3 ms·

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivities-chose-medically-assisted-death-after-failed-bid-to-get-better-housing-1.5860579 https://www.ctvn

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivities-chose-medically-assisted-death-after-failed-bid-to-get-better-housing-1.5860579 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit... > Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death after failed bid to get better housing https://www.liveaction.org/news/euthanasia-unjust-social-conditions/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/euthanasia-unjust-social-con... > a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness. > And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment (emphasis theirs) > So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”

mthoms 3y ago
While this case is indeed controversial and worthy of examining... I'm sceptical of "liveaction.org" as a source because it describes itself thusly: "Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective." Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources. Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).
  - mthoms 3y ago
    Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. >This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources. Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one. More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      This particular issue is difficult to discuss from a scientific perspective, because basically the only non-opinion (i.e. ideological) questions that can be asked are: whether making assisted suicide legal increases or decreases total suicides, and what are the economic impacts of assisted suicide legalization. Everything else about assisted suicide is ideological or ideological driven (at minimum, the balance between antipathies of death compared to pain). Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
      - robotresearcher 3y ago
        What’s the basis of this strong claim? Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it. For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > For people without that view, why would they be biased? - Fear of pain - Fear of old age, or aging in general - Fear of debility - Fear of loss of autonomy - Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position). I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.

mthoms 3y ago

While this case is indeed controversial and worthy of examining... I'm sceptical of "liveaction.org" as a source because it describes itself thusly: "Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective." Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources. Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).
- mthoms 3y ago
  Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. >This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources. Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one. More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    This particular issue is difficult to discuss from a scientific perspective, because basically the only non-opinion (i.e. ideological) questions that can be asked are: whether making assisted suicide legal increases or decreases total suicides, and what are the economic impacts of assisted suicide legalization. Everything else about assisted suicide is ideological or ideological driven (at minimum, the balance between antipathies of death compared to pain). Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
    - robotresearcher 3y ago
      What’s the basis of this strong claim? Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it. For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > For people without that view, why would they be biased? - Fear of pain - Fear of old age, or aging in general - Fear of debility - Fear of loss of autonomy - Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position). I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.