Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#31

Post by LanceH »

elcomet wrote: post #20
voisin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the state should not be able to mandate that that's how I spend the last 10 years of my life The number of things that the state should not be able to mandate but does is immense. Unfortunately “should not be able to” is irrelevant in modern society. For some reason we all accept constant overreach into private affairs they affect no one else.

Could you give other examples? It seems to me that the balance between individual freedom and restrictions is pretty good in most western countries (I don't know much about other continents).

Conscription...done.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#32

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

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…

How do you tell the difference between someone suffering from depression that wants to die but could cure their depression and someone that just wants to die? Depression is an illness and it makes people do and say all kinds of things they wouldn't normally.

What if you are 80 and just have low testosterone and want to die but then you start trt and things really get a lot better? Which "you" wanted to die and which should get to make that decision? What is the authentic you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#33

Post by Natsu »

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…

> 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

This article provides evidence to the contrary:

"Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care."

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#34

Post by throwaway892238 »

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.

How does an old man in a wheelchair kill himself? Why should it be so hard for him? What if he fails? He gets to live even longer in more anguish and humiliation?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#35

Post by pyuser583 »

alexashka wrote: post #22
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.

You’ve heard of the Milgram experiment? It specifically focused on medical authority.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#36

Post by Natsu »

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?

There's evidence in the article this story is about:

"Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care."

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#37

Post by melling »

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…

I hope 80 doesn’t look like that for most people. Even aging rock stars are still moving at 80:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney

Willie Nelson is almost 90 and still touring:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Nelson

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#38

Post by andrewclunn »

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.

The slippery slope is an informal fallacy. Which is to say, people want a short hand way of dismissing arguments, while also not needing to justify the dismissal, so they conflated actual bad arguments with other heuristics. Just don't tell our secrets to the idiots or conspiracy theorists my fellow big brained skeptic tips his fedora

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#39

Post by [deleted] »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #21
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.

[deleted]

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#40

Post by musicale »

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."

> "duty to die"

Uncomfortably close (linked from article):

"His words were 'assisted suicide death was legal in Canada,'" she told CBC. "I was shocked, and said, 'Well, I'm not really interested,' and he told me I was being selfish."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/doctor-...

And from the article:

Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”

Post reply on HN