Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#81

Post by O__________O » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:16 AM UTC

throwaway892238 wrote: post #65

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you tell the difference between someone suffering from depression that wants to die but could cure their depression and someone that just wants to die? Depression is an illness and it makes people do and say all kinds of things they wouldn't normally. What if you are 80 and just have low testosterone and want to die but then you start trt and things really get a lot better? Which "you" wanted to die and which…

I'm all for making people's lives better. But people deserve the choice of what treatment they will or won't accept. That's what informed consent is about. We don't force surgeries on people just because they have a good prognosis; the person still has to consent to the surgery (if they are capable). Even if there is a treatment with a very good prognosis that could magically make you happier, you deserve the right t…

Feel it is likely you are over estimating modern medicine’s ability to judge if someone is of sound mind.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#82

Post by andsoitis » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:19 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #20

voisin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the state should not be able to mandate that that's how I spend the last 10 years of my life The number of things that the state should not be able to mandate but does is immense. Unfortunately “should not be able to” is irrelevant in modern society. For some reason we all accept constant overreach into private affairs they affect no one else.

Could you give other examples? It seems to me that the balance between individual freedom and restrictions is pretty good in most western countries (I don't know much about other continents).

If we own our lives, then surely the ultimate decision that we should be allowed to make is whether to continue with it or end it.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#83

Post by nkingsy » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:19 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #69

nkingsy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people say this when they’re young. Almost no one goes through with it. Maybe the drooling isn’t as bad as you think.

How is this knowable when barely anyone has access to assisted suicide outside of a few small states/countries? And even then, drooling does not qualify in most.

OP mentioned various alternatives.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#84

Post by LanceH » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #58

LanceH wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscription...done.

Well conscription almost doesn't exist any more in western countries. And I don't think it's a good example of something that doesn't affect anyone else, the idea is to train people in case of a war. Having people able to defend the country seems quite useful for everyone in unstable times.

I don't know...person going along living his life, gets drafted, sent to war and dies. He wasn't bothering anyone.

He's not affecting anyone else until after you draft him.

While it may be useful for the country, it is certainly at odds with individual freedom.

While there isn't much mandatory military service left in western countries, it is far from gone. And this doesn't speak to the countries with the potential to draft, which is many.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#85

Post by bawolff » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

throwaway892238 wrote: post #65

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you tell the difference between someone suffering from depression that wants to die but could cure their depression and someone that just wants to die? Depression is an illness and it makes people do and say all kinds of things they wouldn't normally. What if you are 80 and just have low testosterone and want to die but then you start trt and things really get a lot better? Which "you" wanted to die and which…

I'm all for making people's lives better. But people deserve the choice of what treatment they will or won't accept. That's what informed consent is about. We don't force surgeries on people just because they have a good prognosis; the person still has to consent to the surgery (if they are capable). Even if there is a treatment with a very good prognosis that could magically make you happier, you deserve the right t…

There are some difficult philosophical questions here. If someone has an ailment, that is causing their mind to think euthanasia is the answer, but if they had the treatment to the ailment, they would no longer think so, are they of sound mind? I'm not sure where the line is on that, and i think its far from obvious.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#86

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

nkingsy wrote: post #83

lotsofpulp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this knowable when barely anyone has access to assisted suicide outside of a few small states/countries? And even then, drooling does not qualify in most.

OP mentioned various alternatives.

Assuming you are referring to:

>I will buy a gun, or jump off a bridge, or freeze to death, or O.D. on heroin, or something else if I have to. But I shouldn't have to.

Those are not equivalent to the experience of dying with assisted suicide.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#87

Post by earleybird » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

I am very torn by these developments. A dozen plus years ago someone close to me had ALS, a horribly vile disease that to this day is a death sentence upon diagnosis. Think of a judge saying to you "you will serve two years of daily punishment each day worse than the previous after which you will die". Medical care is capable of sustaining life well beyond the capabilities of the body by itself.

On the other hand, this should not be available to someone who has "hearing loss" and is possibly not in a position to make good decisions.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#88

Post by Natsu » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

danbolt wrote: post #67

Natsu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a very hard time believing that doctors will be suggesting euthanasia to patients who might not otherwise consider it. There is no financial incentive behind it This article provides evidence to the contrary: "Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.…

I’d note that the hospital administration was mentioning this, rather than a particular doctor providing care. Or, the former has a financial incentive to keep care costs low (especially given the current government in Ontario).

The one person named was an administrator, but it's not particularly clear who the "staffers" were. It's possible some of them were doctors, but it's hard to say.

That said, I feel like the point here was that it wasn't likely to be pushed at people who hadn't asked, and yet it was, not that it was uniquely bad coming from a doctor vs. an administrator.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#89

Post by Ferrotin » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:39 AM UTC

elevaet wrote: post #9

umvi wrote: post #3

> prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it. Please tell me there isn't a financial incentive behind this. The only thing worse than doctors suggesting opioids to those who might not otherwise consider it is doctors suggesting death to those who might not otherwise consider it.

I have a very hard time believing that doctors will be suggesting euthanasia to patients who might not otherwise consider it. There is no financial incentive behind it on a personal level for doctors, given Canada's one-payer medical system, and euthanasia is counter to many doctors' interpretation of the Hypocratic oath. You could argue that on a system-level there is an incentive to encourage euthanasia, since it c…

There are doctors who cut off foreskins of babies who would never ever consider it. Get it into your head that many doctors don’t have a real moral center.

Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

#90

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:47 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #79

lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is killing fetuses in the 38th week for fun. Not moms, and not doctors. The reason to keep the legal system out of it is because there are a million things that can go wrong in pregnancies and child birth, and the doctor does not need the added complication of having to think about legal liability in the heat of the moment. Women make a tremendous sacrifice when choosing to bear children. The issue of abortion…

A baby that will certainly die at birth, or likely cause death to the mother, is one thing. A perfectly healthy baby 1 day before birth that is put to death is entirely different. There is nothing magical about birth that makes it OK to slit the throat of a healthy baby. As a thought experiment, imagine a healthy baby born premature 1 day early. Could you take a knife and stab it to death as it screams and cries? If…

[deleted]