19 ms·

Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws

102 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

ABI1234 4y ago
ajkjk 4y ago
"Experts troubled"? What a weird and wholly opinionated way to report on something.
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
- voisin 4y ago
  How is it an example of mediocrity?
- jerry1979 4y ago
  Not sure what's mediocre about euthanasia, but I'd be curious to read about your past writings on this tendency towards mediocrity.
  - insightcheck 4y ago
    I'm not the same user, but this HN thread from 2018 covers the "brain drain" of Canadian technical workers to the US due to much higher salaries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16996420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16996420 The general idea is that the most talented Canadians leave the country. This argument has a lot of merit, but if you look at the right places, you can still find a lot of really high talent in the country (e.g. medical research, computer science research, and animation).
umvi 4y ago
> 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.
- lobotryas 4y ago
  There’s always a financial angle in most situations. After all, taking care of a really sick patient (or someone with a difficult condition) costs the state money. If you read the article there are sighs that this may have been a consideration in some cases they list.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - insightcheck 4y ago
    Wow, that's completely correct. From the article: "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. "In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care. "“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.” "Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue." I'm shocked. For the benefit of the doubt, since the quote doesn't include broader context, it's possible that the information was relevant in some way independent of guilting the patient, or the ethicist was being unintentionally awkward. But given the information presented in the article, it's not a good look for the hospital, which should be prioritizing patient outcomes far above cost savings.
- elevaet 4y ago
  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 could take expensive terminal patients off the bill. This bit does make many people (myself included) uncomfortable and there definitely needs to be checks and balances in place.
throwaway892238 4y ago
> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to be a drooling, pants-shitting, waking-up-5-times-a-night-to-piss, wheelchair-bound, mushy-food-eating, dotty old fuck, the state should not be able to mandate that that's how I spend the last 10 years of my life. I already know that I don't want to regress into infancy just to squeeze out more time. I have had a shit-ton of life already and I'm not even halfway there. The last thing I want in life is for my last 10 years to be miserable. 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. That said, there has to be strong protections against people being put in a position where they feel they have to, or somebody else gets them to, choose euthanasia. There should be a rigorous, wide-ranging, and not-super-slow process to establish without a doubt that, yes, this person is of sound mind, this is only their decision, they are informed, etc. We need both the freedom to choose, and to look closely to make sure they did choose. I think Canada's efforts are extremely noble, and I'm sure that a positive, proactive, intelligent approach can thread the needle. What won't help is FUD, which is what this news article feels like to me. For example, I don't see quotes from people who inspired expanding the laws in the first place.
- voisin 4y ago
  > 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.
  - elcomet 4y ago
    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).
andrewclunn 4y ago
- cwillu 4y ago
  I love how the conversation inevitably turns into “Torturing your grandma is evil!” vs “They're coming to kill your babies!”.
  - andrewclunn 4y ago
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      I do not have to agree with anything you said, to admit that the Slippery Slope should probably be taken off the fallacies list at this point.
      - serf 4y ago
        >at this point the slippery slope fallacy was never stated as an absolute truth; it exists to point out the absurdity in the belief that all things are sliding at all times. that is to say : the slippery slope fallacy exists to point out that the constant slip isn't a realistic model for every social qualm to have ever existed, and is not universally applicable; not that it doesn't occur.
      - andrewclunn 4y ago
        The slippery slope is an informal fallacy. Which is to say, people want a short hand way of dismissing arguments, while also not needing to justify the dismissal, so they conflated actual bad arguments with other heuristics. Just don't tell our secrets to the idiots or conspiracy theorists my fellow big brained skeptic tips his fedora
Cupertino95014 4y ago
You can always pick an extreme example of drooling, pants-shitting, etc. etc. But the problem is that "option to die" usually morphs into "duty to die" and then into "involuntarily dying."
- cwillu 4y ago
  “Usually” is doing a metric shit-tonne of work there.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    see above
- elevaet 4y ago
  Does it now? Can you cite any examples?
  - jollybean 4y ago
    The article is the example. There are massive systematic pressures on our healthcare system and the 'oldest' people who don't work or pay taxes are the big 'cost points'.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      Eugenics was very popular among Progressives across western Europe as well as the US. Compulsive sterilization, certification of marriages to avoid unwanted breeding of undesirably character or deformity and worse were considered "the science" of the time, and a moral virtue among a fair few Christian sects as well. Fundamentalists and Catholics were among the few religious groups in the US who opposed it, and were ridiculed as ignorant. The evils perpetrated in the death camps and elsewhere were nothing more than the logical end conclusion of eugenics in general.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    There's evidence in the article this story is about: "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. In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care."
seibelj 4y ago
I think reasonable people can agree that aborting an unborn baby that is conceived 1 day prior is not murder, but a fetus 1 day from birth is a human and killing it is murder. There is some point between 1 day and 9 months where killing the baby is immoral. Similarly, physician assisted suicide could make sense in some cases. However a chronically depressed patient that is annoying the doctor, I don't approve of offering suicide to. As someone who battled depression for many years and eventually vanquished it, a quick and painless suicide might have made sense when I was at my lowest point. I don't like how easy it has become in Canada according to this article.
- cwillu 4y ago
  [Upvoted despite significant disagreements, because the downvote button isn't a disagree button]
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  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 is sufficiently handled between the pregnant mother and doctors. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...
  - seibelj 4y ago
    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 not, perhaps it is indeed murder.
    - deleted 4y ago
Pxtl 4y ago
The biggest horror of the situation is that many disabled but otherwise healthy people are ending up in the MAID system because of the extreme cost of living in Canada that the disability support system has made no attempt to keep up with. Vancouver and Toronto are both on the top 10 most unaffordable cities on Earth, and it's literally killing people.
- oleander73 4y ago
  It is horrible if people are forced into MAID because of monetary issues, but that should obviously be addressed by improving their financial support, not by taking away the option of MAID.
  - zx85wes 4y ago
    That's not happening because MAID is much cheaper. That's the way it is in my part of Europe anyway.
mongol 4y ago
Is there anything like a two-component drug, that you can get the parts of from two different sources, mix yourself, and kill yourself with in a humane way? In that case perhaps part A can be prescribed by one doctor, and part B by another, so no doctor is able to singlehandedly prescribe this lethal drug. I don't know if this solves anything, but it puts friction in they system, which I think is needed.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Suicide drugs exist but they're generally pretty awful ways to go or very illegal to sell. If the police find out suicidal people use your chemical store or pharmacy as their suicide shop, you can get in huge trouble, up to aiding in murder. I'm 100 in favour of euthanasia for people who are suffering with no end in sight. If I get sick and face ten years of slowly dying, suffering every day, I'm taking the easy way out somehow, and it's up to the government if that's in a controlled environment or if they'll need to send out a cleanup crew when they find the suicide note. However, I don't think you should be able to just buy suicide pills online. It's the only way to do it relatively safely and successfully for people in countries where assisted suicide isn't legal, but it's a workaround rather than a solution.
yardstick 4y ago
For some more context, in 2020 about 2.4% of all deaths (7,383 people) were euthanasia related. And the vast majority were over 60. Extracts: “In 2017, 2,838 medically assisted deaths were reported by Health Canada, compared with 4,478 deaths in 2018. In 2019, there were 5,425 medically assisted deaths in Canada, accounting for 1.9% of all deaths. In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada)” [1] And “applicants were on average 74.8 years of age. People under 60 years of age make up 11.3% of all MAID applicants. ” [1] So about 0.26% of all deaths in 2020 were under 60s euthanasia. 1. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220...
- manholio 4y ago
  Sounds about like what I would expect. Old age with an incurable degenerative disease is living in hell, so it's no surprise people take the option if it's available. But safeguards must be put in place to prevent people with a history of depression or mental diseases to be approved, it's simply an impossible decision for the state to make even if it would legitimately benefit some of them.
  - indymike 4y ago
    As an old guy with an incurable disease, nothing is more frightening than people who want me to die before I'm ready to go.
  - nlitened 4y ago
    Do people with history of depression and mental diseases suffer? Do they have a right to end their suffering?
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      Yeah. Major depressive disorder is absolutely suffering. You should not force people to live with it, especially if they have sought professional help without success.
nitwit005 4y ago
It is entirely possible that there should be changes to the laws, but involving families is a terrible idea. You aren't going to get rational decision making if you ask someone about their mother wanting to die. You'd be lucky of you didn't get someone screaming profanity at the medical staff for an hour.
- 14 4y ago
  On the other hand you would be surprised how many families embrace it and come together and celebrate their passing with the individual. Of course they are sad as well but they are also happy with the decision to give the client peace. I am a health care worker and occasionally get sent to work at a hospice house and have been present when MAID was being done.
rayiner 4y ago
But other “experts” created the system in the first place: > Canada’s road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their dignity and autonomy. It gave national leaders a year to draft legislation. Who cares what experts think about what’s fundamentally the regulation of morality?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jagger27 4y ago
I encourage everyone who’s having a strong reaction to this to read through the statistics[0] of who is receiving this care. Perhaps consider why you don’t hear about the success stories. 0: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html#4_0 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
csnover 4y ago
To me, the only thing more ‘disturbing’ than a system which routinely fails its most vulnerable people by failing to provide adequate care and support for a good quality-of-life is a system which fails its most vulnerable people in that way and then also forces them to continue to suffer indefinitely. I agree that we should not accept a system that does not provide everyone a good chance at a decent quality of life. I also believe strongly we should do everything we can to develop better treatments and cures. At the same time, it is cruel to allow hubris or sentiment to blind us to the reality that, today, even the most well-allocated resources are finite, and our medical knowledge isn’t advanced enough to effectively treat—let alone cure—a huge number of non-fatal quality-of-life diseases. Maybe Canada’s system needs more safeguards, maybe it doesn’t. It’s impossible to tell by reading this article, which is heavy on innuendo and light on data.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Systems will always have suboptimal outcomes regardless of how they are structured, advances that are made, etc. Everything has a cost, regardless of if you acknowledge it, see it, etc. Generally speaking, vast majority of current negative health impacts are self inflicted and require no major breakthroughs; for example, diet and exercise.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  I would phrase this somewhat differently to express the same sentiment: I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am.
  - ksaj 4y ago
    Exactly this. When we do it for our beloved pets, it is compassionate. When we do it for someone who specifically asked for it, under entirely similar conditions? Where is the difference?
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      People are getting hung up on their own issues around mortality, death, and autonomy around euthanasia and projecting onto others. Safeguards are mandatory but so is free will.
earleybird 4y ago
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.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  You might be surprised the suffering hearing loss can cause. I remember a story about a man who killed himself to make the ringing in his ears stop [1]. And if you decide their suffering doesn't make the cut and don't provide people with a way out, you might find they'll just take matters into their own hands. 1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376787/Tinnitus-sufferer-shot-dead-stop-screaming-ears.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376787/Tinnitus-su...
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > On the other hand, this should not be available to someone who has "hearing loss" Why? Should they jump off a bridge instead? > and is possibly not in a position to make good decisions. Who are you to tell?
  - manholio 4y ago
    He had a documented history of depression. By definition, he was not in sound mind, there is ample precedent of people suffering from depression, trying and failing to commit suicide, and later recovering and thanking those around them for saving them. This idea that "one's mind is sovereign over their destiny" is unsustainable in practice. There are many versions of it floating around, for example related to gun control issues. You just can't create policies that ignore the reality that a large portion of people are not rational a large fraction of time.
    - 4y ago
darth_avocado 4y ago
Having gone through depression, I think there needs to be a higher bar for euthanasia. Yes there are terrible incurable sufferings that may need it, but making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition.
- yumraj 4y ago
  > making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition. Why? And, dangerous to whom?
  - daenz 4y ago
    Dangerous to the people who would impulsively choose to be euthanized?
    - jmcgough 4y ago
      Canada has a 90-day assessment/waiting period for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. They won't euthanize you unless you seem capable of making the decision and have thought through it for an extended length of time. It's not an impulsive thing.
      - pavlov5867 4y ago
        And yet, "Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed" which is pretty quick considering median waiting time of 25.6 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment[1] [1]https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2021 https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wa...
    - yumraj 4y ago
      But, isn’t it their choice? If they are adults, and have lived at least a few decades.. I’ve never figured out why we as a society want to impose our morality on others.
auxfil 4y ago
The planet's overpopulated. Help people die if they choose to do so. It's a lot less messy that way, for everyone.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Please read the article.
- Rackedup 4y ago
  You could also try to make as many people gay as possible.
  - Rackedup 4y ago
    It's the main reason why I like gay people... they don't reproduce.
    - Rackedup 4y ago
      why the down votes? I can't like whoever I want? Im part of the LGBTIQZ community
system_panic 4y ago
apnews needs to sell ads aparently.
system_panic 4y ago
Apnews, like Facebook, needs sensationalist content to sell ads.
- manquer 4y ago
  AP revenue is primarily content licensing [1] You could perhaps argue that since their customers probably get their money primarily through ads so AP needs to generate sensationalist content to keep them happy. They (and perhaps Thomson Reuters) themselves don't need ads to make money that is not their business model (while they do have ads revenue as well it is not key to their business ) That isn't to say AP's quality has not dropped over the years it certainly has. It seems more like given the pay journo's make these days, top talent is simply no longer interested in the field. Economic pressures of online journalism does not reward knowledgeable people taking the time to write well informed pieces, rather content mills are more likely to make money with low quality output. To me this is more a reflection of us as consumers not paying for quality rather than industry which merely adapts to what users want and pay for ( whether with subscriptions or eye balls) [1]https://www.ap.org/about/annual-report/2021/ap-by-the-numbers https://www.ap.org/about/annual-report/2021/ap-by-the-number...
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  U.N. human rights writing about Canada's failure to fulfill the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is hardly sensationalist clickbait.
kwoff 4y ago
My mom died this year; liver and kidneys failed, lungs filled with fluid, suffocating, maximum oxygen support in the hospital. After several days, she was too tired to go on, went with "comfort care", supposedly minimizing suffering, but it's a euphemism for torture. I stayed with her for half an hour after they took off her oxygen mask before I couldn't take it any more -- my mother gasping for breath. After about an hour I was told she'd passed away so I should go back in -- to see her frozen with her jaw locked forward, desperately trying to get a breath. I hate anyone who claims euthanasia is wrong. Why couldn't they just replace the oxygen with nitrogen?
bolangi 4y ago
This is all very disturbing: price people out of care and convince them to consent to die. I think if someone wants to end their life, they can just stop eating and drinking. If you just stop eating it will take longer, but will still work. Someone with grave health problems will often have little appetite. A friend who nearly died with a running car engine in a closed garage says it's an easy way to go. The main consideration for the person choosing to end their life is that the measure they choose be reliably effective, as an incomplete death (oxymoron?) will likely entail further suffering. The seminal reference on the topic in the US is Final Exit, by Derek Humphry. https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Deliverance-Assisted/dp/0385336535 https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Delive...
- sokoloff 4y ago
  We made the difficult decision to euthanize our dog last summer. Sure, we could have just stopped feeding her or additionally stopped allowing her water to drink. If we’d done that instead, how would we be judged? How much of that judgment would result directly from the idea that, despite there being a more humane and compassionate alternate, we chose to prolong her suffering needlessly?
  - pavlov5867 4y ago
    The operative word you've used is "euthanize" which is definitively different than "suicide" or even "assisted suicide". You're conflating the method of ending life with the person doing the ending. OP is talking about suicide and methods in which an individual may do it, you're talking about euthanasia trying to draw comparisons between a person deciding and committing suicide and you deciding to euthanize your dog. They are not the same.
murphyslab 4y ago
Curious that this article, from August 11, is posted today. Since no one in the thread has mentioned it, the issue has been in the Canadian media recently due to a situation first reported on August 16 which was updated today. The first paragraph is ample summary of what transpired: > A Canadian Forces veteran seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury was shocked when he was unexpectedly and casually offered medical assistance in dying by a Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) employee, sources tell Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-death-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-... And today a full investigation was announced: https://globalnews.ca/news/9072857/canada-veterans-assisted-dying-investigation/ https://globalnews.ca/news/9072857/canada-veterans-assisted-... This is not what is supposed to happen and the Veterans Affairs employee involved will, I expect, be sacked or placed on leave. It is at the very least incompetence or lack of proper training, given that the law has only been in place since 2021. ** For anyone looking to understand the issue in the Canadian context, and how we got here, here's my brief non-expert summary. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Carter v Canada that our Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide was unconstitutional: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v_Canada_(AG) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v_Canada_(AG) That brought about Bill C-14 in 2016, which allowed those whose death was "reasonably foreseeable" to obtain MAiD: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-a... A further legal challenge, Truchon v Canada, decided by the Superior Court of Quebec in 2019 required further legislative accommodation. This removed the restriction which required that death be "reasonably foreseeable" as it again violated the Charter. Hence the government introduced Bill C-7 in 2021: https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.h... The eligibility requirements are now: 1. Be a mentally competent adult 2. Experience "enduring and intolerable suffering" 3. Complete the process involving paperwork, witnesses, physicians, etc...
peppermint_tea 4y ago
this topic came up a few times on hacker news I will add this link here https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
verisimi 4y ago
This is a great article that talks about the legal changes in this area: https://canucklaw.ca/parliaments-guidelines-on-euthanizing-the-mentally-ill/ https://canucklaw.ca/parliaments-guidelines-on-euthanizing-t...
tomohawk 4y ago
Being a doctor or nurse or other medical professional should be about sustaining and improving health. If euthanasia is to be a thing, it should not be carried out by doctors or nurses. It should be a different profession entirely. Trying to reuse existing professions and institutions for euthanasia simply because they possess the required medical knowledge is short sighted, and creates an obvious conflict of interest in many cases. Euthanasia should not be considered a medical or health choice/procedure. It is a different kind of choice/procedure entirely. We are already in a situation where insurance companies and governments will say "we'll pay for procedure X but not Y". If euthansia is considered to be a procedure, just like any other, people will find themselves in the situation where euthanasia is the only procedure that will be paid for. If you want to move this debate beyond the theoretical, then the best thing you can do for yourself and your loved ones is to make sure that you have set up proper legal documents (living will, advance directive, medical power of atty, etc). The last thing you want is for the state or some institution to decide these things for you when you are unable to, or for your family to squabble about it since you didn't leave them instructions. Your medical power of atty should empower a person you trust to carry out your wishes.
jacquesm 4y ago
My uncle just 'chose to die'. And rightly so. He suffered from a very bad case of cancer that caused him incredible pain. Physically he could have probably lived on for another three to six months but it would have been three to six months in hell. He was quite literally screaming from the pain, even through the heaviest sedatives, the only thing that would have stopped that would have been an artificial coma. Euthanasia is a godsend for situations like that and if you are against it for some reason understand that there is not such thing as an impulsive act to euthanize, that the medical profession is well capable of weighing whether you are just off your rocker for a day or two or if there is a legitimate cause. Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief. Obviously, coercing people to choose the option to die and pressuring them with the cost of their treatment should be off the table entirely and should be - as far as I'm concerned - prosecutable.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Very sorry for your loss.
- freedomben 4y ago
  > Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief. Yes, could not agree more. I see the same thing when arguing with people about accessibility to pain medications, where people who are generally healthy and not tormented by chronic pain want to throw roadblock after roadblock in people's way, and support policies that take away pain medication from people who need it which is literally torture. These people view addiction as We like to think that we moderns are so much more enlightened than people of the past who engaged in extreme cruelty against others, but in reality we're still pretty horrible. We just do it now through a mix of apathy (out of sight, out of mind), hubris, and moralism, by building a system in which people aren't free to make their own medical decisions but instead are forced to concede to the dictates of another. It's no doubt progress given where we started, but we still have a long way to go. I am optimistic that at some point people will learn empathy and humility, and stop projecting their own thoughts/beliefs/opinions onto others by coercion. I love this quote from CS Lewis: > "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. > They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
RappingBoomer 4y ago
can't have the little people thinking they control their own lives, can we?
ed-209 4y ago
I'm not seeing the central issue (imo) discussed, ie. is there a conflict of interest given that the party facilitating death is reducing cost of operation by doing so. You can't come to consensus (imo) without factoring the answer to this question into your argument.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

102 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

ABI1234 4y ago

ajkjk 4y ago

"Experts troubled"? What a weird and wholly opinionated way to report on something.

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

voisin 4y ago
How is it an example of mediocrity?
jerry1979 4y ago
Not sure what's mediocre about euthanasia, but I'd be curious to read about your past writings on this tendency towards mediocrity.
- insightcheck 4y ago
  I'm not the same user, but this HN thread from 2018 covers the "brain drain" of Canadian technical workers to the US due to much higher salaries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16996420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16996420 The general idea is that the most talented Canadians leave the country. This argument has a lot of merit, but if you look at the right places, you can still find a lot of really high talent in the country (e.g. medical research, computer science research, and animation).

umvi 4y ago

> 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.

lobotryas 4y ago
There’s always a financial angle in most situations. After all, taking care of a really sick patient (or someone with a difficult condition) costs the state money. If you read the article there are sighs that this may have been a consideration in some cases they list.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- insightcheck 4y ago
  Wow, that's completely correct. From the article: "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. "In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care. "“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.” "Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue." I'm shocked. For the benefit of the doubt, since the quote doesn't include broader context, it's possible that the information was relevant in some way independent of guilting the patient, or the ethicist was being unintentionally awkward. But given the information presented in the article, it's not a good look for the hospital, which should be prioritizing patient outcomes far above cost savings.
elevaet 4y ago
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 could take expensive terminal patients off the bill. This bit does make many people (myself included) uncomfortable and there definitely needs to be checks and balances in place.

throwaway892238 4y ago

> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to be a drooling, pants-shitting, waking-up-5-times-a-night-to-piss, wheelchair-bound, mushy-food-eating, dotty old fuck, the state should not be able to mandate that that's how I spend the last 10 years of my life. I already know that I don't want to regress into infancy just to squeeze out more time. I have had a shit-ton of life already and I'm not even halfway there. The last thing I want in life is for my last 10 years to be miserable. 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. That said, there has to be strong protections against people being put in a position where they feel they have to, or somebody else gets them to, choose euthanasia. There should be a rigorous, wide-ranging, and not-super-slow process to establish without a doubt that, yes, this person is of sound mind, this is only their decision, they are informed, etc. We need both the freedom to choose, and to look closely to make sure they did choose. I think Canada's efforts are extremely noble, and I'm sure that a positive, proactive, intelligent approach can thread the needle. What won't help is FUD, which is what this news article feels like to me. For example, I don't see quotes from people who inspired expanding the laws in the first place.

voisin 4y ago
> 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.
- elcomet 4y ago
  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).

andrewclunn 4y ago

cwillu 4y ago
I love how the conversation inevitably turns into “Torturing your grandma is evil!” vs “They're coming to kill your babies!”.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    I do not have to agree with anything you said, to admit that the Slippery Slope should probably be taken off the fallacies list at this point.
    - serf 4y ago
      >at this point the slippery slope fallacy was never stated as an absolute truth; it exists to point out the absurdity in the belief that all things are sliding at all times. that is to say : the slippery slope fallacy exists to point out that the constant slip isn't a realistic model for every social qualm to have ever existed, and is not universally applicable; not that it doesn't occur.
    - andrewclunn 4y ago
      The slippery slope is an informal fallacy. Which is to say, people want a short hand way of dismissing arguments, while also not needing to justify the dismissal, so they conflated actual bad arguments with other heuristics. Just don't tell our secrets to the idiots or conspiracy theorists my fellow big brained skeptic tips his fedora

Cupertino95014 4y ago

You can always pick an extreme example of drooling, pants-shitting, etc. etc. But the problem is that "option to die" usually morphs into "duty to die" and then into "involuntarily dying."

cwillu 4y ago
“Usually” is doing a metric shit-tonne of work there.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  see above
elevaet 4y ago
Does it now? Can you cite any examples?
- jollybean 4y ago
  The article is the example. There are massive systematic pressures on our healthcare system and the 'oldest' people who don't work or pay taxes are the big 'cost points'.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Eugenics was very popular among Progressives across western Europe as well as the US. Compulsive sterilization, certification of marriages to avoid unwanted breeding of undesirably character or deformity and worse were considered "the science" of the time, and a moral virtue among a fair few Christian sects as well. Fundamentalists and Catholics were among the few religious groups in the US who opposed it, and were ridiculed as ignorant. The evils perpetrated in the death camps and elsewhere were nothing more than the logical end conclusion of eugenics in general.
- Natsu 4y ago
  There's evidence in the article this story is about: "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. In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care."

seibelj 4y ago

I think reasonable people can agree that aborting an unborn baby that is conceived 1 day prior is not murder, but a fetus 1 day from birth is a human and killing it is murder. There is some point between 1 day and 9 months where killing the baby is immoral. Similarly, physician assisted suicide could make sense in some cases. However a chronically depressed patient that is annoying the doctor, I don't approve of offering suicide to. As someone who battled depression for many years and eventually vanquished it, a quick and painless suicide might have made sense when I was at my lowest point. I don't like how easy it has become in Canada according to this article.

cwillu 4y ago
[Upvoted despite significant disagreements, because the downvote button isn't a disagree button]
lotsofpulp 4y ago
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 is sufficiently handled between the pregnant mother and doctors. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...
- seibelj 4y ago
  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 not, perhaps it is indeed murder.
  - deleted 4y ago

Pxtl 4y ago

The biggest horror of the situation is that many disabled but otherwise healthy people are ending up in the MAID system because of the extreme cost of living in Canada that the disability support system has made no attempt to keep up with. Vancouver and Toronto are both on the top 10 most unaffordable cities on Earth, and it's literally killing people.

oleander73 4y ago
It is horrible if people are forced into MAID because of monetary issues, but that should obviously be addressed by improving their financial support, not by taking away the option of MAID.
- zx85wes 4y ago
  That's not happening because MAID is much cheaper. That's the way it is in my part of Europe anyway.

mongol 4y ago

Is there anything like a two-component drug, that you can get the parts of from two different sources, mix yourself, and kill yourself with in a humane way? In that case perhaps part A can be prescribed by one doctor, and part B by another, so no doctor is able to singlehandedly prescribe this lethal drug. I don't know if this solves anything, but it puts friction in they system, which I think is needed.

jeroenhd 4y ago
Suicide drugs exist but they're generally pretty awful ways to go or very illegal to sell. If the police find out suicidal people use your chemical store or pharmacy as their suicide shop, you can get in huge trouble, up to aiding in murder. I'm 100 in favour of euthanasia for people who are suffering with no end in sight. If I get sick and face ten years of slowly dying, suffering every day, I'm taking the easy way out somehow, and it's up to the government if that's in a controlled environment or if they'll need to send out a cleanup crew when they find the suicide note. However, I don't think you should be able to just buy suicide pills online. It's the only way to do it relatively safely and successfully for people in countries where assisted suicide isn't legal, but it's a workaround rather than a solution.

yardstick 4y ago

For some more context, in 2020 about 2.4% of all deaths (7,383 people) were euthanasia related. And the vast majority were over 60. Extracts: “In 2017, 2,838 medically assisted deaths were reported by Health Canada, compared with 4,478 deaths in 2018. In 2019, there were 5,425 medically assisted deaths in Canada, accounting for 1.9% of all deaths. In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada)” [1] And “applicants were on average 74.8 years of age. People under 60 years of age make up 11.3% of all MAID applicants. ” [1] So about 0.26% of all deaths in 2020 were under 60s euthanasia. 1. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220...

manholio 4y ago
Sounds about like what I would expect. Old age with an incurable degenerative disease is living in hell, so it's no surprise people take the option if it's available. But safeguards must be put in place to prevent people with a history of depression or mental diseases to be approved, it's simply an impossible decision for the state to make even if it would legitimately benefit some of them.
- indymike 4y ago
  As an old guy with an incurable disease, nothing is more frightening than people who want me to die before I'm ready to go.
- nlitened 4y ago
  Do people with history of depression and mental diseases suffer? Do they have a right to end their suffering?
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Yeah. Major depressive disorder is absolutely suffering. You should not force people to live with it, especially if they have sought professional help without success.

nitwit005 4y ago

It is entirely possible that there should be changes to the laws, but involving families is a terrible idea. You aren't going to get rational decision making if you ask someone about their mother wanting to die. You'd be lucky of you didn't get someone screaming profanity at the medical staff for an hour.

14 4y ago
On the other hand you would be surprised how many families embrace it and come together and celebrate their passing with the individual. Of course they are sad as well but they are also happy with the decision to give the client peace. I am a health care worker and occasionally get sent to work at a hospice house and have been present when MAID was being done.

rayiner 4y ago

But other “experts” created the system in the first place: > Canada’s road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their dignity and autonomy. It gave national leaders a year to draft legislation. Who cares what experts think about what’s fundamentally the regulation of morality?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jagger27 4y ago

I encourage everyone who’s having a strong reaction to this to read through the statistics[0] of who is receiving this care. Perhaps consider why you don’t hear about the success stories. 0: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html#4_0 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...

csnover 4y ago

To me, the only thing more ‘disturbing’ than a system which routinely fails its most vulnerable people by failing to provide adequate care and support for a good quality-of-life is a system which fails its most vulnerable people in that way and then also forces them to continue to suffer indefinitely. I agree that we should not accept a system that does not provide everyone a good chance at a decent quality of life. I also believe strongly we should do everything we can to develop better treatments and cures. At the same time, it is cruel to allow hubris or sentiment to blind us to the reality that, today, even the most well-allocated resources are finite, and our medical knowledge isn’t advanced enough to effectively treat—let alone cure—a huge number of non-fatal quality-of-life diseases. Maybe Canada’s system needs more safeguards, maybe it doesn’t. It’s impossible to tell by reading this article, which is heavy on innuendo and light on data.

O__________O 4y ago
Systems will always have suboptimal outcomes regardless of how they are structured, advances that are made, etc. Everything has a cost, regardless of if you acknowledge it, see it, etc. Generally speaking, vast majority of current negative health impacts are self inflicted and require no major breakthroughs; for example, diet and exercise.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
I would phrase this somewhat differently to express the same sentiment: I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am.
- ksaj 4y ago
  Exactly this. When we do it for our beloved pets, it is compassionate. When we do it for someone who specifically asked for it, under entirely similar conditions? Where is the difference?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    People are getting hung up on their own issues around mortality, death, and autonomy around euthanasia and projecting onto others. Safeguards are mandatory but so is free will.

earleybird 4y ago

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.

DangitBobby 4y ago
You might be surprised the suffering hearing loss can cause. I remember a story about a man who killed himself to make the ringing in his ears stop [1]. And if you decide their suffering doesn't make the cut and don't provide people with a way out, you might find they'll just take matters into their own hands. 1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376787/Tinnitus-sufferer-shot-dead-stop-screaming-ears.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376787/Tinnitus-su...
ur-whale 4y ago
> On the other hand, this should not be available to someone who has "hearing loss" Why? Should they jump off a bridge instead? > and is possibly not in a position to make good decisions. Who are you to tell?
- manholio 4y ago
  He had a documented history of depression. By definition, he was not in sound mind, there is ample precedent of people suffering from depression, trying and failing to commit suicide, and later recovering and thanking those around them for saving them. This idea that "one's mind is sovereign over their destiny" is unsustainable in practice. There are many versions of it floating around, for example related to gun control issues. You just can't create policies that ignore the reality that a large portion of people are not rational a large fraction of time.
  - 4y ago

darth_avocado 4y ago

Having gone through depression, I think there needs to be a higher bar for euthanasia. Yes there are terrible incurable sufferings that may need it, but making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition.

yumraj 4y ago
> making it available widely with no counter measure is a very dangerous proposition. Why? And, dangerous to whom?
- daenz 4y ago
  Dangerous to the people who would impulsively choose to be euthanized?
  - jmcgough 4y ago
    Canada has a 90-day assessment/waiting period for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. They won't euthanize you unless you seem capable of making the decision and have thought through it for an extended length of time. It's not an impulsive thing.
    - pavlov5867 4y ago
      And yet, "Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed" which is pretty quick considering median waiting time of 25.6 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment[1] [1]https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2021 https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wa...
  - yumraj 4y ago
    But, isn’t it their choice? If they are adults, and have lived at least a few decades.. I’ve never figured out why we as a society want to impose our morality on others.

auxfil 4y ago

The planet's overpopulated. Help people die if they choose to do so. It's a lot less messy that way, for everyone.

bpodgursky 4y ago
Please read the article.
Rackedup 4y ago
You could also try to make as many people gay as possible.
- Rackedup 4y ago
  It's the main reason why I like gay people... they don't reproduce.
  - Rackedup 4y ago
    why the down votes? I can't like whoever I want? Im part of the LGBTIQZ community

system_panic 4y ago

apnews needs to sell ads aparently.

system_panic 4y ago

Apnews, like Facebook, needs sensationalist content to sell ads.

manquer 4y ago
AP revenue is primarily content licensing [1] You could perhaps argue that since their customers probably get their money primarily through ads so AP needs to generate sensationalist content to keep them happy. They (and perhaps Thomson Reuters) themselves don't need ads to make money that is not their business model (while they do have ads revenue as well it is not key to their business ) That isn't to say AP's quality has not dropped over the years it certainly has. It seems more like given the pay journo's make these days, top talent is simply no longer interested in the field. Economic pressures of online journalism does not reward knowledgeable people taking the time to write well informed pieces, rather content mills are more likely to make money with low quality output. To me this is more a reflection of us as consumers not paying for quality rather than industry which merely adapts to what users want and pay for ( whether with subscriptions or eye balls) [1]https://www.ap.org/about/annual-report/2021/ap-by-the-numbers https://www.ap.org/about/annual-report/2021/ap-by-the-number...
Dma54rhs 4y ago
U.N. human rights writing about Canada's failure to fulfill the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is hardly sensationalist clickbait.

kwoff 4y ago

My mom died this year; liver and kidneys failed, lungs filled with fluid, suffocating, maximum oxygen support in the hospital. After several days, she was too tired to go on, went with "comfort care", supposedly minimizing suffering, but it's a euphemism for torture. I stayed with her for half an hour after they took off her oxygen mask before I couldn't take it any more -- my mother gasping for breath. After about an hour I was told she'd passed away so I should go back in -- to see her frozen with her jaw locked forward, desperately trying to get a breath. I hate anyone who claims euthanasia is wrong. Why couldn't they just replace the oxygen with nitrogen?

bolangi 4y ago

This is all very disturbing: price people out of care and convince them to consent to die. I think if someone wants to end their life, they can just stop eating and drinking. If you just stop eating it will take longer, but will still work. Someone with grave health problems will often have little appetite. A friend who nearly died with a running car engine in a closed garage says it's an easy way to go. The main consideration for the person choosing to end their life is that the measure they choose be reliably effective, as an incomplete death (oxymoron?) will likely entail further suffering. The seminal reference on the topic in the US is Final Exit, by Derek Humphry. https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Deliverance-Assisted/dp/0385336535 https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Delive...

sokoloff 4y ago
We made the difficult decision to euthanize our dog last summer. Sure, we could have just stopped feeding her or additionally stopped allowing her water to drink. If we’d done that instead, how would we be judged? How much of that judgment would result directly from the idea that, despite there being a more humane and compassionate alternate, we chose to prolong her suffering needlessly?
- pavlov5867 4y ago
  The operative word you've used is "euthanize" which is definitively different than "suicide" or even "assisted suicide". You're conflating the method of ending life with the person doing the ending. OP is talking about suicide and methods in which an individual may do it, you're talking about euthanasia trying to draw comparisons between a person deciding and committing suicide and you deciding to euthanize your dog. They are not the same.

murphyslab 4y ago

Curious that this article, from August 11, is posted today. Since no one in the thread has mentioned it, the issue has been in the Canadian media recently due to a situation first reported on August 16 which was updated today. The first paragraph is ample summary of what transpired: > A Canadian Forces veteran seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury was shocked when he was unexpectedly and casually offered medical assistance in dying by a Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) employee, sources tell Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-death-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-... And today a full investigation was announced: https://globalnews.ca/news/9072857/canada-veterans-assisted-dying-investigation/ https://globalnews.ca/news/9072857/canada-veterans-assisted-... This is not what is supposed to happen and the Veterans Affairs employee involved will, I expect, be sacked or placed on leave. It is at the very least incompetence or lack of proper training, given that the law has only been in place since 2021. ** For anyone looking to understand the issue in the Canadian context, and how we got here, here's my brief non-expert summary. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Carter v Canada that our Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide was unconstitutional: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v_Canada_(AG) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v_Canada_(AG) That brought about Bill C-14 in 2016, which allowed those whose death was "reasonably foreseeable" to obtain MAiD: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-a... A further legal challenge, Truchon v Canada, decided by the Superior Court of Quebec in 2019 required further legislative accommodation. This removed the restriction which required that death be "reasonably foreseeable" as it again violated the Charter. Hence the government introduced Bill C-7 in 2021: https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.h... The eligibility requirements are now: 1. Be a mentally competent adult 2. Experience "enduring and intolerable suffering" 3. Complete the process involving paperwork, witnesses, physicians, etc...

peppermint_tea 4y ago

this topic came up a few times on hacker news I will add this link here https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...

verisimi 4y ago

This is a great article that talks about the legal changes in this area: https://canucklaw.ca/parliaments-guidelines-on-euthanizing-the-mentally-ill/ https://canucklaw.ca/parliaments-guidelines-on-euthanizing-t...

tomohawk 4y ago

Being a doctor or nurse or other medical professional should be about sustaining and improving health. If euthanasia is to be a thing, it should not be carried out by doctors or nurses. It should be a different profession entirely. Trying to reuse existing professions and institutions for euthanasia simply because they possess the required medical knowledge is short sighted, and creates an obvious conflict of interest in many cases. Euthanasia should not be considered a medical or health choice/procedure. It is a different kind of choice/procedure entirely. We are already in a situation where insurance companies and governments will say "we'll pay for procedure X but not Y". If euthansia is considered to be a procedure, just like any other, people will find themselves in the situation where euthanasia is the only procedure that will be paid for. If you want to move this debate beyond the theoretical, then the best thing you can do for yourself and your loved ones is to make sure that you have set up proper legal documents (living will, advance directive, medical power of atty, etc). The last thing you want is for the state or some institution to decide these things for you when you are unable to, or for your family to squabble about it since you didn't leave them instructions. Your medical power of atty should empower a person you trust to carry out your wishes.

jacquesm 4y ago

My uncle just 'chose to die'. And rightly so. He suffered from a very bad case of cancer that caused him incredible pain. Physically he could have probably lived on for another three to six months but it would have been three to six months in hell. He was quite literally screaming from the pain, even through the heaviest sedatives, the only thing that would have stopped that would have been an artificial coma. Euthanasia is a godsend for situations like that and if you are against it for some reason understand that there is not such thing as an impulsive act to euthanize, that the medical profession is well capable of weighing whether you are just off your rocker for a day or two or if there is a legitimate cause. Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief. Obviously, coercing people to choose the option to die and pressuring them with the cost of their treatment should be off the table entirely and should be - as far as I'm concerned - prosecutable.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Very sorry for your loss.
freedomben 4y ago
> Way too many people argue about this stuff without having thought through the consequences and the possibility that one day they themselves may well be begging for that kind of relief. Yes, could not agree more. I see the same thing when arguing with people about accessibility to pain medications, where people who are generally healthy and not tormented by chronic pain want to throw roadblock after roadblock in people's way, and support policies that take away pain medication from people who need it which is literally torture. These people view addiction as We like to think that we moderns are so much more enlightened than people of the past who engaged in extreme cruelty against others, but in reality we're still pretty horrible. We just do it now through a mix of apathy (out of sight, out of mind), hubris, and moralism, by building a system in which people aren't free to make their own medical decisions but instead are forced to concede to the dictates of another. It's no doubt progress given where we started, but we still have a long way to go. I am optimistic that at some point people will learn empathy and humility, and stop projecting their own thoughts/beliefs/opinions onto others by coercion. I love this quote from CS Lewis: > "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. > They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

RappingBoomer 4y ago

can't have the little people thinking they control their own lives, can we?

ed-209 4y ago

I'm not seeing the central issue (imo) discussed, ie. is there a conflict of interest given that the party facilitating death is reducing cost of operation by doing so. You can't come to consensus (imo) without factoring the answer to this question into your argument.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]