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

201–210 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#201

Post by AzzieElbab »

prirun wrote: post #198
AzzieElbab wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have seen people clinging to their lives no matter how insufferable those lives seemed to me

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#202

Post by jpambrun »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #197
jpambrun wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Euthanasia can be favorable from both the individual and from society's perspective. I see no problem with that. We keep expanding life expectancy without asking ourselves if it's a good or desirable thing. I certainly wasn't asked and would like the option to opt out.

I also don't want lack a ressources be put forward as a justification to limit desired euthanasia making forced living even more unbearable..

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#203

Post by freedomben »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #201
prirun wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have seen people clinging to their lives no matter how insufferable those lives seemed to me

This is going to sound like criticism but I'm legitimately interested in understanding how you think and how you arrived at your opinions.

> I have seen people clinging to their lives no matter how insufferable those lives seemed to me

Sure there is no end of stories about people who want to live despite major setbacks. But what does that have to do with a person who doesn't? Is the person who doesn't wrong? Do you think they just have a bad attitude?

If we had two people with identical maladies, it seems to me that you are arguing that we should force Person B (who doesn't want to live) to continue living and suffering, because Person A does want to live. Please correct me if that isn't your view.

If instead we forced Person A (who wants to live) to die because Person B doesn't want to live. Would you see that as wrong/immoral?

Why must we force at all? What would be so wrong about letting the individuals (who are the ones experiencing the suffering) to decide?

I've lost people I care deeply for to suicide, so I know the pain that it can leave people with. However, it seems remarkably selfish to force others to live in misery against their will, simply because I want them to continue to live.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#204

Post by [deleted] »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #201
prirun wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have seen people clinging to their lives no matter how insufferable those lives seemed to me

[deleted]

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#205

Post by Rackedup »

Rackedup wrote: post #168
auxfil wrote: post #104

The 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.

It's the main reason why I like gay people... they don't reproduce.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#206

Post by freedomben »

jacquesm wrote: post #175

My uncle just 'chose to die'. And rightly so. He suffered from a very bad case of cancer that caused him incredible pain. Physically he could have probably lived on for another three to six months but it would have been three to six months in hell. He was quite literally screaming from the pain, even through the heaviest sedatives, the only thing that would have stopped that would have been an artificial coma. Euthan…

> Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief.

Yes, could not agree more. I see the same thing when arguing with people about accessibility to pain medications, where people who are generally healthy and not tormented by chronic pain want to throw roadblock after roadblock in people's way, and support policies that take away pain medication from people who need it which is literally torture. These people view addiction as

We like to think that we moderns are so much more enlightened than people of the past who engaged in extreme cruelty against others, but in reality we're still pretty horrible. We just do it now through a mix of apathy (out of sight, out of mind), hubris, and moralism, by building a system in which people aren't free to make their own medical decisions but instead are forced to concede to the dictates of another. It's no doubt progress given where we started, but we still have a long way to go. I am optimistic that at some point people will learn empathy and humility, and stop projecting their own thoughts/beliefs/opinions onto others by coercion.

I love this quote from CS Lewis:

> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

> They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#207

Post by DubiousPusher »

drekk wrote: post #200
DubiousPusher wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It can make you irrational. It doesn't necessarily. You are acting as if all mental illness is experienced uniformly the same across all people. It is not. And as if the severity does not vary over time. It does.

And dependimg the disease condition of the bipolar suferrer yes. Depending upon their stability which varies heavily from case to case and individual to individual. Would you want to do so at the peak of mania or the trough of depression, probably not.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#208

Post by ksaj »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #194
ksaj wrote: 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.

A dog has the capacity to absolutely enjoy life by laying down and napping in front of their favourite dirty tennis ball.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#209

Post by jacquesm »

freedomben wrote: post #206
jacquesm wrote: post #175

My uncle just 'chose to die'. And rightly so. He suffered from a very bad case of cancer that caused him incredible pain. Physically he could have probably lived on for another three to six months but it would have been three to six months in hell. He was quite literally screaming from the pain, even through the heaviest sedatives, the only thing that would have stopped that would have been an artificial coma. Euthan…

> Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief. Yes, could not agree more. I see the same thing when arguing with people about accessibility to pain medications, where people who are generally healthy and not tormented by chronic pain want to throw roadblock after roadblock in peo…

What strikes me as the common element in all those situations is that it is always people deciding how others should live or act. It's never about them, they are doing just fine. But others, those should abide by the fairly arbitrary restrictions thrown up. Either because of religion, or because of fear there is always some button that can be pressed to get people to tell other people how they should live their lives.

You can see this in almost every ethics debate, be it about gay marriage, euthanasia, treatment of prisoners, immigration, abortion etc. And as a rule it's the same 'busybodies' as you call them on the wrong side of the argument.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#210

Post by danbolt »

vanattab wrote: post #184
danbolt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hospital administrator might be under pressure from a Provincial government to improve “efficiency” and keep beds available, but your average doctor/nurse likely isn’t incentivized for that sort of outcome. Canadian elections are generally won in suburbs, so Provincial governments are generally hesitant to increase quality of care via tax revenues. This usually results in discussions of federal funding to improve c…

So if we let hospital administrators pressure people into assisted suicide all's good?

No, I personally wish voters in each of the Canadian provinces would understand that taxpayer money on healthcare is well-spent. They should be voting for Premiers and cabinets that aren’t going to create this environment.
Post reply on HN