this topic came up a few times on hacker news
I will add this link here
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
161–170 of 247 posts
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#162Earlier 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?
An impossibility. If there is no consent there is no "suicide", assisted or otherwise.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I believe it should be their choice to make. The case in which I'd be skeptical is if someone were just beginning to experience mental illness. The onset of mental illness can be very difficult, confusing and disturbing. People often don't know what's happening to them and they don't know what treatment may be able to do for them. To allow them to choose suicide in an dark early moment of their disease which may stabilize seems callus to me.
I'm not sure how you structure this limitation but bottom line is anyone with significant experience of their own mental illness who doesn't want to live with it anymore shouldn't have to.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#164Earlier 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."
The Parliamentary Budget Office is independent and nonpartisan. It's literally their job to provide cost estimates for parliamentary proposals. They're designed to hold the governing party accountable for the financial implications of proposed legislation.
It's perhaps also worth noting that with 38 million Canadians, you're talking about roughly $2 per person. I don't think that's a meaningful amount of money at the national level. Government spending on healthcare is roughly $8000 per person.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#165> 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…
Surely there is an ethical duty for the doctor to offer options. It is not for them to decide what path the patient should take and holding back something that the patient may want is unethical.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#166To 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.…
What you need is a government equation to help. There should be a well thought out form, with simple answers that can allow someone who has undertaken the prerequisite amount of training to complete the form. With the right information, it would really be very simple, programmable even, to work out what one should do with the person.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#167This is a great article that talks about the legal changes in this area:
https://canucklaw.ca/parliaments-guidelines-on-euthanizing-t...
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#168The planet's overpopulated. Help people die if they choose to do so. It's a lot less messy that way, for everyone.
You could also try to make as many people gay as possible.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Canada has a 90-day assessment/waiting period for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. They won't euthanize you unless you seem capable of making the decision and have thought through it for an extended length of time. It's not an impulsive thing.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#170Being a doctor or nurse or other medical professional should be about sustaining and improving health.
If euthanasia is to be a thing, it should not be carried out by doctors or nurses. It should be a different profession entirely.
Trying to reuse existing professions and institutions for euthanasia simply because they possess the required medical knowledge is short sighted, and creates an obvious conflict of interest in many cases.
Euthanasia should not be considered a medical or health choice/procedure. It is a different kind of choice/procedure entirely. We are already in a situation where insurance companies and governments will say "we'll pay for procedure X but not Y". If euthansia is considered to be a procedure, just like any other, people will find themselves in the situation where euthanasia is the only procedure that will be paid for.
If you want to move this debate beyond the theoretical, then the best thing you can do for yourself and your loved ones is to make sure that you have set up proper legal documents (living will, advance directive, medical power of atty, etc). The last thing you want is for the state or some institution to decide these things for you when you are unable to, or for your family to squabble about it since you didn't leave them instructions. Your medical power of atty should empower a person you trust to carry out your wishes.