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

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#141

Post by oleander73 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:22 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.

I have incurable cancer and I'd really like to die on my own terms. Why should that be hard? Today it is still way too hard in most of the world (including in countries that have MAID). Also, it's not just about it being "hard". Sure I could blow my brains out, but I'd like to have the option to die with my loved ones by my side without traumatizing them (or getting them in potential legal problems).

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#142

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:22 AM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #106

yibg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Infanticide was a completely normal part of life in almost all historical societies though usually by drowning or smothering because they’re quieter. Exceptions are the Egyptians, Jews, Christians and Moslems. The PRC felt the need to legislate against it specifically when they conquered the last of the RoC holdouts in China in 1949 so I don’t think we need to imagine infanticide.

I am having trouble figuring out why infanticide (killing a baby that has already been born) entered a conversation about ensuring a pregnant mom and doctor are able to make healthcare decisions unencumbered from legal liabilities.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#143

Post by oleander73 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:28 AM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #27

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.

It is horrible if people are forced into MAID because of monetary issues, but that should obviously be addressed by improving their financial support, not by taking away the option of MAID.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#144

Post by 9530jh9054ven » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:31 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #66

yardstick wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, these people are not most people. All have a LOT of money to throw at their health. Also at carers, cooks, healthy living, and all the modern conveniences that make old age bearable. Same with William Shatner, he’s 91 now!

My parents are 78 and 80. Old age is slowly catching up with them. But my dad can still stay out in the yard for hours at the time and until Covid, my mom was still tutoring friends kids and grandkids in advanced math. She is still completely comfortable with driving from my hometown 5 hours to where I live - a place with some of the worse traffic in America. They were not “rich”. My mom is a retired school teacher a…

Maybe but it seems like your parents have their health and were taking care of themselves.

I'm in my thirties. I'm already suffering from obesity, have chronic pains in the wrists and shoulders and leg, and my hearing and vision are starting to deteriorate, and I've had multiple bouts with gout that leaves me barely able to walk for months at a time.

If my thirty's are already this bad, I can't imagine lies in store in my 40's, never mind 80's.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#145

Post by daenz » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:33 AM UTC

yumraj wrote: post #140

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?

Dangerous to the people who would impulsively choose to be euthanized?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#146

Post by manholio » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:35 AM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #138

manholio wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Instead they can end their life inhumanely anyways

That's an option that always exists. I simply have a (much) higher threshold than you in regards to a state killing its own citizens.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#147

Post by pyuser583 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:36 AM UTC

anshumankmr wrote: post #109

pyuser583 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is kind of horrifying, considering his family were not aware of this either, and neither was he consulted about it.

My understanding about George V is that his son, future Edward VIII - an all-around asshole - was pressuring the doctor to euthanize him.

So “the family” knew.

But the “the family” was more interested in securing his inheritance and title.

Which is ironic considering how quickly he threw it away.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#148

Post by ksaj » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:44 AM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #111

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.…

I would phrase this somewhat differently to express the same sentiment: I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am.

Exactly this. When we do it for our beloved pets, it is compassionate. When we do it for someone who specifically asked for it, under entirely similar conditions? Where is the difference?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#149

Post by StanislavPetrov » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:51 AM UTC

jagger27 wrote: post #48

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

People here are talking about this as if it’s the suicide booth from Futurama. It’s not. The overwhelming majority of cases are extensions of palliative care made by people of sound mind.

>The overwhelming majority of cases are extensions of palliative care made by people of sound mind.

That's the case now, and I fully support the right of someone who is suffering or otherwise debilitated due to age, disease or injury to end their life with the full support of the medical establishment. What will the outcome be if the law is expanded? Will people who might otherwise survive and live long, healthy and productive lives opt for euthanasia if the course of treatment means huge medical bills that will forever immiserate them and their families? It is one thing to support giving people control over their own lives and their own suffering, and another to create all sorts of financial incentives, for patients, insurers, hospitals and doctors to consider euthanasia as an alternative to treatment.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#150

Post by srinivgp » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 6:52 AM UTC

manholio wrote: post #102

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?

He had a documented history of depression. By definition, he was not in sound mind, there is ample precedent of people suffering from depression, trying and failing to commit suicide, and later recovering and thanking those around them for saving them. This idea that "one's mind is sovereign over their destiny" is unsustainable in practice. There are many versions of it floating around, for example related to gun con…

If we prevented all suicides there would be _well more than ample_ precedent of people trying to commit _and being stopped from_ committing suicide and later hating everyone for keeping them in hell.

You can't ignore downsides just 'cause you see upsides.