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

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#71

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:05 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 death of King George V comes to mind. He was very sick, but still alive. His doctor was worried that if he didn’t die fast enough, his death would be reported by tabloids, not the “respectable press.”

So he was given a sedative against his will. His last words, “God damn you”, we’re shouted to the nurse injecting him. Then he was poisoned to death.

And of course things went bad in Germany. “Euthanasia” was not a Nazi innovation. It was being advocated in Berlin throughout the 1920s, from very humane motives.

It was relegalized in Germany a few years ago - I don’t know why it’s excluded from the list of countries that allow it. Bad optics?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#72

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #41

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."

Is involuntary dying really worse than involuntary living? Personally I’d much rather risk the former than the latter.

I mean if you’re still alive you can always die another time - or not. But when you die, that’s that. No more options.

Medical ethics usually desires preserving options down the road as much as possible.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#73

Post by O__________O » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:08 AM UTC

nkingsy wrote: post #42

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…

Many people say this when they’re young. Almost no one goes through with it. Maybe the drooling isn’t as bad as you think.

Everyone is different, some people have a very difficult time dealing with even minor issues. Also, based on the way most people live their lives, I don’t think the average person truly understands what’s ahead, or if they do, pretend they’ll magically escape it. Personally, I am fine with my future regardless of what happens, but it’s not surprising to me some either don’t want to grow old or are caught off guard by the reality of old age.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#74

Post by csnover » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:08 AM UTC

To me, the only thing more ‘disturbing’ than a system which routinely fails its most vulnerable people by failing to provide adequate care and support for a good quality-of-life is a system which fails its most vulnerable people in that way and then also forces them to continue to suffer indefinitely.

I agree that we should not accept a system that does not provide everyone a good chance at a decent quality of life. I also believe strongly we should do everything we can to develop better treatments and cures.

At the same time, it is cruel to allow hubris or sentiment to blind us to the reality that, today, even the most well-allocated resources are finite, and our medical knowledge isn’t advanced enough to effectively treat—let alone cure—a huge number of non-fatal quality-of-life diseases.

Maybe Canada’s system needs more safeguards, maybe it doesn’t. It’s impossible to tell by reading this article, which is heavy on innuendo and light on data.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#75

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:10 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #26

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 offe…

No one is killing fetuses in the 38th week for fun. Not moms, and not doctors.

The reason to keep the legal system out of it is because there are a million things that can go wrong in pregnancies and child birth, and the doctor does not need the added complication of having to think about legal liability in the heat of the moment.

Women make a tremendous sacrifice when choosing to bear children. The issue of abortion is sufficiently handled between the pregnant mother and doctors.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#76

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:10 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #26

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 offe…

Canada allows abortion through the entire pregnancy.

Usually abortion and euthanizing can be talked about as very different things. But Canadas unusual laws on both invite comparison.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#77

Post by jjulius » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:12 AM UTC

nkingsy wrote: post #42

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…

Many people say this when they’re young. Almost no one goes through with it. Maybe the drooling isn’t as bad as you think.

>Almost no one goes through with it.

I don't necessarily share OP's sentiment, and I think it's great that people don't go through with it, but I strongly believe that the option should legally be afforded to them.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#78

Post by cyphar » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:13 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #58

LanceH wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscription...done.

Well conscription almost doesn't exist any more in western countries. And I don't think it's a good example of something that doesn't affect anyone else, the idea is to train people in case of a war. Having people able to defend the country seems quite useful for everyone in unstable times.

Is Switzerland not a "Western country"? Several other countries in Europe (and many more throughout the world) still have conscription.

Even the US still requires you by law to register for the draft[1] and technically still has the legal right to conscript you[2], though since 1973 they (as a matter of policy) no longer do this:

> However, conscription remains in place on a contingency basis and all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing within the United States, who are 18 through 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. United States federal law also continues to provide for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and certain women for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#79

Post by seibelj » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

seibelj wrote: post #26

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 offe…

No one is killing fetuses in the 38th week for fun. Not moms, and not doctors. The reason to keep the legal system out of it is because there are a million things that can go wrong in pregnancies and child birth, and the doctor does not need the added complication of having to think about legal liability in the heat of the moment. Women make a tremendous sacrifice when choosing to bear children. The issue of abortion…

A baby that will certainly die at birth, or likely cause death to the mother, is one thing.

A perfectly healthy baby 1 day before birth that is put to death is entirely different. There is nothing magical about birth that makes it OK to slit the throat of a healthy baby.

As a thought experiment, imagine a healthy baby born premature 1 day early. Could you take a knife and stab it to death as it screams and cries? If not, perhaps it is indeed murder.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#80

Post by andsoitis » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:15 AM UTC

nkingsy wrote: post #42

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…

Many people say this when they’re young. Almost no one goes through with it. Maybe the drooling isn’t as bad as you think.

According to https://theconversation.com/in-places-where-its-legal-how-ma... (as of 2019) between 0.3% and 4.6% of all deaths are assisted suicide or euthanasia in jurisdictions where it’s legal.

The paper they report on further notes:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide)… The dominant motives are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy life’s activities.