4 ms·

The rise is somewhat predictable and surprising at the same time. Personally I don’t think there is anything more empowering (in this domain) than knowing that

by hey2022 4y ago

The rise is somewhat predictable and surprising at the same time. Personally I don’t think there is anything more empowering (in this domain) than knowing that you can be in control of the conditions of your own death. The surprising part is perhaps the speed at which this fundamental societal shift is happening. 3.3% of all deaths in Canada were assisted deaths in 2021!

hluska 4y ago
A very close relative suffered for years before she finally passed away. She passed away before medical assistance in death was available. Watching that hardcore spark plug of a human be absolutely destroyed by a disease was awful and changed my view on medical assistance in death. We wouldn’t make a dog go through what she did. Offering her some control over her way out would have been much more humane than what she ended up going through.
- rob_c 4y ago
  Yes but during a time when there is mass psycological depression and other chaos is difficult to believe this change is "just due to people becoming more comfortable with the idea". For reference I'm in favour of MAID as a concept. But a 30% jump in the same year there is other chaos should set alarm bells ringing. The defence of this reached the same levels as a completely different society is somehow also doubly alarming to me...
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    I understand why it might for you and your own values, but why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently? Imagine that you're one of these patients. If you're looking at the last poor years of your life anyway, and it turns out that you see they'll be spent in the shadow of a global pandemic and economic crisis, it's sensible that you might want to just turn out the lights and go to bed already. Making that choice on their own terms isn't something that people do flippantly; instead of assuming we know what the right answer should be for them, isn't it more humble and respectful to assume they made a sound choice and then draw insight from how they were able to do so?
    - rob_c 4y ago
      > why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently? This is not a reversible decision like salted or caramel popcorn. All I'm saying is that numbers like that with a human life be treated seriously. I'm not saying the usual madness of 'halt a thing until we know more'. I'm just saying wouldn't it be prudent to ask the question rather than blindly accepting this as a good thing. I'm not saying anything disingenuous or in bad faith here so please don't assume my argument comes from this position, this just runs the risk of turning any conversation toxic and political which I'm trying to avoid.
  - hluska 4y ago
    How familiar are you with Canada’s program?? Do you know that mental illness alone is currently not an acceptable reason to seek out medical assistance in death? Do you know that you have to have two fully independent health care practitioners sign off on the request? It would be quite hard to get MAID if you’re not eligible. I completely understand your concern and if it was administered differently I would share them, but I’ve learned a lot about the program and have a lot of trust in how it’s administered.
    - rob_c 4y ago
      I'm familiar enough with the way that these things are structured, why and how policy are implemented from a bureaucratic perspective that I understand when there are un-intentional sytematic bias. I'm not talking about access to reatment. I'm not talking about individual cases here. As I have said. I am in favour of this in concept and I just think that the reasoning away from a very large spike is concerningly poor and the sort of thing that's used as an excuse if '22 numbers shot up another 30-40% that 'well that's just Canada'. Again, please don't read intentionally or not that I'm talking about access or applicability. This again runs the risk of taking a conversation down a political or toxic discussion path and serves nobody. I'm talking about _proper_ large scale understanding of trends here. At best this is bad reporting of a phenomena, at worse there is something there that might be looked back on with concern.
      - hluska 4y ago
        Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”. Rather, I tried to ask how much you know about the Canadian implementation of MAID. You talked around those questions so now it’s time for some facts. 1.) The increase in 2021 numbers can be explained by bill C-7. C-7 changed eligibility for MAID. When C-7 received royal assent it meant that a patient’s death no longer had to be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for MAID. 2.) Numbers in 2022 will rise as more physicians are being trained in MAID and getting more comfortable with the idea. 3.) Numbers in 2023 will rise even more as in March, mental illness as a sole condition will become eligible for MAID. Again, all of this is guided by policy that would make it very hard to receive MAID if you’re not actually eligible. Those are facts and at this point, it seems like you’re trying to use some personal moral queasiness as a way to overlook the evolution of policy.

hluska 4y ago

A very close relative suffered for years before she finally passed away. She passed away before medical assistance in death was available. Watching that hardcore spark plug of a human be absolutely destroyed by a disease was awful and changed my view on medical assistance in death. We wouldn’t make a dog go through what she did. Offering her some control over her way out would have been much more humane than what she ended up going through.

rob_c 4y ago
Yes but during a time when there is mass psycological depression and other chaos is difficult to believe this change is "just due to people becoming more comfortable with the idea". For reference I'm in favour of MAID as a concept. But a 30% jump in the same year there is other chaos should set alarm bells ringing. The defence of this reached the same levels as a completely different society is somehow also doubly alarming to me...
- swatcoder 4y ago
  I understand why it might for you and your own values, but why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently? Imagine that you're one of these patients. If you're looking at the last poor years of your life anyway, and it turns out that you see they'll be spent in the shadow of a global pandemic and economic crisis, it's sensible that you might want to just turn out the lights and go to bed already. Making that choice on their own terms isn't something that people do flippantly; instead of assuming we know what the right answer should be for them, isn't it more humble and respectful to assume they made a sound choice and then draw insight from how they were able to do so?
  - rob_c 4y ago
    > why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently? This is not a reversible decision like salted or caramel popcorn. All I'm saying is that numbers like that with a human life be treated seriously. I'm not saying the usual madness of 'halt a thing until we know more'. I'm just saying wouldn't it be prudent to ask the question rather than blindly accepting this as a good thing. I'm not saying anything disingenuous or in bad faith here so please don't assume my argument comes from this position, this just runs the risk of turning any conversation toxic and political which I'm trying to avoid.
- hluska 4y ago
  How familiar are you with Canada’s program?? Do you know that mental illness alone is currently not an acceptable reason to seek out medical assistance in death? Do you know that you have to have two fully independent health care practitioners sign off on the request? It would be quite hard to get MAID if you’re not eligible. I completely understand your concern and if it was administered differently I would share them, but I’ve learned a lot about the program and have a lot of trust in how it’s administered.
  - rob_c 4y ago
    I'm familiar enough with the way that these things are structured, why and how policy are implemented from a bureaucratic perspective that I understand when there are un-intentional sytematic bias. I'm not talking about access to reatment. I'm not talking about individual cases here. As I have said. I am in favour of this in concept and I just think that the reasoning away from a very large spike is concerningly poor and the sort of thing that's used as an excuse if '22 numbers shot up another 30-40% that 'well that's just Canada'. Again, please don't read intentionally or not that I'm talking about access or applicability. This again runs the risk of taking a conversation down a political or toxic discussion path and serves nobody. I'm talking about _proper_ large scale understanding of trends here. At best this is bad reporting of a phenomena, at worse there is something there that might be looked back on with concern.
    - hluska 4y ago
      Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”. Rather, I tried to ask how much you know about the Canadian implementation of MAID. You talked around those questions so now it’s time for some facts. 1.) The increase in 2021 numbers can be explained by bill C-7. C-7 changed eligibility for MAID. When C-7 received royal assent it meant that a patient’s death no longer had to be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for MAID. 2.) Numbers in 2022 will rise as more physicians are being trained in MAID and getting more comfortable with the idea. 3.) Numbers in 2023 will rise even more as in March, mental illness as a sole condition will become eligible for MAID. Again, all of this is guided by policy that would make it very hard to receive MAID if you’re not actually eligible. Those are facts and at this point, it seems like you’re trying to use some personal moral queasiness as a way to overlook the evolution of policy.