4 ms·
> suffering isn't reduced and may increase if proper care isn't administered Of course this is true. And if care isn't administered because of a choice by the
by Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> suffering isn't reduced and may increase if proper care isn't administered
Of course this is true. And if care isn't administered because of a choice by the person, then that's the end of the discussion. But, if its a lack of resources by the gov, then 100% these should be increased and I've already said I fully support that.
Is MAID replacing proper care? This could be a harder question to answer because what would your control group be. It would have to be one for which health care resources were available to them, AND, they also had a MAID-like option that normalized (i.e. not scandalous or considered morally 'wrong'). And then compare current uptake in Canada to see if there is a difference that could be attributed solely to a lack of health care resources being a driver, rather than just the existence of MAID as an alternative.
- johnnienaked 1y agoMAID is replacing proper care to a non-zero degree, and the incentive exists to increase that number. Neither situation is morally ok in my opinion.