"Paid for" does not necessarily mean "good" just as "expensive" doesn't necessarily mean "bad." I'm not trying to opine on the Canadian health care system, as

"Paid for" does not necessarily mean "good" just as "expensive" doesn't necessarily mean "bad." I'm not trying to opine on the Canadian health care system, as I've never experienced it nor given it much thought, but arguendo, if a part of the calculus for wellness is "is it cheaper to kill them?" that would be a deal-breaker. (Again, not saying that's what is happening, but I am always skeptical of the payor's ability to dictate the treatment for reasons you can infer) There's such a sliding scale of what is good and right here, and I think reasonable people can draw their lines at different places. Plot these as points on a line, and I think everyone will draw a line somewhere: * suicide should be allowed * medically assisted deaths are different from suicide and should be allowed * people assisting in death should be prosecuted * if it is hard for law enforcement to distinguish assisted suicide from murder, prosecutions are allowed * it is okay for your doctor to prescribe death * it is okay for the state to encourage death as the most cost efficient means of care * it is okay for the state to withhold care if it is too costly to administer * it is okay for the state to kill anyone they deem burdensome A definition of "good" may still contain characteristics that cross a line that a reasonable person has drawn, and I can't imagine how someone might convince another grown adult to draw their line somewhere other than what feels intuitive.