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

71–80 of 870 posts

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

#71

Post by Martinussen »

sramsay64 wrote: post #63
The_Colonel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I would look into countries where euthanasia has been already implemented. It doesn't seem like it's a widespread problem, so apparently they made it work…

> I would look into countries where euthanasia has been already implemented. That's what puts me off of the idea in the first place. Cases like Christine Gauthier (a former army corporal and paralympian) who was offered euthanasia when trying to seek government disability benefits to install a wheelchair ramp. If it takes someone with existing fame to speak out about this, how many more people has this been pushed on…

I think these are valid concerns, but I would also say that there is an underlying issue with medical malpractice and disregard for the suffering and needs of certain groups of society which we tend to brush under the rug. I'm going to assume the concerns you have probably don't stop at just euthanasia - mine definitely don't, and I worry that a ban just makes the issue more... abstract, and PR-friendly.

If an individual in a difficult life situation comes to the state for help as a last resort, and there is a chance the representative they are assigned would recommend they should consider just dying as their last resort, the state has already failed to protect someone vulnerable, and obviously won't be giving them the help they deserve/need/should be entitled to as a human.

Any wrongful death is horrible, but I sincerely believe a "representative" like this and the harm they inflict is going to have an almost identical death toll, even if it's by way of consigning people to sub-human lives of physical or mental torment instead of pushing them towards a tool that "everyone" understands we need to keep a close eye on. My utilitarian take would be that many would happily extend the torment of the terminally ill and suffering, as long as they don't have to deal with the suffering their neglect inflicts on countless vulnerable people and the terminally ill already. (For e-clarity, I don't mean to imply that's your motivation here!)

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

#72

Post by throwaway313313 »

yoavm wrote: post #56
throwaway313313 wrote: post #44

In a system of socialized medicine, is the goal of society to spend the money available to save the most people? Taking into account that people have the greatest medical costs near the end of their life, should the system save others by limiting either the total available spend or the cost of any particular treatment according to some metric? Should the system repeatedly and frequently remind people that are older a…

Isn't this overcomplicating it? Euthanasia doesn't require advertising, it seems like people yearn for it even in places where it isn't allowed. The point is that it should be a legitimate choice, not a suggestion by society. Just like your doctor doesn't tell you that it's probably time for you to become a parent, no doctor should recommend you to be gone.

Health care professionals consult with their patients to explore their needs and suggest options regularly. This is expected and normal.

The professionals making suggestions naturally have biases. That behavior gets a bit interesting when one of the options is euthanasia.

Here's a few cases:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig...

"Last summer, Global News first reported a case where a veteran claimed to have been pressured by a veterans affairs case worker to consider medically assisted dying."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/canada-offered-assisted-sui...

"Canada offered assisted suicide to a Paralympian veteran who wanted a wheelchair lift installed"

https://care.org.uk/news/2023/07/canadian-army-veterans-diag...

"Canadian army-veterans diagnosed with PTSD offered euthanasia"

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

#73

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gnfargbl wrote: post #41

During the recent debate around the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK, I listened to a radio phone-in in which a palliative care doctor explained that it wasn't possible to relieve all suffering for all patients. They relayed an example of a person who had spent their last days vomiting fully-formed faeces. If we can prevent five, ten or perhaps twenty percent of people having gruesome deaths, then not doing so feels lik…

A more important point is that even in a more normal palliative care situation, which previously may have involved a borderline illegal increase of drugs near the end to hasten and ease death, might now be recorded as an assisted death instead.

So a more interesting stat might be the expected quality of life adjusted years that have been cut off by the assisted deaths.

I'm not sure if QUALY can go negative but some measure that can might be appropriate when talking about assisted death.

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

#74

Post by d1sxeyes »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #47
d1sxeyes wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is ultimately a monetary value of extended life. In single payer systems, that’s determined by a body whose responsibility is to provide the most effective healthcare to all its citizens given a limited budget. In the US, the monetary value of extending your life is proportional to the amount of money you spend on your health insurance (and appropriate actuarial tables). Both systems have flaws.

Both systems have flaws? True, but it’s a false equivalence. There’s a reason why there’s only one country in the world where insurance company CEO’s have to hire security to walk around in public.

Not really. At the end of the day, in both systems, the person paying for the healthcare decides what healthcare options are available to the patient. In the US, the patient themselves (or their insurer) is paying.

In other countries, it’s often the health service itself that is paying.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the single payer system is infinitely better, but for a small number of people, it will lead to worse healthcare outcomes.

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

#75

Post by gnfargbl »

SapporoChris wrote: post #59
gnfargbl wrote: post #41

During the recent debate around the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK, I listened to a radio phone-in in which a palliative care doctor explained that it wasn't possible to relieve all suffering for all patients. They relayed an example of a person who had spent their last days vomiting fully-formed faeces. If we can prevent five, ten or perhaps twenty percent of people having gruesome deaths, then not doing so feels lik…

"They relayed an example of a person who had spent their last days vomiting fully-formed faeces." Sounds like a fully-formed exaggeration. Vomiting once or twice a day is not spending your last days vomiting. More frequent vomiting? The supply could not possibly meet the demand. Especially if the patient stopped eating.

You can listen to the account yourself at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00253mt, from around 25 minutes onwards. I found it convincing.

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

#76

Post by gnfargbl »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #73
gnfargbl wrote: post #41

During the recent debate around the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK, I listened to a radio phone-in in which a palliative care doctor explained that it wasn't possible to relieve all suffering for all patients. They relayed an example of a person who had spent their last days vomiting fully-formed faeces. If we can prevent five, ten or perhaps twenty percent of people having gruesome deaths, then not doing so feels lik…

A more important point is that even in a more normal palliative care situation, which previously may have involved a borderline illegal increase of drugs near the end to hasten and ease death, might now be recorded as an assisted death instead. So a more interesting stat might be the expected quality of life adjusted years that have been cut off by the assisted deaths. I'm not sure if QUALY can go negative but some m…

Negative QALY values do appear possible, according to https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S10983015106004... (via Wikipedia).

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

#77

Post by rich_sasha »

invalidname wrote: post #68
rich_sasha wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accuse…

How do you prevent people from smoking? Eating processed food? Is the fact that the process of suicide is slower/more conventional a difference? People seeking this process go through a psychological evaluation to determine if they are under duress and of clear mind. Also there's liability to the ones applying undue pressure which can be criminal. I think there's a point of personal responsibility. Potential abuse of…

As I say, my concern isn't academic. I was close to a situation where someone was allegedly coerced into refusing medical help. It was in fact investigated, ended up as word against word, and nothing came of it. That was in a jurisdiction where euthanasia is not legal and anyway such coercion would be illegal, for both the coercer and the doctors. It didn't stop the alleged coercion, and no one was prosecuted. So how leaky would the system be where euthanasia is in facr legal?

But please don't get me wrong, I am absolutely full of sympathy to people so desperately ill they want to call it quits.

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

#79

Post by invalidname »

rich_sasha wrote: post #77
invalidname wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you prevent people from smoking? Eating processed food? Is the fact that the process of suicide is slower/more conventional a difference? People seeking this process go through a psychological evaluation to determine if they are under duress and of clear mind. Also there's liability to the ones applying undue pressure which can be criminal. I think there's a point of personal responsibility. Potential abuse of…

As I say, my concern isn't academic. I was close to a situation where someone was allegedly coerced into refusing medical help. It was in fact investigated, ended up as word against word, and nothing came of it. That was in a jurisdiction where euthanasia is not legal and anyway such coercion would be illegal, for both the coercer and the doctors. It didn't stop the alleged coercion, and no one was prosecuted. So how…

Neither is my concern academic. My MIL struggled with cancer treatments for a decade of terrible pain. My father was catatonic with Alzheimer and my mother is in a pretty bad place health-wise.

I don't want to appear dismissive of your concerns because I'm not. Such abuse is horrible, criminal and tragic. No question. But looking at the morality issue and consistency I think the answer is pretty clear. We need to give people agency over their own lives. Safeguards are essential for sure, and abuse will happen even with the safeguards in place. But the current situation is just tragic. People are afraid to go to the hospital because they're afraid they will be kept alive and in-effect tortured to a slow death.

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

#80

Post by deepburner »

utopicwork wrote: post #78

"But what if someone wants to kill themselves its against their rights for them to be restricted from doing so" We dont need to make it easier for people to kill themselves we need it to be easier to live a fulfilling life so they don't want to

Good luck helping somebody paralyzed from the neck down live a fulfilling life.
Post reply on HN