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

151–160 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#151

Post by sokoloff »

refurb wrote: post #112
elevaet wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it now? Can you cite any examples?

I mean the Canadian government highlighted the "cost savings" when they passed the legislation. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Report... "The predicted gross reduction in health care costs amounts to $109.2 million while the cost of administering MAID is estimated at $22.3 million. Thus, the difference between the two represents a net cost reduction for provincial governments of $86.9 million."

I’d expect (or at least hope) any piece of legislation with a significant cost component would have a projection of those costs included.

There is a significant cost to providing care in the last year of a person’s life. It would seem opaque or “hiding something” if legislation around assisted suicide failed to discuss financials entirely.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#152

Post by ksaj »

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…

The question I have is, are they thanking people for saving their life, or simply thanking them for showing them some love. For enough cases, and especially this one, once that love-in wears off, it's back to figuring out how to die.

Wanting to die, and appreciating the expression of love in your direction, are not opposites.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#153

Post by sokoloff »

bolangi wrote: post #131

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 con…

We made the difficult decision to euthanize our dog last summer. Sure, we could have just stopped feeding her or additionally stopped allowing her water to drink.

If we’d done that instead, how would we be judged? How much of that judgment would result directly from the idea that, despite there being a more humane and compassionate alternate, we chose to prolong her suffering needlessly?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#154

Post by O__________O »

oleander73 wrote: post #141
O__________O wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Obviously, significant percentage of people if they were in your situation would likely relate to your wishes to be in control, it’s completely reasonable. Also, reasonable that prior to you being in the situation that it’s likely that the topic was not pressing for you.

Most people don’t want to think about intentionally dying, it’s unpleasant, frequently results in emotionally sensitive exchanges, etc — so they simply avoid the topic.

Basically, being terminally ill is separate topic from the comment you replied too, which relates to legalized assisted suicide for non-terminally ill people; realize OP comment potentially covered it, but at least for me, that was not an issue.

Not the best at exchanges like this, but sincerely hope you are able to find the resolution you seek.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#155

Post by DubiousPusher »

nlitened wrote: post #125
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.

Do people with history of depression and mental diseases suffer? Do they have a right to end their suffering?

Yeah. Major depressive disorder is absolutely suffering. You should not force people to live with it, especially if they have sought professional help without success.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#156

Post by blooalien »

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.

> "I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am."

I would upvote this statement a million times if I could.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#157

Post by refurb »

sokoloff wrote: post #151
refurb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the Canadian government highlighted the "cost savings" when they passed the legislation. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Report... "The predicted gross reduction in health care costs amounts to $109.2 million while the cost of administering MAID is estimated at $22.3 million. Thus, the difference between the two represents a net cost reduction for provincial governments of $86.9 million."

I’d expect (or at least hope) any piece of legislation with a significant cost component would have a projection of those costs included. There is a significant cost to providing care in the last year of a person’s life. It would seem opaque or “hiding something” if legislation around assisted suicide failed to discuss financials entirely.

Not inferring the analysis was sinister. Just the incentives.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#158

Post by blooalien »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #155
nlitened wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people with history of depression and mental diseases suffer? Do they have a right to end their suffering?

Yeah. Major depressive disorder is absolutely suffering. You should not force people to live with it, especially if they have sought professional help without success.

What if they've sought "professional help" and been turned away / denied due to lack of cash on hand? What if they also have physical medical issues that could get solved except for that whole pesky "cash on hand" thing? What if they've suffered for many years and now just want to give up and end the suffering?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#159

Post by slavik81 »

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.…

That seems to be the position of the Supreme Court of Canada, who ruled in 2015 that it would be cruel for the government to prevent Gloria Taylor (and others like her) to seek assistance ending her suffering (Carter v Canada). As part of their unanimous decision, they stated:

> It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician's assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.

Wikipedia summarizes:

> the Supreme Court held that the current legislation was overbroad in that it prohibits "physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

> After a lengthy delay, the House of Commons passed a Bill (C-14) in mid-June 2016 that would allow for doctor-assisted suicide in the case of a terminal illness.

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

The law was further amended by Bill C-7 (43) after another court case in 2019 (Truchon v Canada). The Superior Court of Quebec struck down the clause that restricted MAID to patients whose death was reasonably forseeable. From an unofficial translation of the decision:

> [The plaintiffs] claim that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement is tantamount to a prohibition of medical assistance in dying for any person who, like them, is not at the end of life. In this sense, it forces some of these individuals to take charge of their own destiny and take hasty steps to end their lives prematurely out of fear that they will no longer be physically able to do so once their suffering becomes intolerable. Consequently, they claim that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement exposes them to a heightened risk of death and, therefore, infringes on their Charter right to life.

The legislative background for C-14 (42): https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/ad-am/p2.htm...

The legislative background for C-7 (43) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/ad-am/c7/p1.html

The current text of the law: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-241.2....

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#160

Post by blooalien »

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…

Except that for some of us, society has already decided for us that our life isn't worth living (often without even knowing the first thing about us other than that we currently this instant don't have a bunch of money to give away to others who might be able to save us from suffering or dying), by denying many of us basic medical care (in so-called "rich" nations, even), yet the general consensus seems to be that while we apparently don't deserve to live, we also don't deserve a dignified death, but rather ongoing and growing misery and pain until we either die of "natural" causes (societal neglect) or take our own lives in some messy and possibly dangerous way.
Post reply on HN