"When you remove 'reasonable foreseeability' from the Criminal Code, as the judge in Quebec did for Quebec,

Who is eligible for medical assistance in dying

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)

generally, visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying

be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself.

have a grievous and irremediable medical condition

make a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that is not the result of outside pressure or influence

give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying

Originally Posted By BeNotAfraid:
https://st.depositphotos.com/1080148/4820/i/950/depositphotos_48204939-stock-photo-elderly-woman-at-doctor.jpg

Help me out here, men. I need some Canadian insights, helps, and direction. I've been to your grand nation not a few times, but this puzzles me:

FACT PATTERN: A person is diagnosed with a "mental disability." Large, small, or even "in-between" mental issue. Usually defined as: "a condition that limits a person's intellectual capacity, resulting directly or indirectly from injury to the brain or from abnormal neurological development."

OK--limited intellectual capacity.

Q: Does a Canadian with "mental disabilities" have the requisite mental faculties (tools) to determine things such as consequences, future needs or desires, or possess rationality?

The reason I ask this is: if a person has mental issues, ("lack of tools"), are they able or competent to determine whether or not they should continue to live? Is it permissible for a Canadian with "mental disabilities" to order that they be allowed to die? How is this rational?

Does a Canadian with a limited intellectual capacity have the inherent right to terminate their life? If not, then exactly "who" has this right and what are the criteria? Who sets up these criteria?

Let me put it this way--back when I was in law enforcement, I had to constantly wonder why I had to give "Miranda Warnings" to people prior to taking them into custody while they were being either drunk, high on drugs. or mentally unstable--if they had not a clue as to what I was saying or what it all meant. See where I'm going?

How does one ask Granny if she wants to "check out" of the hotel of life, if she has not a clue what any of it means?

Canada May Expand Euthanasia and Start Killing People With Mental Disabilities

THANKS IN ADVANCE!

Originally Posted By Brandi:


Miranda rights are not required for arrest, that's straight up TV stuff.  I can't count how many people I arrested for all manner of things that tried to claim the arrest wasn't legal because they weren't mirandized.  The judge quickly explains the difference between the law and what they learned off TV. Miranda is only necessary prior to questioning or taking statements applicable to the crime being charged.  In many arrests there is so much evidence available upon that Miranda just isn't necessary.  I've seen Miranda issued just in case occasionally but I've never heard of it required for anyone being arrested for drugs or alcohol.