>One of the greatest reasons for concern is the sheer scale of Canada’s euthanasia regime. California provides a useful point of comparison: It legalized medically assisted death the same year as Canada, 2016, and it has about the same population, just under forty million. In 2021 in California, 486 people died using the state’s assisted suicide program. In Canada in the same year, 10,064 people used MAID to die.
70% of the Canadians reported cancer as the reason for MAID. It sounds like thousands of Californians are experiencing unnecessary and extended end of life suffering.
Canada has over double the number of deaths due to lung cancer and nearly double the deaths due to colorectal cancer compared to California.
Essentially cancer looks different in California than Canada. This makes drawing conclusions that there are thousands suffering unnecessarily extended end of life experiences difficult.
"It sounds like thousands of Californians are experiencing unnecessary and extended end of life suffering."
Why is that your take? Why isn't it "Thousands of Canadians are being killed too soon in an effort to save the government money"? or some other take? We already have stories of Canada asking Veterans to join "MAID" instead of getting a wheelchair...
> The Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, the leading organization of Canadian euthanasia providers, has sat on credible evidence by its own members that people are being driven to euthanasia by credit card debt, poor housing, and difficulties getting medical care.
Did I miss the actual concrete evidence this is being purposefully being used to reduce certain populations?
Not sure if I understand, but the article gives a number of examples, such as:
> Mary knows that she could control her pain if she could take vitamin pills, eat a special diet, and go to physiotherapy. She can’t afford it. “Mary identifies poverty as the driver of her MAID request,” Gibb-Carsley writes on a slide accompanying her talk, emphasizing the. “She does not want to die, but she’s suffering terribly and she’s been maxing out her credit cards. She has no other options.”
It doesn't really matter what the intent of the government and medical establishment is; In fact, it may not even be coherent to attribute intent to such an entity. What matters is what the system does, and the evidence clearly indicates that the MAiD system is resulting in the deaths of the socially marginalised.
I'd say any state-facilitated euthanasia needs to be extremely carefully considered in situations where suicide is a recommended and facilitated option to avoid homelessness and related disasters.
Of course, I'm also in favor of just not organizing benefits so that disabled people wind-up facing homelessness and so being willing to choose death.
The whole argument against MAID feels ridiculously like the anti-abortion position. The other option to providing it is having them end their life in a way that might be risky or fail to succeed in a way that leaves them painfully scarred for life or suffering more than they had to.
Why are people forced to live if they don't want to?
I am sympathetic to those who wish for assisted suicide to prevent pain for diseases or illnesses they've succumbed to. I agree with your thesis that death may be preferential to suffering, and should be available to those who seek it.
On the other hand, there are articles like this[1], wherein the main factor for the requested euthanasia is income.
"But until recently, he was able to live comfortably, sharing his modest home in Medicine Hat, Alberta, with his service dog.
Changes to his state benefits when he turned 65 in May meant his income was cut and he's now left with around $120 per month after paying for medical bills and essentials."
The bogeyman against a state monopoly on medical care has long been that the state will seek cost effectiveness over quality of care, and this adds the additional paranoia of worrying over whether other social safety net programs may lean into the notion that perhaps it isn't as beneficial to fund those who are less productive members of society due to age or inability when it is easier to put them down.
I don't have a particular dog in the fight either way, but where I want medical assisted euthanasia to exist as an option against suffering, I have some concern that it could become encouraged for what I consider less appropriate ailments, like poverty.
I think it is more analogous to the laws prohibiting people from selling their own organs. The problem isn't that organ transplants are immoral, the problem is that allowing it can create perverse incentives especially for disadvantaged groups.
If you squint at MAID one way, you can see all the good it does for people who really need it. If you squint another way, you can see the medical system just killing off the people it failed.
I don't have a problem with people getting MAID, but I do have a problem with medical practitioners pushing it on people who want to live but can't get basic resources to deal with very manageable disabilities.
Euthanasia is a decision you will never regret. We force people to live if they don't want to because of other people's feelings. Per the article, 'many people are choosing euthanasia because they’re not getting the “supports and cares” they need.'. On one hand, someone ends their suffering and stops caring about any 'what if' scenarios. On the other hand, a lot of people feel bad and look bad because they were involved in creating and supporting or failing to support the system that failed to provide the support and care the deceased needed. And the surviving friends and relatives who do care about the lost potential.
> Why are people forced to live if they don't want to?
Because we live in a society, not some libertarian utopia of sovereign citizens. Your life doesn’t belong only to yourself, but it belongs to all of us. Your parents, your kids, your friends, your acquaintances. We are all affected by what you do to yourself and, concomitantly, get a say in it.
It's strikes me as worrisome that someone who's paid to perform euthenasia would also be in a position to counsel it to patients. That seems like a rather serious conflict of interest. Discussion of this sort of thing should only ever be initiated by the patient to an objective third party review board. I personally have serious concerns about the ethics of any doctor offering death as medical advice.
This is a weird article to me. It seems to criticize the program for not failing to adequately force people to live in a society that makes them want to die. It even quotes someone pointing out that a high usage rate by people driven to give up on life by out of control housing and cost of living prices without sufficient income, or those unable to afford other treatments could be a leverage for arguing for better designed welfare (UBI?) or markets - but it's framed as callous, ridiculous idea while we still make it "too easy to die"?
Like, I don't think people need a lot of help convincing themselves of not wanting to die unless they are already desperate, and making access to death harder is like forcing the homeless to take a one way bus to another town - you are just hiding the problem. As long as nobody is pushed to use the program, the same arguments that say "well, nobody is forcing you to take that shitty job/pay that exorbitant rent" apply.
It's just that in this case, the signal sent by multiple people choosing death over life because the system isn't working for then is very clearly "what the fuck are you doing to poor people", which is an uncomfortable question, so the impulse is to make access to death harder - then you can again ignore the fact that these people might commit suicide anyway, or suffer immensely, because that will show up just as mental illness or personal failure in the statistics
No, it is not more affordable. At least in France where assisted suicide is not an option (yes, we are a barbaric and coward country in some aspects).
As for the gift of happy, healthy and fulfilling life - you may want to have a word with my wife suffering from MS. It is fortunate that we have neighboring countries that are not as hypocrite as France is and where you can end your life when you want to.
> In multiple cases, veterans requesting help from Veterans Affairs Canada — at least one asked for PTSD treatment, another for a ramp for her wheelchair — were asked by case workers if they would like to apply for euthanasia.
This is such a conflict of interest. How are you supposed to trust organizations and people who, when you ask for help, might be motivated to take advantage of your vulnerability?
It's absurd that people will show their sick pets more compassion than fellow human beings when animals can't even voice their opinions on the matter. If someone sound of mind chooses to die, that should be their right.
I don't know if people view euthanasia as being more compassionate towards their pets.
I think many people view it as being selfish. Killing the pet to avoid the hassle of dealing with it's illness and avoid the expense of it's medical care.
I don't particularly agree, I think it can be compassionate but also understand where this view comes from.
It's sad really that we live in a society where we value a pet's life over the life of a fellow human being that is struggling. That does not mean encouraging people to kill themselves - but I strongly agree that the option should be there and people should be free to exercise it if that's what they want to do.
Seems like a stretching propaganda hit piece from the anti-abortion crowd stretching into calling the "current" Canadian Government in power a "regime" that kills poor people by...get this...convincing doctors to convincingly get poor and unhealthy people to go past every fucking alarm bell and human instinct and literally kill themselves with their assistance to somehow be less of a burden on the state? Somehow a small group of people killing themselves will make any difference financially or politically somehow to a country or party? And every comment against it seems downvoted, yeah ok....
> go past every fucking alarm bell and human instinct
This is mind blowingly archaic as an attitude and very dangerous. Maybe you don’t know many people or are lucky to only be surrounded by mentally healthy individuals but many in the spectrum of depression and other ailments which are pretty common feel suicidal. They fight the urge not to consider this fate. If a doctor comes and tells them maybe you should consider killing your self, it’s alright, I’ll help you, guess what, they’re going to feel utterly helpless.
Agreed that MAD for cancer patients and patients with unimaginable incurable chronic pain is not bad, but there needs to be immense scrutiny into every case where this dangerous tool is used for people who have mental disorders.
It's a real weird wedge issue for sure. Many stories portraying poor and disabled people resorting to MAID are being pushed by historically conservative and right leaning publications (ex. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-m...).
MAID didn't create or change the conditions these people are in and it's not like the Conservatives pushing this narrative are known for anything but outrage and cuts to social safety nets..
goatsi|3 years ago
70% of the Canadians reported cancer as the reason for MAID. It sounds like thousands of Californians are experiencing unnecessary and extended end of life suffering.
bhawks|3 years ago
Canada has over double the number of deaths due to lung cancer and nearly double the deaths due to colorectal cancer compared to California.
Essentially cancer looks different in California than Canada. This makes drawing conclusions that there are thousands suffering unnecessarily extended end of life experiences difficult.
https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/state/Californi...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9067380/#!po=28...
wernercd|3 years ago
Why is that your take? Why isn't it "Thousands of Canadians are being killed too soon in an effort to save the government money"? or some other take? We already have stories of Canada asking Veterans to join "MAID" instead of getting a wheelchair...
tomrod|3 years ago
ElFitz|3 years ago
Or perhaps palliative care is better in California.
I’m not Californian, and I seriously doubt what I just wrote. But there most certainly are more factors that need to be considered here.
htag|3 years ago
Did I miss the actual concrete evidence this is being purposefully being used to reduce certain populations?
37|3 years ago
> Mary knows that she could control her pain if she could take vitamin pills, eat a special diet, and go to physiotherapy. She can’t afford it. “Mary identifies poverty as the driver of her MAID request,” Gibb-Carsley writes on a slide accompanying her talk, emphasizing the. “She does not want to die, but she’s suffering terribly and she’s been maxing out her credit cards. She has no other options.”
mmastrac|3 years ago
janef0421|3 years ago
bjt2n3904|3 years ago
[deleted]
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1|3 years ago
People with disabilities and/or grievous suffering from illness(es) tend to be depressed, especially when finances and supports are lacking.
If we restrict MAID to the wealthy without mental conditions, we end up prolonging the suffering of many people.
joe_the_user|3 years ago
Of course, I'm also in favor of just not organizing benefits so that disabled people wind-up facing homelessness and so being willing to choose death.
sieabahlpark|3 years ago
[deleted]
mmastrac|3 years ago
Why are people forced to live if they don't want to?
bmelton|3 years ago
On the other hand, there are articles like this[1], wherein the main factor for the requested euthanasia is income.
"But until recently, he was able to live comfortably, sharing his modest home in Medicine Hat, Alberta, with his service dog.
Changes to his state benefits when he turned 65 in May meant his income was cut and he's now left with around $120 per month after paying for medical bills and essentials."
The bogeyman against a state monopoly on medical care has long been that the state will seek cost effectiveness over quality of care, and this adds the additional paranoia of worrying over whether other social safety net programs may lean into the notion that perhaps it isn't as beneficial to fund those who are less productive members of society due to age or inability when it is easier to put them down.
I don't have a particular dog in the fight either way, but where I want medical assisted euthanasia to exist as an option against suffering, I have some concern that it could become encouraged for what I consider less appropriate ailments, like poverty.
[1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-m...
bloaf|3 years ago
If you squint at MAID one way, you can see all the good it does for people who really need it. If you squint another way, you can see the medical system just killing off the people it failed.
dbt00|3 years ago
throwawaymaths|3 years ago
stubish|3 years ago
rayiner|3 years ago
Because we live in a society, not some libertarian utopia of sovereign citizens. Your life doesn’t belong only to yourself, but it belongs to all of us. Your parents, your kids, your friends, your acquaintances. We are all affected by what you do to yourself and, concomitantly, get a say in it.
bjt2n3904|3 years ago
[deleted]
smitty1e|3 years ago
As with abortion, why must I cheerfully pay taxes for policy affecting individuals that's morally objectionable?
whimsicalism|3 years ago
0xbadc0de5|3 years ago
igorkraw|3 years ago
Like, I don't think people need a lot of help convincing themselves of not wanting to die unless they are already desperate, and making access to death harder is like forcing the homeless to take a one way bus to another town - you are just hiding the problem. As long as nobody is pushed to use the program, the same arguments that say "well, nobody is forcing you to take that shitty job/pay that exorbitant rent" apply.
It's just that in this case, the signal sent by multiple people choosing death over life because the system isn't working for then is very clearly "what the fuck are you doing to poor people", which is an uncomfortable question, so the impulse is to make access to death harder - then you can again ignore the fact that these people might commit suicide anyway, or suffer immensely, because that will show up just as mental illness or personal failure in the statistics
n8henrie|3 years ago
testemailfordg2|3 years ago
BrandoElFollito|3 years ago
As for the gift of happy, healthy and fulfilling life - you may want to have a word with my wife suffering from MS. It is fortunate that we have neighboring countries that are not as hypocrite as France is and where you can end your life when you want to.
tomohawk|3 years ago
This is such a conflict of interest. How are you supposed to trust organizations and people who, when you ask for help, might be motivated to take advantage of your vulnerability?
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
MonkeyMalarky|3 years ago
bluefirebrand|3 years ago
I think many people view it as being selfish. Killing the pet to avoid the hassle of dealing with it's illness and avoid the expense of it's medical care.
I don't particularly agree, I think it can be compassionate but also understand where this view comes from.
x86x87|3 years ago
CosmicShadow|3 years ago
willhslade|3 years ago
It's already apparently 2.5% of deaths in Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
We have credible reports of a person aged 23 who was approved for medically assisted death because they were diabetic and depressed. https://www.thefp.com/p/scheduled-to-die-the-rise-of-canadas
The top 1% of patients use approximately 30% of the total cost of health care. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...
The Canadian health care system is extremely strained. We are already in an age of hallway medicine as there aren't enough staff to treat the people in rooms. https://www.cma.ca/news/canadas-health-care-crisis-what-we-n...
ramraj07|3 years ago
This is mind blowingly archaic as an attitude and very dangerous. Maybe you don’t know many people or are lucky to only be surrounded by mentally healthy individuals but many in the spectrum of depression and other ailments which are pretty common feel suicidal. They fight the urge not to consider this fate. If a doctor comes and tells them maybe you should consider killing your self, it’s alright, I’ll help you, guess what, they’re going to feel utterly helpless.
Agreed that MAD for cancer patients and patients with unimaginable incurable chronic pain is not bad, but there needs to be immense scrutiny into every case where this dangerous tool is used for people who have mental disorders.
MonkeyMalarky|3 years ago
MAID didn't create or change the conditions these people are in and it's not like the Conservatives pushing this narrative are known for anything but outrage and cuts to social safety nets..
harriet1|3 years ago
[deleted]
tomrod|3 years ago
[deleted]
_-david-_|3 years ago
treeman79|3 years ago
slaw|3 years ago
crooked-v|3 years ago