Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#241

Post by devwastaken » Sun, Aug 21, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

drekk wrote: post #199

devwastaken wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

If they're 18, and can fight to die in foreign sands over oil. They can choose to end their life too. At some point people have rights, and you will respect that.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#242

Post by yumraj » Sun, Aug 21, 2022, 9:43 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #227

yumraj wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Between "consenting" adults that doesn't involve anyone else, absolutely..

Could you give an example when it shouldn't be allowed. It's certainly possible I'm not considering everything.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#243

Post by dudul » Mon, Aug 22, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

yumraj wrote: post #242

dudul wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Between "consenting" adults that doesn't involve anyone else, absolutely.. Could you give an example when it shouldn't be allowed. It's certainly possible I'm not considering everything.

There was this case a while ago of a wannabe cannibal who found someone who wanted to be eaten. The cannibal was arrested. Are you saying he shouldn't have been and it was perfectly fine for him to eat a consenting adult?

And admittedly I'm reaching right away for the edgiest of edge cases.

Edit to add the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#244

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 6:32 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #233

CogitoCogito wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 to answer, "Yes, your life is not worth living". Especially if I was your doctor. That's is _not_ what is being asked of the doctors. They are being asked to determine whether the patient truly believes their life isn't worth living. They are trying to determine if the patient is clear of mind…

You are calling me heartless for suggesting that suicidal people often crave approval for their decision. I can't see how that's heartless unless we ARE expected to support their decision, which you say we aren't. My personal feelings about suicide become relevant when others start involving me in their suicide. I can't just "get out of the way" when I am put in that position. (The state has already gotten out of the…

> My personal feelings about suicide become relevant when others start involving me in their suicide.

I'm really confused. I mean I assume you must be a doctor right? If not, literally none of this makes any sense since you're not being included in anything.

Regardless, your job as a doctor would be to determine whether a terminal patient making a decision to end his or her life is clear of mind. That is it. You wouldn't be approving of their suicide.

Your position is basically the epitome of selfishness. You are taking something that is not about you and making it about you. Your emotions simply do not matter. Grow up and understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. People shouldn't have to go through unnecessary suffering because you for some reason take their own entirely personal decisions about their own lives and make it somehow about you.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#245

Post by indymike » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 11:15 AM UTC

manholio wrote: post #100

yardstick wrote: post #49

For some more context, in 2020 about 2.4% of all deaths (7,383 people) were euthanasia related. And the vast majority were over 60. Extracts: “In 2017, 2,838 medically assisted deaths were reported by Health Canada, compared with 4,478 deaths in 2018. In 2019, there were 5,425 medically assisted deaths in Canada, accounting for 1.9% of all deaths. In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada)…

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.

As an old guy with an incurable disease, nothing is more frightening than people who want me to die before I'm ready to go.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#246

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 10:38 AM UTC

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…

Thank you for posting this, it can't have been easy to spell it out but the naysayers are going to have to come to terms with reality as it is experienced by those that actually have lived through this instead of just armchair theorizing about why it does not apply to them.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#247

Post by sacrosancty » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

csnover wrote: post #231

sacrosancty wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the article is that Canada's system needs safeguards. Other countries have them. This is not a black and white pro- or anti- assisted suicide article. Killing someone for having depression and deafness is not the same as for having terminal cancer and constant pain and being bedridden. This is really not a decision for the individual patients to have freedom in. I know multiple young people who hav…

> The whole point of the article is that Canada's system needs safeguards. If this were truly the point of the article, it would have spent less time trying to make emotional pleas and implying that assisted suicide for non-terminal patients is somehow immoral and/or a direct road to eugenics. Canada’s system does have safeguards, and whether or not they are good enough is not actually answered by a couple anecdotes…

I come from a country which just legalized euthanasia and part of the safeguards we have is to try to be very sure that nobody takes it because they're suicidal due to depression. That might not be truly fair since some people might really be suffering that badly from it, as you say. But I came into this discussion with the prejudice that depression was an important reason to deny suicide assistance and the article gives an example of somebody who apparently died because of it.

You seem to be more open minded and consider depression might be an acceptable reason for doctors to kill their patients on request, if the patient really really wants it?