4 ms·

The standard for that is very loose. There's no requirement that the death be imminent. Iirc it basically means the condition could kill you, at some point. Th

by graeme 2y ago

The standard for that is very loose. There's no requirement that the death be imminent. Iirc it basically means the condition could kill you, at some point. This even applies if treatment would prevent death. It's whether the condition is capable of killing.

jandrese 2y ago
With everything medical it is complicated. If someone is 85 and gets a theoretically treatable form of cancer they're looking at months or years of grueling chemotherapy and surgeries to get at most few more years of life. I would not blame anybody for skipping treatment or even getting euthanasia to avoid the really sucky part where the cancer is killing you painfully, especially if their life partner has already passed. Overall it is best to avoid making too many blanket judgements about medical matters. Every case is unique and the circumstances matter. Most people are sane and rational and you should trust their judgement when it comes to their own life, weighing also the opinion of their physician.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  When my mom had cancer I told her she better do everything she could to beat it (she was a super hippie no chemicals person). I remember she was taking some horrible toxic chemo pill that made her miserable (like even her, the person taking the pill, had to handle it with gloves taking it out of the bottle), and I was like mom, stop taking it if it makes you miserable. She broke into tears and was suddenly so grateful to me for giving her permission to stop taking it. I hadn't realized she was putting herself through hell because of what I had asked of her. Friggen moms man. (╥﹏╥)
  - AyyEye 2y ago
    Sorry you had to go through that.
  - JohnBooty 2y ago
    I'm so sorry, that's just awful. I am glad you guys had some resolution, I guess for lack of a better word... I hope that time has eased the pain some
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      So one thing old people never tell you, you don't really get over losing your parents (if you had relationships with them). But... I can never doubt that my mom loved me. She might have messed up a lot, but she was willing to take actual poison that was torture for her just to ease my mind.
kspacewalk2 2y ago
No, the standard is not "very loose". It is clear, and strict. And you also got the "condition could kill you" part wrong. So it's all wrong. You can read about eligibility criteria here[0], specifically what constitutes a "grievous and irremediable medical condition". Like, believe it or not, but this legislation took a very long time to write, and quite a bit of thought was put into it. I hate to post the link for the third time in the same thread, but seriously, talking about eligibility criteria necessitates reading what they are. Preferably before talking about them. [0] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html#a2 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi...
- graeme 2y ago
  I've spoken with the administrator of a province's MAID program who interprets the law. Have you spoken with anyone involved in administering and interpreting the requirements? Cannot be reversed is modified by under conditions acceptable to them. There's no requirement that a treatment be acceptable to any objective standard, only to the patient and two medical professionals who sign off. And there's no time limit on when the death is foreseeable to occur for a death to be classed as reasonably foreseeable. Only that it could do so. It is possible that the administrator misunderstood the law but they're the one running the program.
  - snypher 2y ago
    You should have mentioned a source in the original post, instead of 'Iirc it basically means'. I'm also unwilling to take a single anecdotal source as a citation. To address the point about objective standards, yes, the patient has an option for personal medical discretion. This prevents doctors saying eg this Neuralink chip will fix you for sure. What is the risk to you, me or society if someone does not accept a medical treatment that they don't seem acceptable? This goes down the same path as the dumb abortion debate - medical care is a personal decision, fin.
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  From your link: > experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that *cannot* be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable That is indeed "very loose," and is not "clear" or "strict." Any mental condition that the patient thinks cannot be acceptably relieved now qualifies (or will after March 17, 2027, when that document says mental illnesses will begin to qualify, because it will somehow become more right on that date than when the law was passed).

by graeme 2y ago

jandrese 2y ago

With everything medical it is complicated. If someone is 85 and gets a theoretically treatable form of cancer they're looking at months or years of grueling chemotherapy and surgeries to get at most few more years of life. I would not blame anybody for skipping treatment or even getting euthanasia to avoid the really sucky part where the cancer is killing you painfully, especially if their life partner has already passed. Overall it is best to avoid making too many blanket judgements about medical matters. Every case is unique and the circumstances matter. Most people are sane and rational and you should trust their judgement when it comes to their own life, weighing also the opinion of their physician.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
When my mom had cancer I told her she better do everything she could to beat it (she was a super hippie no chemicals person). I remember she was taking some horrible toxic chemo pill that made her miserable (like even her, the person taking the pill, had to handle it with gloves taking it out of the bottle), and I was like mom, stop taking it if it makes you miserable. She broke into tears and was suddenly so grateful to me for giving her permission to stop taking it. I hadn't realized she was putting herself through hell because of what I had asked of her. Friggen moms man. (╥﹏╥)
- AyyEye 2y ago
  Sorry you had to go through that.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  I'm so sorry, that's just awful. I am glad you guys had some resolution, I guess for lack of a better word... I hope that time has eased the pain some
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    So one thing old people never tell you, you don't really get over losing your parents (if you had relationships with them). But... I can never doubt that my mom loved me. She might have messed up a lot, but she was willing to take actual poison that was torture for her just to ease my mind.

kspacewalk2 2y ago

No, the standard is not "very loose". It is clear, and strict. And you also got the "condition could kill you" part wrong. So it's all wrong. You can read about eligibility criteria here[0], specifically what constitutes a "grievous and irremediable medical condition". Like, believe it or not, but this legislation took a very long time to write, and quite a bit of thought was put into it. I hate to post the link for the third time in the same thread, but seriously, talking about eligibility criteria necessitates reading what they are. Preferably before talking about them. [0] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html#a2 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi...

graeme 2y ago
I've spoken with the administrator of a province's MAID program who interprets the law. Have you spoken with anyone involved in administering and interpreting the requirements? Cannot be reversed is modified by under conditions acceptable to them. There's no requirement that a treatment be acceptable to any objective standard, only to the patient and two medical professionals who sign off. And there's no time limit on when the death is foreseeable to occur for a death to be classed as reasonably foreseeable. Only that it could do so. It is possible that the administrator misunderstood the law but they're the one running the program.
- snypher 2y ago
  You should have mentioned a source in the original post, instead of 'Iirc it basically means'. I'm also unwilling to take a single anecdotal source as a citation. To address the point about objective standards, yes, the patient has an option for personal medical discretion. This prevents doctors saying eg this Neuralink chip will fix you for sure. What is the risk to you, me or society if someone does not accept a medical treatment that they don't seem acceptable? This goes down the same path as the dumb abortion debate - medical care is a personal decision, fin.
jacobgkau 2y ago
From your link: > experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that *cannot* be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable That is indeed "very loose," and is not "clear" or "strict." Any mental condition that the patient thinks cannot be acceptably relieved now qualifies (or will after March 17, 2027, when that document says mental illnesses will begin to qualify, because it will somehow become more right on that date than when the law was passed).