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

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 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.