3 ms·

> You made the claim that it's happening No, I said 'could'. There's apparently no useful rule preventing it. > This isn't the same as a population-based stud

> You made the claim that it's happening No, I said 'could'. There's apparently no useful rule preventing it. > This isn't the same as a population-based study to prove that these are not edge case exceptions that receive appropriate outcry and thereby support. It doesn't need to be, it's an existence proof of bad policy. Even one case like this is too much.

ttul 4y ago
You could make criticisms of nearly any law if the bar for criticism is just that it's possible to push edge case X or Y. I think it's far more important and relevant to establish whether edge case X or Y is occurring with regularity. There are abuses of every law from time to time - and sometimes with concerning regularity. I don't see any evidence being put forward in the present article that the alleged potential abuses of the MAiD legislation are widespread.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > I don't see any evidence [...] I think that's the wrong standard for this - "visible evidence of failure", or "fully convincing rational". The burden of proof should be that we stop it unless we can show continual strong evidence of proportionality. The point isn't that this is horrible now, it's that it doesn't seem to have the type of guidelines we'd posited that would keep it from getting horrible. > it's far more important and relevant to establish [...] occurring with regularity I don't know how many disabled veterans they've offed, but even offering it to the one shows a stunning lack of ability to judge need and a heinous disregard for that person's life. Having a doctor recommend you kill yourself is likely to be somewhat devastating and have its own consequences even if you don't follow through. > You could make criticisms of nearly any law if the bar for criticism is just that it's possible to push edge case X or Y. It's not just possible, it's economically incentivized. Both at the individual and systemic level.

ttul 4y ago

You could make criticisms of nearly any law if the bar for criticism is just that it's possible to push edge case X or Y. I think it's far more important and relevant to establish whether edge case X or Y is occurring with regularity. There are abuses of every law from time to time - and sometimes with concerning regularity. I don't see any evidence being put forward in the present article that the alleged potential abuses of the MAiD legislation are widespread.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> I don't see any evidence [...] I think that's the wrong standard for this - "visible evidence of failure", or "fully convincing rational". The burden of proof should be that we stop it unless we can show continual strong evidence of proportionality. The point isn't that this is horrible now, it's that it doesn't seem to have the type of guidelines we'd posited that would keep it from getting horrible. > it's far more important and relevant to establish [...] occurring with regularity I don't know how many disabled veterans they've offed, but even offering it to the one shows a stunning lack of ability to judge need and a heinous disregard for that person's life. Having a doctor recommend you kill yourself is likely to be somewhat devastating and have its own consequences even if you don't follow through. > You could make criticisms of nearly any law if the bar for criticism is just that it's possible to push edge case X or Y. It's not just possible, it's economically incentivized. Both at the individual and systemic level.