5 ms·

The ”Free Press” is a Substack site published by Bari Weiss, an American journalist whose point of view has been described as conservative, even “provocative.”

by ttul 4y ago

The ”Free Press” is a Substack site published by Bari Weiss, an American journalist whose point of view has been described as conservative, even “provocative.” I think a degree of critical thinking should be engaged when reading anything she puts out. Her standard journalism is, at best, “opinion.” This article, like many others I have come across in recent months, describes medical assistance in dying (MAiD) as if it’s metastasizing into Canada’s leading cause of death - the ultimate escape from any form of suffering whatsoever. The reality is that prior to MAiD, many people were assisted in their death, under the radar, by a compassionate palliative care doctor or nurse, who would show the patient how to turn the knob up on their fentanyl drip. Those less fortunate would commit suicide in more brutal ways, something with which we are all doubtless far too familiar. The terminally ill were forced to suffer a terrible end of life, all in the name of persisting life at all costs - including human dignity. The question we all should be asking is this: is it right for someone to have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their own death? People do it already through suicide, but it’s not a nice ending. Suicide generates a good deal of family shame to go along with the suffering of self-administered death. Nobody likes death, but it is inevitable. The question Canada asked - and answered - is that a compassionate death should be an option for those who wish it for themselves when they have no reasonable prospect of turning around a terrible situation from which there is no reasonable prospect of recovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss

josephcsible 4y ago
> whose point of view has been described as conservative, even “provocative.” I think a degree of critical thinking should be engaged when reading anything she puts out. Should a degree of critical thinking not be engaged when reading things put out by people with liberal points of view?
- ttul 4y ago
  Assisted death is a liberal concept; social conservatives criticize it because, in the conservative worldview [1], any form of self-determined death is considered immoral. In light of the conservative view of this issue, it is useful to apply a critical eye. 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-1.5783194 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-...
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    In the linked article, conservatives are objecting to a new legal standard which requires doctors to either kill patients themselves or find another doctor who’s willing to do it. This seems like a pretty straightforward argument for the conservative position; in just 8 years Canada has traveled from “people in extreme pain have a right to self-determined death” to “you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs”.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      We need more evidence than a handful of ancedotes to proclaim that the entire country of Canada has changed its position on doctor quality based on willingless to participate in MAiD. I get that this is an emotional thing but we're really talking to basically a mom who says she knows better than her adult son whether or not he wants to kill himself (regardless of whether or not I personally disagree with the son, that situation is emotionally totally fucked and I don't think its representative of the entire country)
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        The article linked in the comment I’m responding to is based not on a handful of anecdotes but new standards from the courts and Parliament. “ Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that doctors who have moral objections to providing health services like abortion or assisted death must provide patients with an ‘effective referral’ to another doctor.”
        PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        You told me that doctors who don't want to participate in MAiD can willingly opt-out of it and refer any patients to other doctors. This seems completely opposite, unless you mean doctors are being forced to not throw up barriers to access to MAiD to be the same as being forced to participate in MAiD, which seems totally backwards.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  No. One is science-based and good faith. The other is regressive and based on Christianity.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Look bari weiss fucking sucks. My political views are absolutely fringe left wing so this is a real "the worst person you know just made a great point" moment for me. > The question we all should be asking is this: is it right for someone to have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their own death? That's not the question though, and the fact that it's being framed that way, in a way that almost no reasonable and compassionate person could disagree with, is part of the harm here. The question is really more like "who chooses this, and why, and what did they ask for first, and did they get it?" This is not a simplified abstract philosophical issue. My views on this come from being part of a group adjacent to and with a lot of overlap with communities of disabled people. Disabled people are diverse and have a lot of different experiences but the main way they are perceiving this is "they won't give me the support I need to live but they will give me the means to end my life." The issue here is not compassionate death for terminal patients, which again almost everyone opposing this does support in the abstract. The issue is in the actual implementation, which in its current form is frighteningly close to eugenics. Disabled people are particularly sensitive to things resembling eugenics, and they picked up on this early. The opposition to it from those groups has been principled and consistent for years now. They predicted this as the likely practical outcome and were dismissed as callous doomsayers. Now what they predicted has come true. It is time to drop the compassionate-care-for-the-terminal angle and face what is actually in front of us with this policy. Those people still do have the right to end their lives with dignity but it cannot come at the expense of other groups, which with this it does.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
Total hit piece on the journalist. Try engaging with the story before poisoning the well. The problem with MAiD the way Canada implemented it is that there are incentives for the system to off you. In that scenario you mention with the doctor he didn't get paid to show you the switch, and he risks being charged if his healthy patients start dying. Now it's risk free, he could clear his schedule for the holidays and face no recriminations. > is it right for someone to have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their own death That's not the question that ended up being asked, it's can a doctor recommend that your depressed child be killed before they've put any effort into therapy. Or, can a hospital administrator reward the nurses' pod with the most patient suicides with a bonus? > is that a compassionate death should be an option [...] no reasonable prospect of turning around a terrible situation [...] no reasonable prospect of recovery Yeah, that's not how it works. They're supposed to ask that sort of stuff, and you aren't supposed to want to die for lack of some food, but in fact it's not helping the people you think and not saving those you'd wish.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  > Now it's risk free, he could clear his schedule for the holidays and face no recriminations. Can you cite this happening? > Or, can a hospital administrator reward the nurses' pod with the most patient suicides with a bonus? Can you cite this happening? > Yeah, that's not how it works. They're supposed to ask that sort of stuff, and you aren't supposed to want to die for lack of some food, but in fact it's not helping the people you think and not saving those you'd wish. Can you cite statistics on a population? There are multiple MAiD online communities. Surely someone has surveyed them?
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > Can you cite this happening? Can you cite a rule preventing this? We'd like to keep it from happening. > There are multiple MAiD online communities. The Veterans community is pretty pissed off about that Paralympian athlete who was offered suicide instead of a wheelchair ramp. They don't feel this is working correctly.
aksss 4y ago
You could have left the first paragraph off and not detracted from the value of your contribution in any way. In truth, I think it would have been a stronger lead-in to do so.
guilhas 4y ago
Choosing to die will never a "nice" death If your country, society, economy, life quality, health, is not good that you choose to die, that is obviously a sign that something is wrong and it should revolt everyone, assisted or not
- ttul 4y ago
  I beg to differ. Even in a country like Canada where world-class medicine is available to everyone for free, it's quite possible to suffer a great deal before you eventually die from a terminal illness. Canada's constitution guarantees everyone the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." By criminalizing the act of helping a terminally ill person to die, we are forcing that person to choose between "a life of severe and intolerable suffering," or forcing her to "take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means." The court ruled that forcing this choice deprived Canadians of their right to "life, liberty and security of the person." The Supreme Court of Canada's judgement is worth reading [1]: "It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel." [1] https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5.html https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5....
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
collyw 4y ago
I think a degree of critical thinking should be engaged in when looking at Wikipedia articles. Always check the talk tab.

by ttul 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> whose point of view has been described as conservative, even “provocative.” I think a degree of critical thinking should be engaged when reading anything she puts out. Should a degree of critical thinking not be engaged when reading things put out by people with liberal points of view?

ttul 4y ago
Assisted death is a liberal concept; social conservatives criticize it because, in the conservative worldview [1], any form of self-determined death is considered immoral. In light of the conservative view of this issue, it is useful to apply a critical eye. 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-1.5783194 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-ottawa-...
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  In the linked article, conservatives are objecting to a new legal standard which requires doctors to either kill patients themselves or find another doctor who’s willing to do it. This seems like a pretty straightforward argument for the conservative position; in just 8 years Canada has traveled from “people in extreme pain have a right to self-determined death” to “you’re a bad doctor if you won’t give your patients lethal injection drugs”.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    We need more evidence than a handful of ancedotes to proclaim that the entire country of Canada has changed its position on doctor quality based on willingless to participate in MAiD. I get that this is an emotional thing but we're really talking to basically a mom who says she knows better than her adult son whether or not he wants to kill himself (regardless of whether or not I personally disagree with the son, that situation is emotionally totally fucked and I don't think its representative of the entire country)
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      The article linked in the comment I’m responding to is based not on a handful of anecdotes but new standards from the courts and Parliament. “ Last year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that doctors who have moral objections to providing health services like abortion or assisted death must provide patients with an ‘effective referral’ to another doctor.”
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        You told me that doctors who don't want to participate in MAiD can willingly opt-out of it and refer any patients to other doctors. This seems completely opposite, unless you mean doctors are being forced to not throw up barriers to access to MAiD to be the same as being forced to participate in MAiD, which seems totally backwards.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
No. One is science-based and good faith. The other is regressive and based on Christianity.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Look bari weiss fucking sucks. My political views are absolutely fringe left wing so this is a real "the worst person you know just made a great point" moment for me. > The question we all should be asking is this: is it right for someone to have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their own death? That's not the question though, and the fact that it's being framed that way, in a way that almost no reasonable and compassionate person could disagree with, is part of the harm here. The question is really more like "who chooses this, and why, and what did they ask for first, and did they get it?" This is not a simplified abstract philosophical issue. My views on this come from being part of a group adjacent to and with a lot of overlap with communities of disabled people. Disabled people are diverse and have a lot of different experiences but the main way they are perceiving this is "they won't give me the support I need to live but they will give me the means to end my life." The issue here is not compassionate death for terminal patients, which again almost everyone opposing this does support in the abstract. The issue is in the actual implementation, which in its current form is frighteningly close to eugenics. Disabled people are particularly sensitive to things resembling eugenics, and they picked up on this early. The opposition to it from those groups has been principled and consistent for years now. They predicted this as the likely practical outcome and were dismissed as callous doomsayers. Now what they predicted has come true. It is time to drop the compassionate-care-for-the-terminal angle and face what is actually in front of us with this policy. Those people still do have the right to end their lives with dignity but it cannot come at the expense of other groups, which with this it does.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

Total hit piece on the journalist. Try engaging with the story before poisoning the well. The problem with MAiD the way Canada implemented it is that there are incentives for the system to off you. In that scenario you mention with the doctor he didn't get paid to show you the switch, and he risks being charged if his healthy patients start dying. Now it's risk free, he could clear his schedule for the holidays and face no recriminations. > is it right for someone to have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their own death That's not the question that ended up being asked, it's can a doctor recommend that your depressed child be killed before they've put any effort into therapy. Or, can a hospital administrator reward the nurses' pod with the most patient suicides with a bonus? > is that a compassionate death should be an option [...] no reasonable prospect of turning around a terrible situation [...] no reasonable prospect of recovery Yeah, that's not how it works. They're supposed to ask that sort of stuff, and you aren't supposed to want to die for lack of some food, but in fact it's not helping the people you think and not saving those you'd wish.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
> Now it's risk free, he could clear his schedule for the holidays and face no recriminations. Can you cite this happening? > Or, can a hospital administrator reward the nurses' pod with the most patient suicides with a bonus? Can you cite this happening? > Yeah, that's not how it works. They're supposed to ask that sort of stuff, and you aren't supposed to want to die for lack of some food, but in fact it's not helping the people you think and not saving those you'd wish. Can you cite statistics on a population? There are multiple MAiD online communities. Surely someone has surveyed them?
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > Can you cite this happening? Can you cite a rule preventing this? We'd like to keep it from happening. > There are multiple MAiD online communities. The Veterans community is pretty pissed off about that Paralympian athlete who was offered suicide instead of a wheelchair ramp. They don't feel this is working correctly.

aksss 4y ago

You could have left the first paragraph off and not detracted from the value of your contribution in any way. In truth, I think it would have been a stronger lead-in to do so.

guilhas 4y ago

Choosing to die will never a "nice" death If your country, society, economy, life quality, health, is not good that you choose to die, that is obviously a sign that something is wrong and it should revolt everyone, assisted or not

ttul 4y ago
I beg to differ. Even in a country like Canada where world-class medicine is available to everyone for free, it's quite possible to suffer a great deal before you eventually die from a terminal illness. Canada's constitution guarantees everyone the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." By criminalizing the act of helping a terminally ill person to die, we are forcing that person to choose between "a life of severe and intolerable suffering," or forcing her to "take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means." The court ruled that forcing this choice deprived Canadians of their right to "life, liberty and security of the person." The Supreme Court of Canada's judgement is worth reading [1]: "It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel." [1] https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5.html https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5....
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

collyw 4y ago

I think a degree of critical thinking should be engaged in when looking at Wikipedia articles. Always check the talk tab.