Live data from Hacker News

Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

apnews.com

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stab…

The whole point is that they are unable to make that choice. A substantial decision made in sound mind implies rationality, which mental disease, by definition, diminishes. If you equate a person's rational choices with everything that comes out of their mouth, then you will euthanize a whole lot of mentally troubled or people.

Just because someone is experiencing mental illness doesn't mean they are irrational.

I'm not even sure it's possible to divide the world between "mentally ill" and "mentally well". And if you could, I'd be inclined to say almost anyone who has been in serious chronic pain for years cannot possibly be considered "mentally well". Pain takes its own toll.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#192
I'm not seeing the central issue (imo) discussed, ie. is there a conflict of interest given that the party facilitating death is reducing cost of operation by doing so.

You can't come to consensus (imo) without factoring the answer to this question into your argument.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#193
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?

[deleted]

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#194
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#195
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.

This is not something I would like. I want to be able to choose, for myself, when the enjoyment I get out of life is outweighed by the suffering of illness or other afflictions.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#196

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…

Without working earing you can get severely isolated which make you life miserable. My mother is loosing hearing, but she lack the mental abilities to learn sign language or even lip reading. She doesn't have the strength and memory to read book. Her existence will soon be reduced to looking at a white wall for most weaken hours.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.

This is not something I would like. I want to be able to choose, for myself, when the enjoyment I get out of life is outweighed by the suffering of illness or other afflictions.

Me too but what we have here in Canada is the situation where healthcare is denied and delayed. 1500 died in Ontario while waiting for surgeries in 2021 for example. Keep this course until euthanasia becomes preferable option?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#198
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.

It's your opinion that reading a book and watching grandchildren is enough to make your life enjoyable, which is fine. That doesn't mean it is enough to make my life enjoyable, especially considering whatever difficulties I may be wrestling with, whether medical, emotional, financial, etc.

And no, more government resources may not always be able to mitigate my suffering. IMO it is horrible that we require a person to take their own life by violence (which is always allowed and cannot be prevented) rather than helping them take it in an easier way.

A personal story: my mother was 74 and developed a respiratory infection overnight. I was with her Friday night watching TV, but Saturday morning she didn't answer the phone. We went to her house and she was too weak to get out of bed and couldn't go to the bathroom. She said she just wanted to stay in bed but my sister talked her into letting us call 911. When they came, they said her oxygen level was 55, and that it would not be unusual for a person to die with that level.

She was put on oxygen at the hospital and they took an X-ray to confirm pneumonia. They wanted to do a bunch of tests but she refused. They said without the tests, she would probably die. She was okay with that.

Why would a 74-y/o who watched TV with her son the night before want to die? I'll tell you why: she had been in the medical system for the last 40 years with rheumatoid arthritis. She was on a walker because her last hip surgery didn't go well: they told her she would be driving within 2 weeks after the surgery, but instead, she was on a walker the rest of her life because her bones were unable to heal. The hospital said she'd have to drag an oxygen tank around the rest of her life. She could barely get around on a walker, so dragging around a tank would have been impossible. This is just the tip of the iceberg of her daily challenges.

I'm sure someone has "solutions" to all of her problems. But just because that would be acceptable to you and make your life worth living doesn't mean it is acceptable to others. Whether a life is worth living is a personal decision: the state or a bunch of "do gooders" cannot make this decision for a person.

I'm a firm believer that people should have the right to outline the circumstances ahead of time where they would prefer to die so that in the event they become unable to make this decision, they can die a dignified death. And if they are not incapacitated, people should have the right to make this decision for any reason, just like they can take their life by violence for any reason. I am not opposed to requiring a few counseling sessions to make sure they have considered all their options, but the outcome of counseling should not be used to decide for that person whether they should be allowed to commit suicide in a humane way. A person should always have that right, whether others agree with their decision or not.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#199

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.

"I think 18 year olds should be able to end their lives because they got a bad grade in a class and who knows their life better than them" — I rewrote what you were saying. This strawmanning stuff sure is easy!

Patients aren't always rational actors. In the US at least, doctors have < 25 minutes per person. There are well documented biases in medicine (try getting your tubes tied as a single woman) and my concern is that it very easily veers into eugenics territory. If we can't treat something why not screen for it in utero and terminate pregnancies with appreciable odds of developing terminal or chronic diseases with no known cures?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is that they are unable to make that choice. A substantial decision made in sound mind implies rationality, which mental disease, by definition, diminishes. If you equate a person's rational choices with everything that comes out of their mouth, then you will euthanize a whole lot of mentally troubled or people.

Just because someone is experiencing mental illness doesn't mean they are irrational. I'm not even sure it's possible to divide the world between "mentally ill" and "mentally well". And if you could, I'd be inclined to say almost anyone who has been in serious chronic pain for years cannot possibly be considered "mentally well". Pain takes its own toll.

Depression absolutely makes people irrational. It changes your risk calculus. Are we going to act like other disorders such as bipolar are rational and should be listened to whenever at face value?
Post reply on HN