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

231–240 of 870 posts

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

#231

Post by JohnBooty »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #179
jandrese wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With everything medical it is complicated. If someone is 85 and gets a theoretically treatable form of cancer they're looking at months or years of grueling chemotherapy and surgeries to get at most few more years of life. I would not blame anybody for skipping treatment or even getting euthanasia to avoid the really sucky part where the cancer is killing you painfully, especially if their life partner has already pa…

When my mom had cancer I told her she better do everything she could to beat it (she was a super hippie no chemicals person). I remember she was taking some horrible toxic chemo pill that made her miserable (like even her, the person taking the pill, had to handle it with gloves taking it out of the bottle), and I was like mom, stop taking it if it makes you miserable. She broke into tears and was suddenly so gratefu…

I'm so sorry, that's just awful. I am glad you guys had some resolution, I guess for lack of a better word... I hope that time has eased the pain some

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

#232

Post by itishappy »

nashashmi wrote: post #154
guyzero wrote: post #131

My Canadian parents are in their 80's so naturally a lot of their friends of the same age are dying. And two of them have been via MAID. In one case, which was surprising to me, a man who had survived cancer - he was not terminal but certainly wasn't getting any better - elected to die via MAID after his wife died. She passed, he called his doctor and less than a week later he was also dead. He got a chance to visit…

This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.

> It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish.

How is the desire to avoid burdening others selfish?

"You can't choose to kill yourself because that would be suicide" is a tautology, not an argument. What's the basis for these beliefs?

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

#233

Post by sn0wf1re »

renewiltord wrote: post #182
niceice wrote: post #170

"For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity." Any good hypothesis about this?

Demographics in 75+ age group. It’s late here or I would have looked up in Stat Can before posting. But that’s where you should check.

Looks like 66% of people 75+ identify as European Origins

     math 1_710_255/2_595_470
    0.658938
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=981003...

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

#234

Post by ourmandave »

Where do I sign up?

My parent and an aunt both have dementia and there's no way I'm going to hang around not remembering who the hell my family is or where I am.

I could hang on like Jimmy Carter (who is mental sound) and go 20+ years as a shadow of my former self.

Not putting my family through that.

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

#235

Post by karencarits »

groby_b wrote: post #214
darth_avocado wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would’ve expected at least a waiting period longer than a week after a traumatic event. Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it.

>Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it. And that's the point. The person expressing the wish (and expressing it before the death) did. People make choices. We should let them, wherever possible. Yes, there are consequences - but we also let people fly wingsuits and base jump, and those have known consequences as well. Would you also enjoin people from doing that after a traumatic event? What about mo…

If someone became extremely risk taking after a traumatic event, putting their life at stake at several occasions, it's not unreasonable to believe that - at least in some countries - the person would be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, possibly through a temporary involuntary commitment

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

#236

Post by thijson »

gspencley wrote: post #114
afh1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "we". There are people and their bodies and their wishes. And authoritarians who want a say on it. Doesn't matter if nice sounding words like law and democracy are used to describe the tyranny.

I share your view, but it gets crazy complicated when you're dealing with homicide (I'm using this word to mean it's literal definition: 'death caused by another person', not to mean a crime occurred necessarily). Euthanasia is controversial for a lot of reasons. Some people worry that authoritarians will use it as a way to "purge" or, such as here in Canada, as a way to "reneg" on health care obligations that tax pa…

I'm reminded of this guy each time this topic comes up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NU_84eCKI

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/in-2000-walkerton-s-pois...

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

#237

Post by Analemma_ »

bleakenthusiasm wrote: post #39
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…

> People could choose this purelyto avoid additional cost to their relatives.

Why is this a bad thing? If there's a choice between giving $100,000 to my descendants and using it to keep me intubated in a hospital bed for an extra 6 months, I find the former preferable by far. If someone else doesn't, that's fine, but I find comments like this both annoying and creepily authoritarian in saying that the correct choice is obvious and so they're going to make the decision for me.

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

#238

Post by toasterlovin »

caseyohara wrote: post #186
darth_avocado wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would’ve expected at least a waiting period longer than a week after a traumatic event. Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it.

Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? Especially people in their 80s, they have earned the right to agency. It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and the…

> Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?

I think the obvious counterpoint is that MAID is about people enlisting others to help kill them, which is no longer merely "being in charge of their own lives".

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

#239

Post by karencarits »

kerkeslager wrote: post #204
nashashmi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.

Immature, arrogant, and selfish is a good description of a person who demands other people stay alive despite immense suffering, just so you can feel morally superior and not have to experience loss.

I agree that we should avoid such terms in general in this forum as it degrades the discussion. I think we can all agree that these are complex ethical questions where several values are at stake and there isn't one obviously superior ethical stand.

What I read from your comment, is that you think peoples fear of loss impacts the discussion to much and shouldn't be given much weight in the question?

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

#240

Post by JohnBooty »

potato3732842 wrote: post #206
resoluteteeth wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are concerns about assisted suicide being pushed on marginalized people who don't have terminal illnesses in Canada. I don't know if that is being driven by "authoritarians" but implying that the issue is just doctors providing death as a service (i.e. to people who are specifically requesting it unprompted) may not be completely accurate.

I'm not worried about anyone "pushing" it. I'm worried about groups being put at the back of the line for other forms of care because the decision makers know that "worst case" more of them will off themselves and find that to be a fine outcome.

That is a danger for sure, but every single path we as a society here take can be exploited by people with ill intentions.

The pharma companies and hospitals have a financial incentive to keep people alive indefinitely, even despite horrible suffering.

The folks paying for the treatment (government, insurance, etc) have a financial incentive to terminate lives prematurely.

Family members with ill intentions may have various nefarious reasons to push for either outcome.

So the question with which we should begin is, "what is the right thing?" and build safeguards around that.

We cannot let "fear of corrupting influences" be the primary guiding principle here because every possible choice as a society here because there's a pretty strong financial incentive to corrupt these choices in either direction.

Post reply on HN