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

381–390 of 870 posts

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

#381

Post by toasterlovin »

tivert wrote: post #289
toasterlovin wrote: post #263

What is the steelman argument for why it's okay to help people kill themselves a la MAID, but not okay to execute murderers? (Assuming the argument against capital punishment is that mistakes are often or sometimes made)

> What is the steelman argument for why it's okay to help people kill themselves a la MAID, but not okay to execute murderers? I would assume it's something that centers personal bodily autonomy above all other competing moral considerations. Under that libertarian moral framework, the murderer who does not want to be executed cannot be killed because they don't want it, while the person who want MAID can be killed j…

Under that framework, could it be argued that the murderer has implicitly consented by committing an act they should have reasonably foreseen would result in their own death?

(Not well thought out here, just trying this argument on for size)

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

#382

Post by simonh »

gambiting wrote: post #364
adamiscool8 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative dogma of egocentric hedonism creates at least as many monsters.

Why is the alternative dogma egocentric hedonism? To me, the alternative to what she was doing is "dogma" of caring for another human. If they need help, if they cry out in pain, help them - not collect imaginary points of sending them to heaven. Not sure where egocentric hedonism plays into this.

You’re replying to someone who presumably thinks that if they personally didn’t have religion, they would be an egotistic hedonist. They don’t realise that doesn’t apply to many other people. I think with people like that, we’re better off if they keep their religion.

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

#383

Post by toasterlovin »

christina97 wrote: post #304
toasterlovin wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

The others are really not necessary from a technical pov, could have suicide pill vending machines around the place.

Right, but if the vending machines with suicide pills are specifically for suicide, then the help of others is still very much necessary. And of course, you'd want to prevents kids and drunk people from using the machines, so you'd need some kind of a gatekeeper.

And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.

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

#384

Post by toasterlovin »

rawgabbit wrote: post #356
toasterlovin wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The hospital (a Catholic hospital, even) provided a morphine drip and they were gone within an hour. FWIW, Catholic ethics are actually fairly well thought out on this issue. You're not allowed to withhold basic nourishment (food, hydration, non-invasive breathing support), but you are allowed to opt out of invasive procedures such as intubation and provide pain management if the patient or the patient's guardian d…

Thanks for the link. It affirmed my understanding of church teaching. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be excessively burdensome for the patient or would cause significant physical discomfort.

Yes, "when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life" is key, since there's some discussion in other parts of the thread about withholding nutrition as a form of euthanasia, which Catholic teaching is very much not okay with.

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

#385

Post by simonh »

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…

Is there any country in the world with laws allowing assisted dying that actually allows what you describe, or is it a fantasy that’s irrelevant to the actual policies we’re discussing?

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

#386

Post by nprateem »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #197
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #169

M. Scott Peck wrote a book about euthanasia long ago. I wonder if people still read Peck. “Denial of the soul,” that was the title. The foundational belief for euthanasia must be that there is no soul.

Why can't the foundational belief be that we have a soul that has been sundered from our Creator by The Enemy during a primordial Manichean duel and keeping it separate is the highest sin and only by returning it to where it properly belongs are doing good? It isn't like the only two options are "the Christian conception of a soul" and "the atheists rejection of the conception of a soul".

We keep ourselves separate by thinking instead of just being :(

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

#387

Post by guyzero »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #368
Yeul wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah, the first noble truth of Christianity is life is suffering.

I remember Jesus explaining to one of his bodhisattvas about how you can relieve suffering through the cessation of desire.

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

#388

Post by guyzero »

rightbyte wrote: post #262
guyzero wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had apparently expressed his intention before she passed. I do not know all the details and this is second hand, but he apparently had a plan.

[flagged]

I believe they had a funeral together. That was part of the reason for the short waiting time.

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

#389

Post by aliasxneo »

Yeul wrote: post #329
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…

[flagged]

While I can appreciate where you're trying to come from, I wouldn't be so quick to make such an all-encompassing statement. Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." There's a duality here (the now/then tension) in that Jesus brings the fullness of life both here and in the next life.

This doesn't preclude suffering, though, which I agree is a central tenant of Christianity. I would argue the primary role of suffering, from the Christian view, is to bring about conformity to Christ in this life.

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

#390

Post by nprateem »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #169

M. Scott Peck wrote a book about euthanasia long ago. I wonder if people still read Peck. “Denial of the soul,” that was the title. The foundational belief for euthanasia must be that there is no soul.

It's so sad how religions are based on ending suffering but come up with so many reasons that prevent them from actually doing so.

This "foundational belief" is nonsensical. How about the belief in self-determination and responsibility for one's own actions?

Post reply on HN