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 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.

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

I think the question takes as a given that psychologists will not be recommending MAID to anyone, and therefore the question will only arise with patients who have independently made the decision to end their lives. Hence the phrasing of the question. Because if someone comes into their office suffering, the psychologist's job is to help that patient either deal with the suffering or change whatever in their lives that is causing it, which means MAID seems to go directly against the entire profession of psychology, which assumes that sitting down with a psychologist for an hour a week can fix anything and anyone. So a patient coming in and saying they've chosen MAID is essentially telling the psychologist they suck at their job. A psychiatrist might be more understanding.