut them down and simply tell them to not do it? Way to therapy there, dude.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What a bizarre misinterpretation. I've stated that recommending suicide is monstrous, and "exploring" it as an "option" is not the proper role of a doctor.

I have said nothing about counseling.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I have said nothing about counseling.

If that's the case, what is it you think that the psychotherapists have been doing?
Wouldn't "recommending assisted suicide to their patients" (as you said in the title of this post) be counseling?

You just didn't use the word "counseling." Neither did I.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I didn't write the title of this post, and at this point I don't know what you meant by "explore."

Anyway, your question is argumentative. Of course "recommending assisted suicide to their patients" is counseling, in one sense. Just like the Reichstag speech was a lecture.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't write the title of this post

...but you did post it. [Edit: No, you didn't. sorry about that.] And therefore chose that title to use for the post.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

...but you did post it. And therefore chose that title to use for the post.

 

Are you sure you wouldn't rather just look up? I mean, I guess you could continue to be very confidently wrong about everything. Your call.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Damn. you're right. sometimes things get crossed.

Many apologies.

Not an excuse, but an explanation: Through a combination of bad eyes, a bad screen, and slight dyslexia, I had verified at least three times through this thread that the name on the post and your username were the same name. And I was wrong every time.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    that is my decision, and mine alone. My decision. Not yours, or anybody else’s.

    And the job of Therapist is to help you be sure that your decision (whatever it turns out to be) is a well-thought out one, and the one that is actually best for you.

    Whether or not the Therapist likes the decision you make.

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You're reacting emotionally to an explanation of professional responsibility and the nature of a relationship that is based on complete trust. Reread the part you left out: "with someone under your care - someone to whom you have a fiduciary duty."

     

    What I said very deliberately had no bearing on your individual decision, nor even the morality of suicide itself. Your assumption is flatly wrong.

     

    Please do not try to enforce your religious beliefs upon others.

     

    Please explain how I would "enforce" a belief that someone will go to Hell. What a silly complaint.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Consider your answer very carefully.

       

      Why?

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Whatever you thought was likely wrong, based on your track record.

        [–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        My psychotherapy governing body, the CRPO (College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario) is already putting out feelers to their membership to see if we are warming up to such an option for our patients. Some of the questions on the survey they just sent out to all of us are similar to: “If MAiD is implemented to include mental health illnesses, and you have a patient who wants to utilize the program, will you be affirming in their decision and help them through the process?” “Hell no!” was my answer. I think all of this is unconscionable. It is wicked and nefarious, especially if you are aware of what is truly behind all of this—and it ain’t to help people either, you can bet your sweet bippy on that.

        [–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        “If MAiD is implemented to include mental health illnesses, and you have a patient who wants to utilize the program, will you be affirming in their decision and help them through the process?”

        Now, that's a more clear question than the one described in the title.

        And "Hell no" would be my answer too, but not in the same way. The "be affirming in their decision" is the sticking point for me. IMO, a therapist should not be affirming, nor the opposite of affirming. A therapist should be helping the patient find the best option for the patient without any steering toward any particular option.

        Here's a quick analogy: Suppose the patient just discovered that they had very recently become pregnant. At that stage, there are basically three options: 1) get rid of it now/abortion, 2) get rid of it later/adoption, or 3) don't get rid of it/keep it.

        What happens if the therapist is anti-abortion, but their patient is not? Does that first option just never get mentioned or discussed, even if it happens to be the best option for that patient at that time? Just a big NO if the patient even mentions it? Or should it be discussed, neutrally, so that the therapist helps the patient figure out which of the three options is best for the patient?

        Same with suicide. It's possible (theoretically) that, in some rare cases, suicide IS the best option. The therapist's role (IMO) is to help the patient make sure that the option the patient decides to take IS the best option the patient can take.

        If suicide is NOT the best option in this particular case, they can figure that out together.

        Also, the question removes the scenario of the therapist saying "Boy your life is rough. Have you looked into this Government Assisted Suicide thingy?" In the question, the patient is bringing it up. Therefore (IMO) it should be discussed. Without the therapist pushing for a yes or no.

        And, to restate the original question, if, after all the discussion and analysis between therapist and patient, the patient is still at "yes, this is what I'm going to do".... would you as a therapist help them through the process?

        Edit: Or would you refer them to someone who could actually do that?