4 ms·

> Another 28 per cent pegged “homelessness” as an appropriate bar to qualify for MAID. > And 20 per cent of respondents were fine with MAID being handed out to

> Another 28 per cent pegged “homelessness” as an appropriate bar to qualify for MAID. > And 20 per cent of respondents were fine with MAID being handed out to anybody for any reason. In other words, one fifth of respondents agreed with the sentiment “medical assistance in dying should always be allowed, regardless of who requests it.” The headline is focusing on homelessness as reason for assisted suicide, but as we can see a lot of people think it should be available to everyone, for any reason. Which makes sense. If someone does not want to stay alive, why should they have to remain living?

pocketarc 3y ago
> If someone does not want to stay alive, why should they have to remain living? Indeed. It's quite surprising that someone can be 50 years old, perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and they're free to do whatever they want with their own life (eat until you're medically obese, smoke until your lungs turn black, get into an alcoholic coma and end up in the hospital, it's all legal), but we draw the line at ending it.
- xupybd 3y ago
  Yes but the Canadian government has programs to address all of these things. https://obesitycanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/OC-2020-2025-Strategic-Plan_Final.pdf https://obesitycanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/OC-2020-... https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/canada-tobacco-strategy.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications... https://www.ccsa.ca/reducing-alcohol-related-harm-canada-toward-culture-moderation https://www.ccsa.ca/reducing-alcohol-related-harm-canada-tow...
- stareatgoats 3y ago
  Most people can end their own life whenever they chose. This is about the government providing an officially sanctioned process that involves medical professionals so that the process is painless and irrevocable. > It's quite surprising It is not surprising that this is controversial, since otherwise normal people can, and will, be coaxed into believing that they should let themselves be killed, just because they pose some inconvenience to their close ones or to society. Supporting such is obviously abhorrent to all who believe they do the right thing when they willingly lend support such "inconvenient people".
orange_fritter 3y ago
I've never heard of this publication but the clickbait title is a mark against it.
- ajma 3y ago
  I'm not happy with the clickbait title either but the National Post is a reasonably big news outlet. Or at least it was when I lived in Canada 20 years ago.
Llamamoe 3y ago
> If someone does not want to stay alive, why should they have to remain living? As a person who'd have taken the option were it given to me in the past - because it's a cop-out for already negligent healthcare and welfare systems that don't make more than a token effort to genuinely help anyone struggling. There's already overwhelming pressure on chronically ill people to just shut up, "stop pretending" that something's wrong with them, and just take their psych pills. I'm sure nobody would say the same things out loud about assisted suicide but you'd just know the expectation that you'll do whatever it takes to not be a burden anymore is there. It's ALREADY one of the top reasons for suicide. Now imagine if society straight up sanctioned it.
Yizahi 3y ago
It's a bad take. There can be a lot of socially induced situations (meaning reversible) from which humans can't get out due to the variety of problems. Poverty is one of them, there are a lot of studies that below some threshold humans are highly unlikely to get out of poverty on their own. Same with gambling addiction, drug addiction, a subset of mental disorders which are curable or can be mostly mitigated with meds and so on. Saying that it's ok to allow people commit suicide due to the above issues is incredibly low empathy. It's a social darwinism basically and while adopting such mentality is a valid option, I think that we as a species can do better.
- codetrotter 3y ago
  > There can be a lot of socially induced situations (meaning reversible) from which humans can't get out due to the variety of problems. Poverty is one of them, there are a lot of studies that below some threshold humans are highly unlikely to get out of poverty on their own. Same with gambling addiction, drug addiction, a subset of mental disorders which are curable or can be mostly mitigated with meds and so on. > Saying that it's ok to allow people commit suicide due to the above issues is incredibly low empathy. No, it’s the other way around. Insisting that someone has to stay alive against their own will, when they are suffering for a long time is the opinion that is lacking empathy.
  - Yizahi 3y ago
    There is a big difference between "staying alive against their own will WITHOUT any possibility to improve" and "staying alive against their own will when there IS a possibility to improve". Promoting suicide in the second case, and wasting money on it instead of actually improving lives of people suffering is, lets say dumb. If a human is suffering so much that he wants to die, he can do it on his own fast and painless, by buying a bottle of nitrogen for a fifty bucks or less. But if he don't know about how to commit suicide someone (meaning government) needs to rent some facilities for a suicide booth, pay salary for the qualified personnel there, go through regular intensive red tape, paperwork and inspections, pay for the meds for the procedure, pay for the advertisements about it (even if they are not exactly like some Coca-Cola ads, but any brochures or signs or printed poster are essentially ads). All those money can be better directed at education and health improvements for those same people. Because their condition IS REVERSIBLE. Killing them is both stupid and immoral.

pocketarc 3y ago

> If someone does not want to stay alive, why should they have to remain living? Indeed. It's quite surprising that someone can be 50 years old, perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and they're free to do whatever they want with their own life (eat until you're medically obese, smoke until your lungs turn black, get into an alcoholic coma and end up in the hospital, it's all legal), but we draw the line at ending it.

xupybd 3y ago
Yes but the Canadian government has programs to address all of these things. https://obesitycanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/OC-2020-2025-Strategic-Plan_Final.pdf https://obesitycanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/OC-2020-... https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/canada-tobacco-strategy.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications... https://www.ccsa.ca/reducing-alcohol-related-harm-canada-toward-culture-moderation https://www.ccsa.ca/reducing-alcohol-related-harm-canada-tow...
stareatgoats 3y ago
Most people can end their own life whenever they chose. This is about the government providing an officially sanctioned process that involves medical professionals so that the process is painless and irrevocable. > It's quite surprising It is not surprising that this is controversial, since otherwise normal people can, and will, be coaxed into believing that they should let themselves be killed, just because they pose some inconvenience to their close ones or to society. Supporting such is obviously abhorrent to all who believe they do the right thing when they willingly lend support such "inconvenient people".

orange_fritter 3y ago

I've never heard of this publication but the clickbait title is a mark against it.

ajma 3y ago
I'm not happy with the clickbait title either but the National Post is a reasonably big news outlet. Or at least it was when I lived in Canada 20 years ago.

Llamamoe 3y ago

> If someone does not want to stay alive, why should they have to remain living? As a person who'd have taken the option were it given to me in the past - because it's a cop-out for already negligent healthcare and welfare systems that don't make more than a token effort to genuinely help anyone struggling. There's already overwhelming pressure on chronically ill people to just shut up, "stop pretending" that something's wrong with them, and just take their psych pills. I'm sure nobody would say the same things out loud about assisted suicide but you'd just know the expectation that you'll do whatever it takes to not be a burden anymore is there. It's ALREADY one of the top reasons for suicide. Now imagine if society straight up sanctioned it.

Yizahi 3y ago

It's a bad take. There can be a lot of socially induced situations (meaning reversible) from which humans can't get out due to the variety of problems. Poverty is one of them, there are a lot of studies that below some threshold humans are highly unlikely to get out of poverty on their own. Same with gambling addiction, drug addiction, a subset of mental disorders which are curable or can be mostly mitigated with meds and so on. Saying that it's ok to allow people commit suicide due to the above issues is incredibly low empathy. It's a social darwinism basically and while adopting such mentality is a valid option, I think that we as a species can do better.

codetrotter 3y ago
> There can be a lot of socially induced situations (meaning reversible) from which humans can't get out due to the variety of problems. Poverty is one of them, there are a lot of studies that below some threshold humans are highly unlikely to get out of poverty on their own. Same with gambling addiction, drug addiction, a subset of mental disorders which are curable or can be mostly mitigated with meds and so on. > Saying that it's ok to allow people commit suicide due to the above issues is incredibly low empathy. No, it’s the other way around. Insisting that someone has to stay alive against their own will, when they are suffering for a long time is the opinion that is lacking empathy.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  There is a big difference between "staying alive against their own will WITHOUT any possibility to improve" and "staying alive against their own will when there IS a possibility to improve". Promoting suicide in the second case, and wasting money on it instead of actually improving lives of people suffering is, lets say dumb. If a human is suffering so much that he wants to die, he can do it on his own fast and painless, by buying a bottle of nitrogen for a fifty bucks or less. But if he don't know about how to commit suicide someone (meaning government) needs to rent some facilities for a suicide booth, pay salary for the qualified personnel there, go through regular intensive red tape, paperwork and inspections, pay for the meds for the procedure, pay for the advertisements about it (even if they are not exactly like some Coca-Cola ads, but any brochures or signs or printed poster are essentially ads). All those money can be better directed at education and health improvements for those same people. Because their condition IS REVERSIBLE. Killing them is both stupid and immoral.