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

291–300 of 870 posts

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

#291

Post by Salgat »

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…

I know it's morbid to discuss but the relief of financial burden on society is also significant. Not only do they die with dignity, but they are giving back to society.

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

#292

Post by jncfhnb »

rich_sasha wrote: post #40
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 accuse…

Sounds to me like your family friend’s mother would have died more pleasantly if euthanasia were legal.

There are plenty of ways to pressure people into death, as you have already demonstrated. That’s not going away.

Emotional burdens to encourage people to live as long as possible even if you think they’re suffering are likely a far bigger problem. People know it’s unethical not to euthanize animals that are suffering. Lacking the social apparatus to suggest euthanizing humans is almost certainly a huge moral weakness.

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

#293

Post by Boogie_Man »

aaplok wrote: post #222
caseyohara wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing is, someone has to. If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period? Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on th…

Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning".

Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.

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

#294

Post by giarc »

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…

In your first example, I suspect there was probably other things present you weren't made aware of. Currently the requirements in Canada include (only copy those relevant to your example).

-have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2027)

-be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability

-have enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html#s1

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

#295

Post by mrguyorama »

karencarits wrote: post #242
RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, my grand parents both died in their nineties and their last two years were really sad. It was not so much the physical decline but the mental one. At the end, while technically alive, so little of who they were as persons remained, they might as well have been dead. I fully understand someone in their 80s knowing the end is near choosing to leave on their own term.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I wondered, when you described feeling "really sad" and the sense that people "might as well have been dead," I'm wondering if you're speaking about your own emotional response or trying to convey how the individuals themselves felt about their situation? Edited to sound less harsh

If you know an ancestor with Alzheimer's or other generic "you just kinda decline" diseases, they "die" long before their heart stops beating.

I haven't been able to talk to my grandfather, or hear his stories, or learn about him, or share anything with him, or even be a part of his life for at least 5 years now. He will probably be "alive" for another five years. He mostly just coasts through life. He doesn't really get to interact with friends, because the ones that aren't dying, he doesn't remember. When I see him, he asks me about graduating high school, which I did over a decade ago now.

I doubt he would choose to die, but when I get to experience the exact same thing in 40 years, I'm pretty sure I'd rather chew on a 12 gauge. Having a more reliable and less terrifying option is important.

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

#296

Post by HideousKojima »

dogman1050 wrote: post #119

After watching my father die with COPD, it because obvious that euthanasia happens in the US all the time. He opted out of lung-reduction surgery and was ready to die. So the hospital withheld IV hydration and provided a morphine drip and he was gone in 36 hours. How long can one live without water, a few days max? So that's what killed him. My sister-in-law who's a physician told me that's how it's typically done. I…

Withholding aid is morally fundamentally different than proactively ending someone's life.

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

#298

Post by hattmall »

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…

The issue is that every OB/GYN has seen patients that regret the decision. And for most they will have seen instances where that regret ultimately led to suicide.

Do you really want to be the doctor that didn't press for more consideration for a patient that ultimately takes their own life?

I get the idea of giving women control but as a doctor it's also their right to refuse a procedure to not bear that burden. It's similar to the theory of justice that states it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished.

It's easier to deal with a lot of angry patients vs one that commits suicide.

At least with the euthanasia there's not really going to be any rebounding patient regret to deal with!

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

#299

Post by jncfhnb »

nashashmi wrote: post #168
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…

> why do people think it’s an ethics question when society is individualistic as can be Because we disagree that society is individualistic. We are social creatures, not individualist creatures. And we need people around us. Including you needing your grandma. And she needs people like you. turn the question around: why do people feel easy escapes are ok? We came in this world and were assisted in our upbringing and…

What do you need from grandma, who is in constant pain and desires to die?

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

#300

Post by potatochup »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #269
karencarits wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I wondered, when you described feeling "really sad" and the sense that people "might as well have been dead," I'm wondering if you're speaking about your own emotional response or trying to convey how the individuals themselves felt about their situation? Edited to sound less harsh

(I’m not op) The full quote is > At the end, while technically alive, so little of who they were as persons remained, they might as well have been dead. It sounds like there was some severe mental decline. When undergoing this kind of mental decline, does anybody remain happy? That’s meant as a genuine question, not rhetorical. Of course I’ve heard of the cases where people are constantly scared, feel unsafe, confuse…

My Oma went through Alzheimer's. Sbe went from being a functional adult, to forgetting how to speak English, to mistaking family members, to recognizing no one, to being unable to feed herself over the course of 10 years. But she seemed happy most of the time, usually smiling, would light up when she saw people, she would attempt to sing along to whatever music was playing. So I'd say she remained happy most of the time, which made it much easier to deal with from our end.
Post reply on HN