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

221–230 of 247 posts

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#221

Post by rnd0 »

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.…

In short; if we can't take care of them we ought to be able to at least off them?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#222

Post by rnd0 »

ksaj wrote: post #148
actually_a_dog wrote: post #111

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?

The difference is that your dog isn't a member of a vulnerable population that the government and society has a political, social and economic incentive to kill.

Living in the US I can easily imagine our lawmakers and business people reading about this and staring longingly out the window at the homeless camps, wondering how to implement this here. Particularly in Seattle and San Francisco (which are already low-key at "war" with the homeless).

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#223

Post by ben_w »

mberger wrote: post #185
ben_w wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term for what is done to pets and research animals is "euthanasia" — is that consensual? Or even "assented" or "acquiesced" to, if you want to side-step the question of how informed one has to be for it to count as "consent".

Pets are not people and cannot consent. Euthanasia is not assisted dying. There is no 'assistance' when one party doesn't share the goal. Straw man.

The previous comments, the link text, the article on the other side of the link, and the Canadian members of parliament debating this law all used the term “euthanasia”, so no, it is not a straw man.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#224

Post by zx85wes »

oleander73 wrote: post #143
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.

That's not happening because MAID is much cheaper. That's the way it is in my part of Europe anyway.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#225

Post by Rackedup »

Rackedup wrote: post #205
Rackedup wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why the down votes? I can't like whoever I want? Im part of the LGBTIQZ community

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#226

Post by JellyBeanThief »

rnd0 wrote: post #221
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.…

In short; if we can't take care of them we ought to be able to at least off them?

In short; if they decide we can't take care of them and they wish to off themselves, we ought to honor that decision.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#227

Post by dudul »

yumraj wrote: post #216
daenz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But, isn’t it their choice? If they are adults, and have lived at least a few decades.. I’ve never figured out why we as a society want to impose our morality on others.

I find this statement a bit too generic. Should society allow everything happening between consenting adults?

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#228

Post by moonchild »

yibg wrote: post #94
seibelj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A baby that will certainly die at birth, or likely cause death to the mother, is one thing. A perfectly healthy baby 1 day before birth that is put to death is entirely different. There is nothing magical about birth that makes it OK to slit the throat of a healthy baby. As a thought experiment, imagine a healthy baby born premature 1 day early. Could you take a knife and stab it to death as it screams and cries? If…

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

I don't think it's a straw man. They were using a hypothetical scenario as an analogy.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#229

Post by oleander73 »

O__________O wrote: post #154
oleander73 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sim…

I'm not considered terminally ill yet by most "official" definitions (you have to have months to live). I'm lucky to have a cancer that so far response to treatment to slow it down substantially. This is relevant to the discussion because it means I'm more or less in the same position as the non-terminally ill people you are talking about. In my locale there are euthanasia laws, but they require that I suffer unbearably before euthanasia is allowed. I do not like this prospect one bit. I'd much rather die before reaching that phase. So the reality is that people's discomfort with death will potentially cause me great suffering. This makes this discussion very personal to me. Even though it might seem to you my situation is substantially different.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#230

Post by [deleted] »

bawolff wrote: post #85
throwaway892238 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for making people's lives better. But people deserve the choice of what treatment they will or won't accept. That's what informed consent is about. We don't force surgeries on people just because they have a good prognosis; the person still has to consent to the surgery (if they are capable). Even if there is a treatment with a very good prognosis that could magically make you happier, you deserve the right t…

There are some difficult philosophical questions here. If someone has an ailment, that is causing their mind to think euthanasia is the answer, but if they had the treatment to the ailment, they would no longer think so, are they of sound mind? I'm not sure where the line is on that, and i think its far from obvious.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN