Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 870 posts

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#31

Post by InDubioProRubio »

dathos wrote: post #30

My grandma always told me when she couldn’t go on her walks anymore she didn’t consider life worth living. When she got dementia she was placed in a closed hospice, to “protect her”. Now she only walks when I visit, and I only see a shell of the woman she was. Anecdotal of course, but why do people think it’s an ethics question when society is individualistic as can be? There is no choice in being born, why don’t we…

Because half of society is a labour camp without guard towers- and if the slaves leave the camp it collapses in on itself.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#32

Post by bleakenthusiasm »

tptacek wrote: post #3

"Nearly all of those who requested assisted dying - around 96% - had a foreseeable natural death. The remaining 4% were granted euthanasia due to having a long-term chronic illness and where a natural death was not imminent". This is basically clickbait; the law is changing how people die of terminal conditions, but only a tiny fraction of those are deaths that really trace to the new law.

I think that's the point? The title is grabbing for attention, but the point of laws to choose assisted dying is basically always that people with terminal conditions often are in such pain that they choose a peaceful death over extending the pain.

You can read this title in an alarming way or just the same in a way that says "the law is working and people actually want this option".

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#33

Post by snakeyjake »

snehk wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #3

"Nearly all of those who requested assisted dying - around 96% - had a foreseeable natural death. The remaining 4% were granted euthanasia due to having a long-term chronic illness and where a natural death was not imminent". This is basically clickbait; the law is changing how people die of terminal conditions, but only a tiny fraction of those are deaths that really trace to the new law.

You cannot trust this article. Just check out the cases where they basically tell poor people that euthanasia is always an option. It's horrible. If they don't talk about where the program goes horribly wrong, we shouldn't listen to them when they talk about the supposed positives.

I don't think you need to try very hard to convince a terminally-ill patient in constant agony to end it, poor or not.

My 93 year old grandmother has COPD and she wants to end her life but cannot. She is NOT poor.

In her state in the US, a bipartisan bill was introduced to allow for euthanasia but the religious extremists killed it.

She coughs so badly, even on oxygen with frequent albuterol treatments, that she is constantly fracturing her ribs and spine and going on regimens of narcotics to keep the pain down to bearable levels-- which cause unending constipation and generally scramble her brain.

Can't move, can't talk, can't breathe, can't sit without pain, can't even shit.

Can't die either.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#34

Post by defrost »

snehk wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #3

"Nearly all of those who requested assisted dying - around 96% - had a foreseeable natural death. The remaining 4% were granted euthanasia due to having a long-term chronic illness and where a natural death was not imminent". This is basically clickbait; the law is changing how people die of terminal conditions, but only a tiny fraction of those are deaths that really trace to the new law.

You cannot trust this article. Just check out the cases where they basically tell poor people that euthanasia is always an option. It's horrible. If they don't talk about where the program goes horribly wrong, we shouldn't listen to them when they talk about the supposed positives.

Canada has, to the best of my knowledge, a single documented instance of a single case worker who suggested MAID to perhaps as many as five veterens.

Not one was talked into euthanasia, complaints were made, oversight is strong, the case worker dismissed, further guardrails added, and even had any of the veterens chased up on the MAID suggestion there were secondary layers in place that required interviews with other medical professionals.

This HN thread already has several links to the same case (eg: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted... and https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig...) it's well publicised.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#35

Post by amatecha »

dathos wrote: post #30

My grandma always told me when she couldn’t go on her walks anymore she didn’t consider life worth living. When she got dementia she was placed in a closed hospice, to “protect her”. Now she only walks when I visit, and I only see a shell of the woman she was. Anecdotal of course, but why do people think it’s an ethics question when society is individualistic as can be? There is no choice in being born, why don’t we…

Yeah, I knew someone who opted to have their dementia-suffering parent live with them until the end. That was tough, but... surely better than being left alone in a hospice/etc. as you mention. Unfortunately, yeah, you'll see the person just erode and ... it's really brutal as hell, ultra sad. Eventually the person is not even capable of consenting to euthanasia (nor any other medical procedure). Definitely something to discuss with family or closest friends especially upon getting diagnosed with an illness like that.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#36

Post by cowsandmilk »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #17
ben30 wrote: post #13

Fifteen years ago, flying into Vancouver, a local told me charities would give homeless people one-way bus tickets there from colder regions of Canada to prevent winter deaths. No return tickets in spring. Calls into question what we consider "charitable" when the solution is just moving vulnerable people elsewhere. Worrying parallel: will euthanasia become another "solution" for those who can't afford proper care an…

[flagged]

My experience with advanced cancer is that it is not. I routinely see people from the UK and Canada raising funds for legitimate treatments my insurance will cover because their governments won’t. To be fair, those treatments are paid for by the government in Nordic countries and France, so it isn’t universal that governments fail their sickest when treatments get expensive.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#37

Post by pavlov »

rjrdi38dbbdb wrote: post #28
spiderfarmer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's fairly common for governments to provide a basic level of care for free or heavily subsidized, but not cover more expensive treatments. It's certainly not exclusive to the US.

At least in Europe and the Nordic systems I have experience with, that typically applies to the very expensive novel treatments. There are gene therapies which can cost $2-3 million per patient and those aren't covered by any public healthcare system, AFAIK.

But it's not like there is some kind of upper limit on coverage. If you have cancer, you will get treatment regardless of how much your care has already cost.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#38

Post by [deleted] »

ben30 wrote: post #13

Fifteen years ago, flying into Vancouver, a local told me charities would give homeless people one-way bus tickets there from colder regions of Canada to prevent winter deaths. No return tickets in spring. Calls into question what we consider "charitable" when the solution is just moving vulnerable people elsewhere. Worrying parallel: will euthanasia become another "solution" for those who can't afford proper care an…

[deleted]

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#39

Post by bleakenthusiasm »

dathos wrote: post #30

My grandma always told me when she couldn’t go on her walks anymore she didn’t consider life worth living. When she got dementia she was placed in a closed hospice, to “protect her”. Now she only walks when I visit, and I only see a shell of the woman she was. Anecdotal of course, but why do people think it’s an ethics question when society is individualistic as can be? There is no choice in being born, why don’t we…

One reason is religion. That aside, people are afraid that this could be abused. People could choose this purelyto avoid additional cost to their relatives.

It could be used as an excuse why more costly options to avoid pain and suffering in old people might not be covered by insurance anymore.

People could be talked into it for various reasons.

Canada is a good example of a country where I think the base to make it work in a positive way is given. Their insurance covers a lot of treatments for basically everyone. The country cares about its citizens in a way that makes you believe they won't use euthanasia as a cop out to avoid paying for medical care.

If these circumstances are not given, euthanasia can easily be seen as an easy way to get rid of people who are too expensive for society or too cumbersome to take care of.

Re: Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

#40

Post by rich_sasha »

dathos wrote: post #30

My grandma always told me when she couldn’t go on her walks anymore she didn’t consider life worth living. When she got dementia she was placed in a closed hospice, to “protect her”. Now she only walks when I visit, and I only see a shell of the woman she was. Anecdotal of course, but why do people think it’s an ethics question when society is individualistic as can be? There is no choice in being born, why don’t we…

To my mind the main obstacle is kind of orthogonal: how do you protect the people who don't want to go, being pressured or manipulated. I agree that if someone is really, independently and committedly deciding to go, you shouldn't stop them. But how do you express that test in a bureaucratic, legalistic framework?

In a friend's family, there was a big rift as one family member in direct line of inheritance was accused of (successfully!) pressuring his mother to refuse medical care. She died sooner and more unpleasantly than she likely would have otherwise, leaving more money sooner to her children. And that wasn't even with euthanasia being legal.

I have lots of sympathy for people so desperate they would rather kill themselves, but I don't know how you square that circle.

Post reply on HN