4 ms·

>Your whole comment frames MAID as something the gov't does to patients, not something patients choose as a better option than spending 6-12 months in agony wit

• amatecha 2y ago
  Yeah, I think it's fair to be cautious about the topic and keep a close eye on the employment of the MAID process. It's definitely one of those things that warrants a lot of oversight IMO, lest the line between mercy and manslaughter be crossed by too much "suggestion" or "help". Not that I am especially well-versed on the subject - just my overall feeling on it.
• fatbird 2y ago
  "a now-suspended Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker.... which has now uncovered a total of four cases where veterans were allegedly offered MAID — all apparently by the same caseworker". One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees. One person who presented the option overzealously or inappropriately, leading to four people feeling pressured, out of, IIRC, 45,000 people annually choosing MAID.
  • lucubratory 2y ago
    A lot of people who could be asked about whether they've been pressured or felt society could have done more for them than killing them are no longer available to collect evidence from for some reason.
  • refurb 2y ago
    One person...that we know of. The fact this one person did this, contradicts your earlier statement of "But we've found zero evidence since its introduction of its abuse, of its application as a cost-cutting measure, of it being forced on people."
    • wmoxam 2y ago
      Your assuming a motive in that case when none is known of.
    • squigz 2y ago
      A more generous reading of the comment might have read it as "widespread abuse"
      • jacobgkau 2y ago
        They should have included the "widespread" disclaimer rather than making an absolute statement if they wanted that generous reading.
        • squigz 2y ago
          Well I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people will understand that any system will be prone to abuse - what's more important is how much it realistically enables, and how it responds to that abuse
          • jacobgkau 2y ago
            That's a great attitude when you're talking about other people (a.k.a. numbers). We'll see if you have the same attitude when it's you or someone you know.
            • squigz 2y ago
              I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. If it were someone I knew, I would be upset, yes, and would pursue options for justice - which is, as I said, the more important aspect of such a system. Furthermore, even if my position changed if it were one of my loved ones, I wouldn't think my emotionally-charged thinking should be used to craft legislation. If you're advocating for systems that cannot possibly be abused... good luck. Providing benefits to society often comes with avenues of potential abuse.
  • jacobgkau 2y ago
    > One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees. Yes, a gov't employee working for the gov't. A.k.a. the gov't.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]