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

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#131

Post by bolangi »

This is all very disturbing: price people out of care and convince them to consent to die.

I think if someone wants to end their life, they can just stop eating and drinking. If you just stop eating it will take longer, but will still work.

Someone with grave health problems will often have little appetite.

A friend who nearly died with a running car engine in a closed garage says it's an easy way to go.

The main consideration for the person choosing to end their life is that the measure they choose be reliably effective, as an incomplete death (oxymoron?) will likely entail further suffering.

The seminal reference on the topic in the US is Final Exit, by Derek Humphry.

https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Delive...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#132

Post by bolangi »

bambax wrote: post #124
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.…

Yes, this is a poor and politically charged article; we don't have to read far to get to a beautiful application of Godwin's law: > Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.” Euthanasia and assisted suicide i…

What do you call assisted suicide that is not assented to by the subject?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#133

Post by d110af5ccf »

vintermann wrote: post #130
ur-whale wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Why? Should they jump off a bridge instead? At least then there will be less lingering suspicion that he was pressured into it for being a cost point. And unlike in the usual AS hypotheticals, (but like most actual assisted suicides), he was perfectly capable of it. He didn't need assistance. If you say, "my life is not worth living", maybe that's your call to make. But I think it would be very, very, wrong of me t…

> At least then there will be less lingering suspicion that he was pressured into it for being a cost point.

How? Sure, the doctor probably didn't actively recommend it. But medical costs could very well be a significant factor in such an action.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#134

Post by sokoloff »

manholio wrote: post #100
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.

I don’t think it should be a decision for the state to make at all, and certainly not one where a history of depression or mental disease would be permanently barring.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#135

Post by murphyslab »

Curious that this article, from August 11, is posted today.

Since no one in the thread has mentioned it, the issue has been in the Canadian media recently due to a situation first reported on August 16 which was updated today. The first paragraph is ample summary of what transpired:

> A Canadian Forces veteran seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury was shocked when he was unexpectedly and casually offered medical assistance in dying by a Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) employee, sources tell Global News.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-...

And today a full investigation was announced:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9072857/canada-veterans-assisted-...

This is not what is supposed to happen and the Veterans Affairs employee involved will, I expect, be sacked or placed on leave. It is at the very least incompetence or lack of proper training, given that the law has only been in place since 2021.

**

For anyone looking to understand the issue in the Canadian context, and how we got here, here's my brief non-expert summary.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Carter v Canada that our Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide was unconstitutional:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v_Canada_(AG)

That brought about Bill C-14 in 2016, which allowed those whose death was "reasonably foreseeable" to obtain MAiD:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-a...

A further legal challenge, Truchon v Canada, decided by the Superior Court of Quebec in 2019 required further legislative accommodation. This removed the restriction which required that death be "reasonably foreseeable" as it again violated the Charter. Hence the government introduced Bill C-7 in 2021:

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.h...

The eligibility requirements are now:

1. Be a mentally competent adult

2. Experience "enduring and intolerable suffering"

3. Complete the process involving paperwork, witnesses, physicians, etc...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#136

Post by oleander73 »

bolangi wrote: post #132
bambax wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a poor and politically charged article; we don't have to read far to get to a beautiful application of Godwin's law: > Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.” Euthanasia and assisted suicide i…

What do you call assisted suicide that is not assented to by the subject?

A contradictio in terminis.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#137

Post by bolangi »

yibg wrote: post #94
seibelj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'll add that the French had an anonymous baby depository for women who couldn't afford to care for their children.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#138

Post by devwastaken »

manholio wrote: post #100
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.

"we don't want to let people end their life humanely because I think I know better than them about their life. Instead they can end their life inhumanely anyways." - I rewrote what you were saying to make its intent clearer.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#139

Post by maratbn »

musicale wrote: post #40
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-ter…

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-...

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#140

Post by yumraj »

darth_avocado wrote: post #92

Having gone through depression, I think there needs to be a higher bar for euthanasia. Yes there are terrible incurable sufferings that may need it, but making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition.

> making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition.

Why? And, dangerous to whom?

Post reply on HN