3 ms·

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

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/woman-with-chemical-sensitivities-chose-medically-assisted-death-after-failed-bid-to-get-better-housing/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/woman-with-chemical-se... In that case a woman with chemical sensitivities was killed by the state. Again, the premise is good. But as always it gets expanded and cases like this become normalized. And soon there is talk about more cases. Rinse and repeat. It's how good ideas become destroyed and hugely contentious. Basically no one has a problem with MAiD for the final stages of a terminal illness. But people just can't stop themselves.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
But you’re just describing the slippery slope. It’s a real problem, and the solution is continual vigilance against sliding too far and a simultaneous pushing to the desirable point. How can we do better?
skeaker 2y ago
What's your conclusion on this then? That it should be completely off the table because of these edge cases? I think finding these problems and patching them out as they're discovered could work. Giving the whole thing up would be like banning all airplanes after the first plane crash. The aviation industry instead put in thorough and rigorous checks to prevent future incidents (which sadly has degraded somewhat recently, but I digress). I think the same could be applied here.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  I was simply replying to the "if you're undecided consider this scenario" take. As with many conversations, the situations are often more complex and nuanced than the example case, and as with many initiatives, good intentions can get co-opted until it isn't remotely what people want it to be. People might be onboard with the government assisting someone in the late stages of a terminal illness to end their life with dignity, but find it grotesque if not criminal for the government to be assisting in ending the life of someone who isn't happy with their current apartment. So yes, it's a good program for some cases, but it is a very ugly topic that is not something that people should be "decided" on.
  - skeaker 2y ago
    I guess I just assumed that it goes without saying that most everything is nuanced.
rtkwe 2y ago
> killed by the state Really loaded phrasing there especially given she wasn't even living in government housing but in housing provided by Salvation Army of Canada. Not sure about Canada but in the US most housing assistance is in the form of vouchers so there's not much control the government would have over the exact conditions in any place they might have found for her, she essentially needed a house of her own with no shared public spaces to be able to avoid all smoke or cleaners that might trigger her MCS. That kind of public housing is pretty rare to nonexistant anywhere. The biggest thing is that there's no coercion going on in these cases it's simply an option she chose to take and without MAID there's a high chance she takes on her own.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  >Really loaded phrasing The government provided MAiD to this person, facilitating their death, and the phrasing was correct. The circumstances don't rise to the level where the government should be assisting a suicide, at least not in the way that the vast majority of the Canadian public sees it. And per your other comment, there have been a number of extremely dubious cases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterm... They currently estimate that 2% of cases don't meet the criteria, which is 100s per year. I support MAiD for its original intention (grievous and irremediable medical condition in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed), but any discussion about this topic without noting the Overton window is myopic. >there's a high chance she takes on her own While this is speculative[1], let's pretend and say...okay? That is something every person has available to them. Having the state provide the tools, with intention, is not the same. In multiple comments you have talked about force or coercion, yet not only are we often talking about compromised people, when your government and healthcare workers and social workers are saying "You know what...you should kill yourself", if you don't find that unbelievably dangerous grounds that is a form of coercion, I think you really need to rethink things. There is an implication that is there that is just beyond consideration. And yes, if this government was willing to end this woman's life, they should have been willing to find appropriate housing. [1] - It is notable that many people who want MAiD go to long-lived (irony) extraordinary efforts to get MAiD. It would have been so much easier to take many, many other options to end their time among us, but the battle for MAiD basically gave a reason for living.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

But you’re just describing the slippery slope. It’s a real problem, and the solution is continual vigilance against sliding too far and a simultaneous pushing to the desirable point. How can we do better?

skeaker 2y ago

What's your conclusion on this then? That it should be completely off the table because of these edge cases? I think finding these problems and patching them out as they're discovered could work. Giving the whole thing up would be like banning all airplanes after the first plane crash. The aviation industry instead put in thorough and rigorous checks to prevent future incidents (which sadly has degraded somewhat recently, but I digress). I think the same could be applied here.

llm_nerd 2y ago
I was simply replying to the "if you're undecided consider this scenario" take. As with many conversations, the situations are often more complex and nuanced than the example case, and as with many initiatives, good intentions can get co-opted until it isn't remotely what people want it to be. People might be onboard with the government assisting someone in the late stages of a terminal illness to end their life with dignity, but find it grotesque if not criminal for the government to be assisting in ending the life of someone who isn't happy with their current apartment. So yes, it's a good program for some cases, but it is a very ugly topic that is not something that people should be "decided" on.
- skeaker 2y ago
  I guess I just assumed that it goes without saying that most everything is nuanced.

rtkwe 2y ago

> killed by the state Really loaded phrasing there especially given she wasn't even living in government housing but in housing provided by Salvation Army of Canada. Not sure about Canada but in the US most housing assistance is in the form of vouchers so there's not much control the government would have over the exact conditions in any place they might have found for her, she essentially needed a house of her own with no shared public spaces to be able to avoid all smoke or cleaners that might trigger her MCS. That kind of public housing is pretty rare to nonexistant anywhere. The biggest thing is that there's no coercion going on in these cases it's simply an option she chose to take and without MAID there's a high chance she takes on her own.

llm_nerd 2y ago
>Really loaded phrasing The government provided MAiD to this person, facilitating their death, and the phrasing was correct. The circumstances don't rise to the level where the government should be assisting a suicide, at least not in the way that the vast majority of the Canadian public sees it. And per your other comment, there have been a number of extremely dubious cases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterminal-maid-assisted-death https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterm... They currently estimate that 2% of cases don't meet the criteria, which is 100s per year. I support MAiD for its original intention (grievous and irremediable medical condition in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed), but any discussion about this topic without noting the Overton window is myopic. >there's a high chance she takes on her own While this is speculative[1], let's pretend and say...okay? That is something every person has available to them. Having the state provide the tools, with intention, is not the same. In multiple comments you have talked about force or coercion, yet not only are we often talking about compromised people, when your government and healthcare workers and social workers are saying "You know what...you should kill yourself", if you don't find that unbelievably dangerous grounds that is a form of coercion, I think you really need to rethink things. There is an implication that is there that is just beyond consideration. And yes, if this government was willing to end this woman's life, they should have been willing to find appropriate housing. [1] - It is notable that many people who want MAiD go to long-lived (irony) extraordinary efforts to get MAiD. It would have been so much easier to take many, many other options to end their time among us, but the battle for MAiD basically gave a reason for living.