6 ms·

> 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

• 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.
  • pyuser583 4y ago
    A one payer system doesn’t insulate doctors from personal incentives to cut costs. The details of compensation can easily encourage one time injections over long term care. Even if the injection is poison. I know for a fact that “bounty” type programs are used by Canadian public health authorities, and for-profit actors make money from them. I don’t know if this extends to long-term care scenarios, but there’s nothing about the way the Canadian health system is structured that offers strong protection against perverse incentives. Arguably, the horrible US for-profit health system offers stronger protection against this. A dead patient can’t be charged for more services. But a system that equates medical consumption with good care has it’s own set of problems too obvious to mention.
    • belval 4y ago
      Respectfully this just display ignorance on how doctors are compensated in Canada. They are paid by the act, meaning that "doing X" gives them money. Euthanizing someone is compensated as a single act so there really isn't an incentive to do it. Most doctors are actually refusing to do it because of their oath (and yes they can refuse).
      • metadat 4y ago
        Plenty of "specialists" make their living this way.
    • BeefWellington 4y ago
• alexashka 4y ago
  Maybe it's just me, but if a stranger can talk you into killing yourself - what the fuck else can a stranger talk you into doing? Maybe people need to take some responsibility, instead of arguing the existence of Dr Evils in medicine.
  • pyuser583 4y ago
    You’ve heard of the Milgram experiment? It specifically focused on medical authority.
    • lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Like almost all pop psychology, it is not very scientific: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-shocking-truth-of-...
      • barry-cotter 4y ago
        Hey, don’t smear all psychology with the taint of social psychology. Psychophysics and psychometrics replicate.
  • internet_user 4y ago
    You mean people with dementia or other degenerative brain diseases, should just pull themselves by the bootstraps and take more responsibility and debate their best?
  • kmonsen 4y ago
    There was a girl convicted of telling her boyfriend to kill himself: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/michelle-carter-prison-release-texting-suicide https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/michel... In general I agree with you, but there are s lot of really people that fall for scams that seems hard to fall for for most of us.
• danbolt 4y ago
  A hospital administrator might be under pressure from a Provincial government to improve “efficiency” and keep beds available, but your average doctor/nurse likely isn’t incentivized for that sort of outcome. Canadian elections are generally won in suburbs, so Provincial governments are generally hesitant to increase quality of care via tax revenues. This usually results in discussions of federal funding to improve care outcomes.[1] [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/8590853/canadian-premiers-new-poll-ottawa-health-transfers/amp/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8590853/canadian-premiers-new-pol...
  • vanattab 4y ago
    So if we let hospital administrators pressure people into assisted suicide all's good?
    • danbolt 4y ago
      No, I personally wish voters in each of the Canadian provinces would understand that taxpayer money on healthcare is well-spent. They should be voting for Premiers and cabinets that aren’t going to create this environment.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• refurb 4y ago
  The problem is the logic can lead you down a bad path. 1. Let fully lucid patients make a decision to die. 2. Let partially lucid patients make a decision to die. 3. Let family members of non-lucid patient makes a decision to die. 4. Let doctor make a decision for a patient who "would clearly want to die if they could speak".
• derbOac 4y ago
  I'm deeply disturbed by the tone of the comments here in general, as people seem to be missing the problem. The problem is that the government and health care institutions have a conflict of interest in euthanasia. A citizen that is costly to you? Wouldn't it be convenient if they disappeared? Wouldn't it be even better if they believed this was in their own best interests? I think a legitimate argument can be made that in many of these cases, Canada is simply killing its citizens rather than try to provide services, and essentially blaming it on the citizens or fate. I'm a huge supporter of assisted suicide. I believe it's a fundamental form of autonomy. But I also believe that people can be in positions where they are incapable of offering informed consent, and also strongly believe those in a position to assist cannot be in a place to assist in deciding. There needs to be a firewall in between. Probably a step further, in that there needs to be someone openly arguing against euthanasia as a matter of course, to ensure there is an advocate for that position. Think of it this way. Let's say a person is mentally incapable of consenting — they have a severe cognitive disability, or are a child. They are falsely accused by the state of a capital offense, because it unethically benefits the state (eg, to protect corrupt police). If they convince the accused of their guilt, does it make ethically acceptable? What if the accused is capable of consent, but is lied to and brainwashed about their guilt, and manipulated into believing they are guilty? In those cases, doesn't it still make sense to have a legal advocate for their innocence? How is that fundamentally different?