Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#21

Post by StanislavPetrov » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:35 AM UTC

throwaway892238 wrote: post #4

> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to…

>If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice.

I think most reasonable people can agree with this. It gets more complicated when its a depressed 20 year old saying it.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#22

Post by alexashka » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:35 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #3

> prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it. Please tell me there isn't a financial incentive behind this. The only thing worse than doctors suggesting opioids to those who might not otherwise consider it is doctors suggesting death to those who might not otherwise consider it.

Maybe it's just me, but if a stranger can talk you into killing yourself - what the fuck else can a stranger talk you into doing?

Maybe people need to take some responsibility, instead of arguing the existence of Dr Evils in medicine.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#23

Post by jollybean » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:36 AM UTC

elevaet wrote: post #12

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #7

You can always pick an extreme example of drooling, pants-shitting, etc. etc. But the problem is that "option to die" usually morphs into "duty to die" and then into "involuntarily dying."

Does it now? Can you cite any examples?

The article is the example.

There are massive systematic pressures on our healthcare system and the 'oldest' people who don't work or pay taxes are the big 'cost points'.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#24

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:37 AM UTC

elevaet wrote: post #9

umvi wrote: post #3

> prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it. Please tell me there isn't a financial incentive behind this. The only thing worse than doctors suggesting opioids to those who might not otherwise consider it is doctors suggesting death to those who might not otherwise consider it.

I have a very hard time believing that doctors will be suggesting euthanasia to patients who might not otherwise consider it. There is no financial incentive behind it on a personal level for doctors, given Canada's one-payer medical system, and euthanasia is counter to many doctors' interpretation of the Hypocratic oath. You could argue that on a system-level there is an incentive to encourage euthanasia, since it c…

A one payer system doesn’t insulate doctors from personal incentives to cut costs.

The details of compensation can easily encourage one time injections over long term care.

Even if the injection is poison.

I know for a fact that “bounty” type programs are used by Canadian public health authorities, and for-profit actors make money from them.

I don’t know if this extends to long-term care scenarios, but there’s nothing about the way the Canadian health system is structured that offers strong protection against perverse incentives.

Arguably, the horrible US for-profit health system offers stronger protection against this. A dead patient can’t be charged for more services. But a system that equates medical consumption with good care has it’s own set of problems too obvious to mention.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:37 AM UTC

lobotryas wrote: post #5

umvi wrote: post #3

> prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it. Please tell me there isn't a financial incentive behind this. The only thing worse than doctors suggesting opioids to those who might not otherwise consider it is doctors suggesting death to those who might not otherwise consider it.

There’s always a financial angle in most situations. After all, taking care of a really sick patient (or someone with a difficult condition) costs the state money. If you read the article there are sighs that this may have been a consideration in some cases they list.

[deleted]

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#26

Post by seibelj » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:38 AM UTC

I think reasonable people can agree that aborting an unborn baby that is conceived 1 day prior is not murder, but a fetus 1 day from birth is a human and killing it is murder. There is some point between 1 day and 9 months where killing the baby is immoral.

Similarly, physician assisted suicide could make sense in some cases. However a chronically depressed patient that is annoying the doctor, I don't approve of offering suicide to. As someone who battled depression for many years and eventually vanquished it, a quick and painless suicide might have made sense when I was at my lowest point. I don't like how easy it has become in Canada according to this article.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#27

Post by Pxtl » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:38 AM UTC

The biggest horror of the situation is that many disabled but otherwise healthy people are ending up in the MAID system because of the extreme cost of living in Canada that the disability support system has made no attempt to keep up with.

Vancouver and Toronto are both on the top 10 most unaffordable cities on Earth, and it's literally killing people.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#28

Post by serf » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:40 AM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

andrewclunn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I do not have to agree with anything you said, to admit that the Slippery Slope should probably be taken off the fallacies list at this point.

>at this point

the slippery slope fallacy was never stated as an absolute truth; it exists to point out the absurdity in the belief that all things are sliding at all times.

that is to say : the slippery slope fallacy exists to point out that the constant slip isn't a realistic model for every social qualm to have ever existed, and is not universally applicable; not that it doesn't occur.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#29

Post by CodeShmode » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

O__________O wrote: post #19

throwaway892238 wrote: post #4

> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to…

Percentage of people that plan to kill themselves, but simply fail to do so because something minor happens to interfere is not small; as in they do not end up committing suicide and never try again. If someone really wants to kill themselves, no reason to make it easy, it should by definition be hard to do, since there is no undoing it.

If someone wants to kill themselves and is physically able I very much doubt that going through the legal process would be the easy way out.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#30

Post by gjsman-1000 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

throwaway892238 wrote: post #4

> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to…

Here’s an idea. I’m a 25 year old in Canada without any particular gift or grace of intelligence. Unless I want to work at Walmart for the next 30 years and survive in government housing, life is pointless.

So… I might as well grab a car, execute the greatest crime in my power for the sheer fun of it, and demand euthanasia at my sentencing.

Now I’ve got quite a moral dilemma for the judge. If you grant me my wish, I will die completely unrepentant and my victims will be denied a sense of justice forever. Death was my wish, their suffering my parting joy. If you don’t, how dare you keep me alive against my will.

If you think this is obviously wrong, why?