4 ms·

Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? This isn’t a 30 hour police interrogation without food, water, or sleep. Options are

by voisin 4y ago

Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? This isn’t a 30 hour police interrogation without food, water, or sleep. Options are presented, and in some cases living with the debilitating sickness is worse than suicide. I think if they want to live, it is likely they want to live if the debilitating illness wasn’t there, but given that fact they choose death.

bjt2n3904 4y ago
- WoodenChair 4y ago
  And the fact that your comment was getting downvoted is also stunning. The lack of empathy in these comment threads is astounding. From the general tone, it feels like there are many people who have never dealt with anyone who is severely depressed and just don't know how on the edge that position really is. It doesn't take much to convince someone who is severely depressed to finish it off. A doctor even bringing up the option may be enough to cause ideation, and yes it's much worse if the suggestion comes from an authority figure or someone who is ostensibly there for "your health."
- dang 4y ago
  Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? You're welcome to be on either side of this issue, but your comments are standing out in this thread as particularly inflammatory and battle-modey. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to warn you about this already more than once, such as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 (Nov 2020) Moreover, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, or perilously close thereto. That's one line at which we ban accounts (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). If you'd please stop doing that, we'd appreciate it. We want curious conversation here.
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    Dang, you are a patient moderator. I know I'm walking on thin ice here, and have not forgotten our previous interactions. Your reminder to not switch topics has been greatly beneficial to my discussions here, and off site. Regrettably, I cannot change my tone on these topics. A statement like "if they don't want to commit suicide, then suggesting it won't have an effect" does not deserve "curious" conversation. I have attempted to use HN for curious discussion. A perusal of my most recent comments includes the AVR-GCC compiler, carrier override of cellphone settings, Montessori schools, ChatGPT, content moderation, failures of renewable energy, and humanity's propensity for counting in 1,000's. Admittedly, the content moderation and failures of renewable energy were not received well, and were slightly contentious. But I do not see this as primarily using HN for ideological flamewars. You are correct that my comments here are "battle mode-y". Frankly, because HN has become swamped with things that aren't about tech and curiosity, given the sisemic political shifts in the country. Daily there are topics about assisted suicide being wonderful, calls to play Russian roulette with psychoactive substances, ministries of Truth being the greatest thing ever, and Google flagging "black owned business" being a marvelous idea, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot. These ideas herald the end of society. They receive accolades from the userbase, and attempts at serious discussion are downvoted without so much as a reply. In short, there is already an invisible ideological battle occurring, for which there are no repercussions. Must I feign curiosity? Must I simply ignore it?
VancouverMan 4y ago
There's a significant cultural aspect we need to consider, too. Many Canadians, especially older ones who grew up when Canada was still a very high-trust society, have what could be described as a reverence for authority figures. This involves a significant degree of obedience, bordering on subservience. Medical professionals are often among the most revered authority figures to these Canadians, even to the point of being seen as infallible. There are Canadians who won't question any advice made, nor any suggestions given, by these medical professionals. If a medical professional were to recommend euthanasia to these kind of Canadians, even if it wasn't something that they really wanted to do, I think a significant proportion would feel obliged to go along with it, as irrational as this may seem. This attitude became quite apparent over the last three years, when many Canadians completely bought into the many obviously nonsensical, and sometimes even outright harmful, policies being pushed by medical professionals and public health officials. At the same time, however, those three years have been a significant eye-opener for some Canadians, too. For these people, the trust they once had in the various medical professions was completely shattered. With a larger proportion of the Canadian population no longer trusting Canada's medical professionals and health care systems, it doesn't surprise me at all that we're starting to see more questioning of policies such as this one.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on the harmful policies being pushed by medical professionals and public health officials?
  - cantberight 4y ago
    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. Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg. https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867 https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c63...
cantberight 4y ago
> Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? The risk is that vulnerable populations such as the elderly and the sick will be (or are being) subjected to pressure. The case where a medical "ethicist" was trying to shame someone into accepting death because of the cost they were inflicting on the medical system was chilling, and convinced me that this was a real issue. Surely we can agree that we don't want that?
JoeyBananas 4y ago
This is setting the bar far too low. The system should push people in the other direction, and it should not just be a gentle push. Doctors should push hard to keep patients alive because that's what the patient (or taxpayer) pays them for. I feel like I shouldn't have to say that.
- viraptor 4y ago
  That's a bit too simple view. Another case where the often applies is older people about to die, but family arrives and demands more active treatment and care. Known as the daughter from California syndrome https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/daughter_from_California_syndrome https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/daughter_from_California_sy... Doctor's job is to give available paths and explain possible outcomes, their likelihood and side effects. If your options are die today or die in 3 days while a machine breathes for you and you're drugged like crazy to avoid the pain... no, they shouldn't be pushing you to live. Then, there's the whole range where it's not 3 days, but 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years, etc. with different levels of discomfort.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
"Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no?" It should but it's possible to push real hard. There are literally TV interviews where MAID participants are like "I would like to live but they convinced me it's for the better" I'm actually personally fine with counseling people to die, even moderately aggressively. In many cases it's the right thing to do and we should probably be doing it more. The problem is that when there is a conflict of interest because the org that is telling you to die is the org that benefits from it. Given this conflict at best the Canadian government should be providing death services for free and mentioning it is an option. And that's it. They should be letting other nonprofit orgs with no funding from the govt counsel people to die.

by voisin 4y ago

bjt2n3904 4y ago

WoodenChair 4y ago
And the fact that your comment was getting downvoted is also stunning. The lack of empathy in these comment threads is astounding. From the general tone, it feels like there are many people who have never dealt with anyone who is severely depressed and just don't know how on the edge that position really is. It doesn't take much to convince someone who is severely depressed to finish it off. A doctor even bringing up the option may be enough to cause ideation, and yes it's much worse if the suggestion comes from an authority figure or someone who is ostensibly there for "your health."
dang 4y ago
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? You're welcome to be on either side of this issue, but your comments are standing out in this thread as particularly inflammatory and battle-modey. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to warn you about this already more than once, such as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 (Nov 2020) Moreover, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, or perilously close thereto. That's one line at which we ban accounts (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). If you'd please stop doing that, we'd appreciate it. We want curious conversation here.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  Dang, you are a patient moderator. I know I'm walking on thin ice here, and have not forgotten our previous interactions. Your reminder to not switch topics has been greatly beneficial to my discussions here, and off site. Regrettably, I cannot change my tone on these topics. A statement like "if they don't want to commit suicide, then suggesting it won't have an effect" does not deserve "curious" conversation. I have attempted to use HN for curious discussion. A perusal of my most recent comments includes the AVR-GCC compiler, carrier override of cellphone settings, Montessori schools, ChatGPT, content moderation, failures of renewable energy, and humanity's propensity for counting in 1,000's. Admittedly, the content moderation and failures of renewable energy were not received well, and were slightly contentious. But I do not see this as primarily using HN for ideological flamewars. You are correct that my comments here are "battle mode-y". Frankly, because HN has become swamped with things that aren't about tech and curiosity, given the sisemic political shifts in the country. Daily there are topics about assisted suicide being wonderful, calls to play Russian roulette with psychoactive substances, ministries of Truth being the greatest thing ever, and Google flagging "black owned business" being a marvelous idea, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot. These ideas herald the end of society. They receive accolades from the userbase, and attempts at serious discussion are downvoted without so much as a reply. In short, there is already an invisible ideological battle occurring, for which there are no repercussions. Must I feign curiosity? Must I simply ignore it?

VancouverMan 4y ago

There's a significant cultural aspect we need to consider, too. Many Canadians, especially older ones who grew up when Canada was still a very high-trust society, have what could be described as a reverence for authority figures. This involves a significant degree of obedience, bordering on subservience. Medical professionals are often among the most revered authority figures to these Canadians, even to the point of being seen as infallible. There are Canadians who won't question any advice made, nor any suggestions given, by these medical professionals. If a medical professional were to recommend euthanasia to these kind of Canadians, even if it wasn't something that they really wanted to do, I think a significant proportion would feel obliged to go along with it, as irrational as this may seem. This attitude became quite apparent over the last three years, when many Canadians completely bought into the many obviously nonsensical, and sometimes even outright harmful, policies being pushed by medical professionals and public health officials. At the same time, however, those three years have been a significant eye-opener for some Canadians, too. For these people, the trust they once had in the various medical professions was completely shattered. With a larger proportion of the Canadian population no longer trusting Canada's medical professionals and health care systems, it doesn't surprise me at all that we're starting to see more questioning of policies such as this one.

mmastrac 4y ago
Can you elaborate on the harmful policies being pushed by medical professionals and public health officials?
- cantberight 4y ago
  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. Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg. https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867 https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c63...

cantberight 4y ago

> Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? The risk is that vulnerable populations such as the elderly and the sick will be (or are being) subjected to pressure. The case where a medical "ethicist" was trying to shame someone into accepting death because of the cost they were inflicting on the medical system was chilling, and convinced me that this was a real issue. Surely we can agree that we don't want that?

JoeyBananas 4y ago

This is setting the bar far too low. The system should push people in the other direction, and it should not just be a gentle push. Doctors should push hard to keep patients alive because that's what the patient (or taxpayer) pays them for. I feel like I shouldn't have to say that.

viraptor 4y ago
That's a bit too simple view. Another case where the often applies is older people about to die, but family arrives and demands more active treatment and care. Known as the daughter from California syndrome https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/daughter_from_California_syndrome https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/daughter_from_California_sy... Doctor's job is to give available paths and explain possible outcomes, their likelihood and side effects. If your options are die today or die in 3 days while a machine breathes for you and you're drugged like crazy to avoid the pain... no, they shouldn't be pushing you to live. Then, there's the whole range where it's not 3 days, but 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years, etc. with different levels of discomfort.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

"Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no?" It should but it's possible to push real hard. There are literally TV interviews where MAID participants are like "I would like to live but they convinced me it's for the better" I'm actually personally fine with counseling people to die, even moderately aggressively. In many cases it's the right thing to do and we should probably be doing it more. The problem is that when there is a conflict of interest because the org that is telling you to die is the org that benefits from it. Given this conflict at best the Canadian government should be providing death services for free and mentioning it is an option. And that's it. They should be letting other nonprofit orgs with no funding from the govt counsel people to die.