The Criminal Code of Canada outlaws suicide assistance, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison - but opponents have recently challenged the law's constitutionality in court.

In the most famous case, Sue Rodriguez - a 42-year-old B.C. woman who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease - asked the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 1990s to be allowed to kill herself with a doctor's help.

She argued that the ban on assisted suicide violated the Constitution, by curbing her rights of personal liberty and autonomy guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected her argument in 1993, ruling 5-4 that society's obligation to preserve life and protect the vulnerable outweighed her rights.

it's unproductive to try and stop them.

If you were in nearly unbearable pain, and were going to die within two months anyway and were costing your family $1000 a day to keep you alive, what would you choose?

This isn't about being a vegetable. The question at hand is whether or not a person with a terminal disease who is in severe pain has the right to end their own life.

Also, the question here isn't whether you would do it or not, but whether you think that other people should be given the choice to do it.

If you were in nearly unbearable pain, and were going to die within two months anyway and were costing your family $1000 a day to keep you alive, what would you choose?

No, but in the US that's what your hospital bill would be weighing in at about.

f your dog or cat got sick and you were unable to treat it (for whatever reason), would you force it to live out its suffering on the off chance that they might be able to be cured (such as, you win the lottery and can afford to buy treatment for them)?

If you always vote for the winners, there's never going to be change.

It's about whether someone with a terminal illness and in great pain has the right to die rather than wait it out, should they choose.

Finally, the doctors should have some say in it too.

And soon to be in canada too if the conrsitive win. VOTE DAM IT!

If your dog or cat got sick and you were unable to treat it (for whatever reason), would you force it to live out its suffering on the off chance that they might be able to be cured (such as, you win the lottery and can afford to buy treatment for them)?

We already have private health care in Canada. There are private clinics in this city, as there are in most big cities. Like the one that Paul Martin currently uses for his family.

i just find it interesting that the only reason the NDP's seems to provide as to why ppl should vote for them is that the liberals and the conservatives suck.. they dont really provide any real reasons why they're better..

Come to BC, Andy. In interviews the NDP candidates are the only ones who come across as educated, intelligent people with the intention to do something in office aside from building their own power base.

Dan I saw the debate and Jack Layton made a fool of himself. Seriously. He never did answer a single question without bashing the Liberals.

On the other hand Stephen Harper came out with the most sensible answers.

Paul Martin was always trying to defend himself and his party, largely because of the NDP and Quebecois' bashing. At the same time he was bashing Conservatives. Man that debate was sooo stupid.

And then there is that one where it is like "paul marting uses private health care do not vote for him. Vote conerstive we will make every one use private health care "

Maybe try watching a debate?

Yea all those adds are soo damn lame... They need a life.. Other than politics..

Either way the point of that ad was not to condemn "private health care", but to comment about Paul Martin's I-say-one-thing-but-I-do-the-opposite behavior.

i watched the debate both in english and in french, and all jack layton did was trying to prove to the audience that paul martin is a lying sob, and steven harper is too friendly with the right winged activists in the states.

Well the debate was deftaly stupid due mostly to the questions they asked, tho i was not just refuring to the federal debate but to local ones as well. Also i think peoleops baises chage how they saw the debate. Hostly as i saw it all the partys where just bashing each other. I do love how the consertives run 1000s of atact adds, far more then any other party and then run an add saying how bad the librals are for runing atack adds. And then there is that one where it is like "paul marting uses private health care do not vote for him. Vote conerstive we will make every one use private health care Wink"

Say one thing and do another... like running attack ads that condemn attack ads?

The Conservatives in Canada are very much modelled after their counterparts in the U.S.

I realy whont to see proptoal repseration in this country becuase the system is set up so smaller partys do not even have a chance.

So while Paul Martin may not have the greatest record, he actually has one.

So peoleop with more moeny are intiled to better health and education then peoleop who where born in to less wealthy familys?

i dunno dan.. if u took out osap and worked during summer/got some scholarships, or went to waterloo for co op, you'd have enuff money to make ends meet

To codemage: franlky i find it discusting that you think you dersver better health then some one eltes since you have money.

dan, you're right about having to pay osap back eventually, but my point was if the poor people really wanted an education, its possible for them, if i had no money, and wanted an education, i'd do w.e i could just to be able to afford it, if you dont, that means you dont want to be educated

* Productive (Workers) - The laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
* Protective (Warriors) - Those who are adventurous, strong, brave, in love with danger; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
* Governing (Rulers) - Those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

Except that the Conservative Party is a known entity. It has, in fact, governed Canada in the past, and from what I've heard, the economic policies under that reign were devastating.

I don't think I deserve better health, nor do I have a lot of money. I come from a lower-middle class background, and worked manual labour through highschool and university to pay for my own education.

My comments have nothing to do with richer people deserving more - it has to do with they can always buy more and the best. In a capitalist system where we encourage competition and the entrepreneurial spirit, there is automatically a class system. If you eliminate the upper class (who can afford all the perks - whether or not they deserve them) - you eliminate the free market.

The responsibility of the state is to provide basic education & health to the lower & middle classes to provide the mobility opportunity - to be able to move into the other "classes".

Interesting trivia: NDP Leader Jack Layton (the champion of public healthcare, as it were) jumped the waiting line and had a hernia operation at a private clinic several in Toronto years ago.

I think that the best solution would be to cut tuition by 50%. Even on a part time job complimented by summer jobs and some OSAP, everyone would be able to afford school.

Interesting fact for our local communist though: did you know that the minimum wage is what (by and large) creates unemployment?

Unemployment is vastly more complex than that. A good deal of it is also caused by corporate bureaucracies that cannot accept change, and thus lose customers. Fewer customers = less revenue = less profits unless costs are cut. Giving those businesses the ability to pay their employees less would in most cases only be a band-aid to keep incomptent management from being exposed for a year or two.

I guess you just missed the part where I said: "Of course there will be benifits to those people who do excellently, just they won't be able to buy an island."

All I'm merely saying is if you just cut out half an acre of all these rich people's homes you could feed a quarter of the world for a hundred years.
The gap between rich and poor is unacceptable, Bill Gates is bloody black whole. (What he gives back to the economy is substantial but: what he takes is astronomical)

You are stupid, aren't you? The Gates foundation, which is endowed almost solely by Gates, is the #1 charitable group in the world, both by amount of money (I believe), and by the amount of each dollar donated that goes into actually helping people (with literacy, healthcare etc.), which is higher than any other charity in the world.

Plesas do not use personal atacts in debates such as calling some one stupid.

As for gates i whould think there dentions are largey for tax and P.R. reasons not out of the good of there hearts.

The 3 year old born in a rich family will receive the better education, better health care, better opportunity, and better sport teams.

Privatize health care? Where are you're hearts people?

People think Communism is a bad thing that doesn't work. I think it works, we just need to actually try it.

Well as i side b4 i think tutuion should be free and we should just have to pay cots of living and books.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. ***Sir Winston Churchill

1st of all where did this 10% fact come form i whould like to see some suport for that. And tho i can only talke for my self i do not think our dislike of bill gates has to do with our thoughts on communism. As justin was saying if you have billions and you give a few millions it dose not hurt that much, now if you where an advaege person and you gave that much i whould be adzamed and respect you. It is not about how much money in total you give but about giving when u need it your self. It is easy to just sing some checks and become a good guy, if he whonts my repsect lets see him go out to a soup kitechen or homeless sheart and give his time. Also a big % of the money M$ donates is in there own software to schools and orgarastions witch realy costs nothing. I rember that they even whonted to pay there cort bills in software, lucky they did not go for that. And how can u not see that it is for P.R.? In my mind some one who is buying islands and has mations bulit in to mountes is being greedy. No one needs that much, that is behond comfortable and in to just a stupied area.

I would like to see your proof that Bill Gates spends extravagantly on anything. His house cost $60 million, which as a percentage of his wealth is miniscule, vs what most people spend as a percentage. More significantly, it is his largest property.

The house encompasses more than 66,000 square feet which is equal to 1.5 acres.The major rooms include seven bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, six kitchens, and six fireplaces.

Total assessed value: $53,392,200
Land value: $9,122,200

Miles of communication cable, largely fiber optic, run throughout the house, linking computer servers powered by the Windows NT operating system. In each room, touch-sensitive pads control lighting, music, and climate. Visitors will wear small electronic pins, which will let the computers know who and where they are. Lights and other settings will adjust automatically. Floors throughout the house (and the driveway) are heated.

Additionally, I am totally ignoring any donations by Microsoft, so don't tell me they're useless because they're in the form of MS software. I am speaking of personal donations from Bill Gates' personal wealth, which leads itno my next point:

He and his wife endowed the Gates foundation in 2000 with $17,000,000,000 USD, all donated by him. That is well more than 10% of his wealth. It is in fact well over 20% of his wealth. If you donated over 20% of your income to anything, any sane person would be cognratulatory.

Face the facts Dan, and stop hiding behind your pseudo-communist facade of "he's too rich which automatically makes him a bad person".

Face that fact that Bill Gates

We give what we can. Some people have lots of time, some have lots of money. Gates has given a lot of both.....

...and for you to simply dismiss him as doing it for tax reasons, as you've said before, or to imply that he's just signing checks because it's easy, shows to me a complete and utter lack of perspective on your part, which I find both depressing and insulting. Get a grip.

[devil's advocate]
Why stop at legalization of drugs? If we legalize all aspects of revenue-generating crime, we could make loads of money.

Consider the legalization of:

contract assassination, prostitution - (service tax)
grand theft, fraud, extortion - (income tax)
speeding / dangerous driving - (no ticket income, but save money by not hiring law enforcement)

[/devil's advocate]

He simply isn't such a great guy that he deserves an 80 million dollar house.

Yes, Bill Gates is very wealthy. However, he earned that money himself, through intelligence, hard work and a lot of luck.

Thank God for you Dan. I think you made your point very well. I think the picture of Bill Gates' home is end of discussion. He is greedy, he doesn't do enough to be as rich as he is.

If you put the integrity of Bill Gates' character on a teeter totter with his wealth, the situation is gravely unbalanced. He simply isn't such a great guy that he deserves an 80 million dollar house.

Go Socialism! Hurray for Psuedo-Communism!

Hacker Dan you're really pushing the line on abusing your authority as an admin. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules of the site, unless there are some rules that I'm unaware of. Ad hominem attacks are usually rather stupid but I think your overinterpreting them as personal insults.

I'm not pointing fingers or defending big Bill, but anyone here that doesn't contribute more money and/or time to charity, etc. (on a relational level to their respective salary and free time) than Mr. Gates doesn't really have an ethical platform to stand on.

Hacker Dan you're really pushing the line on abusing your authority as an admin. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules of the site, unless there are some rules that I'm unaware of.

Did you even read any of the debate? I am sorry if u do not like it but calling users stupied or other perosnal instuatls is agsaisted the rules of the site and is not a debating method. 2ndly if u aucatly read my post above in full befor saying things like that you whould know i side "if you push it further with the personal atacks you whould be breaking the rules of the site" i did not say he was. Persoanly i do not like my options being called "pseudo-communist facade" nor do i like being called stuiped with Justin_ was and it was impleyed i was in some of his eraly posts in this same topic. Also saying some one has an "complete and utter lack of perspective" or to "Get a grip" for disagraing with you is not so nice ether.

Yes, his house is big. But why are you quoting its value at me? I got it within $2 million, which off the top of my head I think is rather good. Anyways, given the amount of work he put into Microsoft over several decades (whether or not you agree with his business philosophy, you cannot disagree that he has worked hard), I believe he deserves it.

But I guess that is where socialists/communists disagree (whichever group you happen to put yourself in, or even if you're in neither, you can't disagree you're close). I happen to believe that once a person earns money through hard work, they have a right to spend it however they want.

Now, moving on. I think you are unclear as to where the majority of the Gates' foundation's work is done. It's in Africa and the Third World. And it has nothing to do with giving people MS software. It has to do with developing healthcare and literacy programs for people in that part of the world.

But even those relatively small programs that do provide computers for libraries and schools - what exactly is your problem with them being MS? If you lead a company like MS, would you go buy computers from your competitors to donate? Don't be ridiculous.

Now, once again, your numbers are off. To clear this up once and for all, I will bold the following important point: He didn't give millions. He gave $21 billion to endow the foundation, and has given another $7 billion since then. That is a fact, don't argue it, it's documented in so amny places that it's not a point to be debated.

As to me brining up "personal attacks", how is it a personal attack for me to imply that your political views are clouding your grasp of the situation? That is not a personal attack.

As to where he's giving time? Well, I frankly don't have any facts on that, but common sense absolutely dictates that he's giving time, espcially given that front-page photo of him in India, a trip that would require at least 4-5 days, and is probably more time dedicated to community service than you've put in in the last little while.

Now, hate to burst your bubble, but nowhere did you "show" that he gets any money back, from P.R., tax breaks or anything else. You simply assume.

You don't know what Gates gets as a tax brak, you don't even know that he gets one at all.

In fact, I would suggest to you that he doesn't since the money he gave away was in the form of MS stock, which the foundation then converted (tax free) into cash by selling it off, while diversifying their stock portfolio in order to continue making enough money to extend operations.

Bill Gates probably got almost no tax break on it, because it wasn't actually his money to begin with - just the theoretical amount he could have if he sold his stock.

How do you know him giving away money doesn't reflect a deep good in him? How do you know that he's giving money away for P.R., and not because he realizes that the most good he can do for charity in this world is to finance it? You don't. Again, you assume. Seeing a theme here?

The picture of Bill Gates home is the end of no discussion other than that he has a big home. It proves nothing about his character, or his integrity. Since you (or I) have no idea how much he does (and has done) to be as rich as he is, I would suggest you are unqualified to comment on it.

Thank you for that. Dan, please stop threatening me with having actions taken against me in every debate we enter into. Take your admin hat off when you start debating.

Another thank you. My challenge, Dan and Justin, is this: Prove to me that you have contributed as much, or more than Gates has, as a percentage of your wealth or your time (30% of either is a nice ballpark), and I'll grant that you have the right to criticize his philanthropy. Since Gates isn't good enough, let's see you be.

You've talked the talk. Now walk the walk, and you will have my respect, just as Gates does.

ROFL, that is even worse. You are saying that in realty he is givng stock not money witch is then sold back to his own company. This almost sounds illgeal.

singing a check

The first stupid comment was a mistake which I apologised for, and did not repeat. This makes it irrelevant to your later warnings of "don't flame me or I will take action"

Now, on to the rading comprehension section. I didn't call you a facade. Do you know what a facade is? No? It has nothing to do with you, it was me insinuating that your ideology is preventing you from being reasonable.

I didn't call you stupid, and if you want to take that implication, it is completely your own choice, and I refuse to be held to have anything to do with it.

Saying you have a lack of perspective, while not necessarily nice, is not a personal attack either, just like saying "you're completely wrong" while maybe not being an attack wouldn't be nice - however it is not against any rules.

But anyways, don't respond to this post, let's keep going with the argument I'd like to see your response to my last

Anyways, as to your last point, touche. But I've decided that I don't respect you for it, since you're just



which according to you shows no real charitable thought or intent. How's your tax break and P.R. coming along then? Well? Excellent.

I totally agree, which is why if I were saying that for anything other than to make a point, I would feel terrible. How do you think Bill Gates would feel to hear you belittling his charitable work? I oversimplifiedyour work in the same way you oversimplified Gates' work - and your response to it shows the exact same sentiment that mine does. Please reread my point, notice the similarities of what I said about you to what yous aid about Bill Gates, both based off assumptions, and comprehend.

The diferences are semantical. All of a sudden, after you realise I'm not being serious, you are less offended. The rest of the points you make in your post are semantical differences, jumping around one simple fact: you belittle his work and see no problem with it, and I belittle yours and your eact defensively. Where it is said is irrelevant.

True communism would be a complete trade of freedom for the benefit of the society. If it worked, nobody would be hungry but nobody would be allowed to move against the flow. Personally, I'd rather be hungry.

Perosanly i think that socitly has to evaloe alot befor it is ready to even consider such a system.