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

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#91

Post by DangitBobby »

earleybird wrote: post #87

I am very torn by these developments. A dozen plus years ago someone close to me had ALS, a horribly vile disease that to this day is a death sentence upon diagnosis. Think of a judge saying to you "you will serve two years of daily punishment each day worse than the previous after which you will die". Medical care is capable of sustaining life well beyond the capabilities of the body by itself. On the other hand, th…

You might be surprised the suffering hearing loss can cause. I remember a story about a man who killed himself to make the ringing in his ears stop [1]. And if you decide their suffering doesn't make the cut and don't provide people with a way out, you might find they'll just take matters into their own hands.

1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376787/Tinnitus-su...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#93

Post by dannyobrien »

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…

You should talk to disabled folk about how they are often treated by doctors. It's often a version of average people telling them "if I had what you had, I'd kill myself" (a disturbingly common statement), but with the added dimension of having a lot of power over the patient.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#94

Post by yibg »

seibelj wrote: post #79
lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s quite the straw man. Can you point to a case where that actually happened?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#95

Post by LodeOfCode »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #46
elevaet wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it now? Can you cite any examples?

Sure. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/23/three-netherla... the very fact that a patient has to be, legally "experiencing unbearable suffering, with no prospect of improvement, and to have a voluntary, sustained wish to die" is ripe for abuse, as the article makes clear has already happened. A euthanasia proponent said, "Whether things are clear for doctors is a difficult question, as unbearable suffering i…

I'd argue the "experiencing unbearable suffering" part is redundant anyway, since "I'd literally rather die than continue to experience this" is about as close to a definition as you're going to get.

And while any standard of "sustained" and "prospect of improvement" will have their edge cases, that's arguably still better than either absolute of availability.

The problem is ensuring it's truly voluntary, which seems rather difficult

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#96

Post by ur-whale »

earleybird wrote: post #87

I am very torn by these developments. A dozen plus years ago someone close to me had ALS, a horribly vile disease that to this day is a death sentence upon diagnosis. Think of a judge saying to you "you will serve two years of daily punishment each day worse than the previous after which you will die". Medical care is capable of sustaining life well beyond the capabilities of the body by itself. On the other hand, th…

> On the other hand, this should not be available to someone who has "hearing loss"

Why? Should they jump off a bridge instead?

> and is possibly not in a position to make good decisions.

Who are you to tell?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#97

Post by barry-cotter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #57
pyuser583 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Like almost all pop psychology, it is not very scientific: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-shocking-truth-of-...

Hey, don’t smear all psychology with the taint of social psychology. Psychophysics and psychometrics replicate.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#98

Post by barry-cotter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #86
nkingsy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP mentioned various alternatives.

Assuming you are referring to: >I will buy a gun, or jump off a bridge, or freeze to death, or O.D. on heroin, or something else if I have to. But I shouldn't have to. Those are not equivalent to the experience of dying with assisted suicide.

Overdosing on heroin very much is. You’ll leave an uglier corpse given the blackening of the extremities but you fall asleep and then you suffocate.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#99

Post by O__________O »

csnover wrote: post #74

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.…

Systems will always have suboptimal outcomes regardless of how they are structured, advances that are made, etc. Everything has a cost, regardless of if you acknowledge it, see it, etc.

Generally speaking, vast majority of current negative health impacts are self inflicted and require no major breakthroughs; for example, diet and exercise.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#100

Post by manholio »

yardstick wrote: post #49

For some more context, in 2020 about 2.4% of all deaths (7,383 people) were euthanasia related. And the vast majority were over 60. Extracts: “In 2017, 2,838 medically assisted deaths were reported by Health Canada, compared with 4,478 deaths in 2018. In 2019, there were 5,425 medically assisted deaths in Canada, accounting for 1.9% of all deaths. In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada)…

Sounds about like what I would expect. Old age with an incurable degenerative disease is living in hell, so it's no surprise people take the option if it's available.

But safeguards must be put in place to prevent people with a history of depression or mental diseases to be approved, it's simply an impossible decision for the state to make even if it would legitimately benefit some of them.

Post reply on HN