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

521–530 of 870 posts

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

#521

Post by refurb »

snakeyjake wrote: post #26

In an ideal world 100% of all deaths would be by euthanasia. Instead there are accidents, which kill prematurely. Homicides, which steal life. And diseases, which cripple and degrade. I've watched three of my four grandparents suffocate to death as their organs failed, blasted out of their minds on morphine, nothing more than a collection of organs with a slowly stopping metabolism. Two of them wanted to end it, but…

> In an ideal world 100% of all deaths would be by euthanasia.

This is the start of the slippery slope.

First it's offered voluntarily. Then it's seen as "ideal" and "100% of all deaths should be euthanasia".

So healthcare workers go from just asking to "gently nudging" people towards MAID who otherwise wouldn't. "Just think of all the money we'll spend on you and you're going to die anyways".

I'm going to bet this will be a major political issue in the coming deacde.

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

#522

Post by snypher »

graeme wrote: post #455
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the standard is not "very loose". It is clear, and strict. And you also got the "condition could kill you" part wrong. So it's all wrong. You can read about eligibility criteria here[0], specifically what constitutes a "grievous and irremediable medical condition". Like, believe it or not, but this legislation took a very long time to write, and quite a bit of thought was put into it. I hate to post the link for…

I've spoken with the administrator of a province's MAID program who interprets the law. Have you spoken with anyone involved in administering and interpreting the requirements? Cannot be reversed is modified by under conditions acceptable to them. There's no requirement that a treatment be acceptable to any objective standard, only to the patient and two medical professionals who sign off. And there's no time limit o…

You should have mentioned a source in the original post, instead of 'Iirc it basically means'. I'm also unwilling to take a single anecdotal source as a citation.

To address the point about objective standards, yes, the patient has an option for personal medical discretion. This prevents doctors saying eg this Neuralink chip will fix you for sure. What is the risk to you, me or society if someone does not accept a medical treatment that they don't seem acceptable? This goes down the same path as the dumb abortion debate - medical care is a personal decision, fin.

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

#523

Post by refurb »

grecy wrote: post #60

Theses headlines are always sensationalist, because it sounds like these deaths are avoidable. To be clear, all of these people were going to die within days, weeks, or at most a few months. Death is certain. Dignity at the end is the least we can ask for.

We're all going to die "eventually".

That's not exactly a convincing argument.

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

#524

Post by BeefWellington »

Philadelphia wrote: post #484
rahimnathwani wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without access to painkillers, sure, yes.

Painkillers don’t work for many types of pain

And they often come with a host of awful side effects and/or are addictive in nature, and often requiring a slowly increasing dose to be effective.

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

#525

Post by lucubratory »

fatbird wrote: post #96
betaby wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with MAID is statistically significant. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/some-health-care-workers-... But in Ontario, more than three quarters of people euthanized when their death wasn’t imminent required disability support before their death in 2023, according to data from a slideshow presentation by the province’s chief coroner, shared with AP by both a researcher and a doctor on condition of anonymi…

The story here isn't about problems with MAID, it's about inadequate support for the poor and disabled. Even then, your link is about those patients requesting it, not about it being forced on them. It's unsurprising to me that someone with few resources and irreversible, painful disability, but lacking an imminent death, would request MAID. I don't see how this is an argument against MAID.

What incentive does the government have to increase disability support payments to appropriate levels when the alternative (keeping payments inadequate to force them to kill themselves) is much cheaper for the government and continuously kills people who would otherwise advocate for an increase to disability support payments?

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

#526

Post by tokioyoyo »

lupire wrote: post #506
voisin wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why OP thinks doctors would have any incentive to do this. It doesn’t benefit them personally and there is just a vague benefit of lower medical care costs provincially.

It's a job that pays money. And people can become zealots for what they believe is best for others

This is probably the worst part of living in a lower trust society. We just keep decreasing the bar of "good faith". It really sucks, yet I get your point.

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

#527

Post by itishappy »

nashashmi wrote: post #344
itishappy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I will define it for you: immature: "I know what life means and this is not the meaning of life" OR "we should not burden others with our remorse and pain and so share nothing with anyone lest it cause them pain too." (I hope I don't have to elaborate how this is immature.) arrogant: "who knows better what I need than me? I know it well enough that no one else matters" selfish: "If I am the one who wants something, w…

Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious how you can reconcile your beliefs with those definitions, which I feel apply equally well to your own arguments:

immature: "I know what life means and that is not the meaning of life." or "Suffering cannot be unbearable, can always be improved by sharing it, and everyone has a robust support network ready and willing to share their pain."

arrogant: "15 thousand suffering people, their families, and their doctors and support staff all need to redefine life as I see it."

selfish: "I know what's best for everyone. Differing opinions are mental disorders and psychological conditions and should be discarded out of hand."

What makes your opinion the only privileged one here? Honest question, I just feel like we're operating under different frameworks and there must be something else I'm missing. Can I ask your opinion on the soul and afterlife?

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

#529

Post by HenryBemis »

pj_mukh wrote: post #278
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…

My dad (age 75) got diagnosed with ALS and within a month of the diagnosis opted for MAID. He had only just lost control of one leg, but he knew what was coming. As much as we begged him for more time, he didn't want any of it. Till his dying breath he kept repeating how thankful he was that he lived in a country that didn't force him to live on when he didn't want to. He was a clear Track 1 case, and I realize Track…

Sorry for your loss. I don't know if he got to explain to you (all) the reasons behind his choice.

My fear is that I will be 70-80-90, I won't be able to serve myself even for the very basics, I will have lost my memory, and will be a total burden (all the pain - zero joy) to my close family. Why would I do this to them? Perhaps he had a motivation like this - to make sure he won't hurt your lives, your relationships, etc.

Either way, it is a very difficult choice..

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

#530

Post by quasse »

lolinder wrote: post #481
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #266

Anyone who has worked at a hospital can tell you how many people die in needless pain and suffering when nothing more can really be done for them. They just wait out the clock in pain or do increasingly horrible procedures that give them a little more time with terrible quality of life. 5% is probably an underestimate of that number. Nurses/doctors don't like to speak up about that part and people don't want to confr…

Like with so many things, what terrifies me is where you draw the line. The cases you're describing—where someone currently has to choose between paying ridiculous amounts of money to continue living in pain while confined to a hospital bed versus dying in terrible pain because the doctors are forbidden from helping you along—these are the easy ones. But we also have stories here of people deciding to die while they'…

> At some point that net loss must overrule the individual's autonomy.

I'm curious why you think of this as such a concrete fact. It is hard to understand that you would consider it your right to override such a core component of human autonomy (the choice to continue living) because they owe you/society something.

If someone's suffering is so great (be it physical *or* mental) that they have reached a point where they personally would trade human life for non-existence, who are you to say "Sorry, we own you. You cannot make that choice"?

I am sorry if my comment sounds judgemental because I am genuinely interested in your opinion about who would ever be qualified to make that decision and decide "No, this person is bound to us."

Post reply on HN