5 ms·

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 comfor

by 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.
    - rob_c 4y ago
      > Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”. Yes I apologise but you started accusing me of taking some personal-religios pseudo-moral ground which I find an offensive default assumption. I know you didn't mean to offend, but remember which forum this is, there's probably less book-thumpers here than normal irl. Now, I'm not introducing moral quandires into this. Please stop enagaging on this level, it's not valid, not just and I won't rise to it. I'm saying that 30% rise is significant in a year where there are other concerns. Now if this is driven by an artificial depression in the previous year then it's not being reported on, fine. I'm 200% willing to believe that this is being reported badly by the media. A 30% increase suddenly stop. (If so that's a bit odd, but OK). but given statistics I claim the 30% will drop but not to zero. If it drops to 25% increase in a 2nd year, there is a _serious_ problem. (not necessarily with MAID) which isn't bein reported on. Again the only moral concern here is this is not "vanilla or chocolate" these are serious decisions and a glib "comprable to europe" is being concerningly dismissive at a policy level, even if it's meant well to help understand the figures. Yet again, I'm not accusing MAID as a policy directly of problem/fault but this is a 30% increase in deaths due to mental illness. If this wasn't MAID people would rightly asking more questions in an a-political manner and getting concerned. Please stop act asif I'm attacking MAID as I have said I AM NOT DOING SO.

by rob_c 4y ago

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.
  - rob_c 4y ago
    > Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”. Yes I apologise but you started accusing me of taking some personal-religios pseudo-moral ground which I find an offensive default assumption. I know you didn't mean to offend, but remember which forum this is, there's probably less book-thumpers here than normal irl. Now, I'm not introducing moral quandires into this. Please stop enagaging on this level, it's not valid, not just and I won't rise to it. I'm saying that 30% rise is significant in a year where there are other concerns. Now if this is driven by an artificial depression in the previous year then it's not being reported on, fine. I'm 200% willing to believe that this is being reported badly by the media. A 30% increase suddenly stop. (If so that's a bit odd, but OK). but given statistics I claim the 30% will drop but not to zero. If it drops to 25% increase in a 2nd year, there is a _serious_ problem. (not necessarily with MAID) which isn't bein reported on. Again the only moral concern here is this is not "vanilla or chocolate" these are serious decisions and a glib "comprable to europe" is being concerningly dismissive at a policy level, even if it's meant well to help understand the figures. Yet again, I'm not accusing MAID as a policy directly of problem/fault but this is a 30% increase in deaths due to mental illness. If this wasn't MAID people would rightly asking more questions in an a-political manner and getting concerned. Please stop act asif I'm attacking MAID as I have said I AM NOT DOING SO.