There's evidence in the article this story is about:

"Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care."

I mean the Canadian government highlighted the "cost savings" when they passed the legislation.

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Report...

"The predicted gross reduction in health care costs amounts to $109.2 million while the cost of administering MAID is estimated at $22.3 million. Thus, the difference between the two represents a net cost reduction for provincial governments of $86.9 million."

The Parliamentary Budget Office is independent and nonpartisan. It's literally their job to provide cost estimates for parliamentary proposals. They're designed to hold the governing party accountable for the financial implications of proposed legislation.

It's perhaps also worth noting that with 38 million Canadians, you're talking about roughly $2 per person. I don't think that's a meaningful amount of money at the national level. Government spending on healthcare is roughly $8000 per person.

I’d expect (or at least hope) any piece of legislation with a significant cost component would have a projection of those costs included.

There is a significant cost to providing care in the last year of a person’s life. It would seem opaque or “hiding something” if legislation around assisted suicide failed to discuss financials entirely.

Not inferring the analysis was sinister. Just the incentives.

Sure. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/23/three-netherla...

the very fact that a patient has to be, legally "experiencing unbearable suffering, with no prospect of improvement, and to have a voluntary, sustained wish to die" is ripe for abuse, as the article makes clear has already happened.

A euthanasia proponent said, "Whether things are clear for doctors is a difficult question, as unbearable suffering is different from one person to another."

Maybe the Netherlands: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand... seems ideal to you. Not to me. Not even to a lot of Dutch doctors.

I'd argue the "experiencing unbearable suffering" part is redundant anyway, since "I'd literally rather die than continue to experience this" is about as close to a definition as you're going to get.

And while any standard of "sustained" and "prospect of improvement" will have their edge cases, that's arguably still better than either absolute of availability.

The problem is ensuring it's truly voluntary, which seems rather difficult

The death of King George V comes to mind. He was very sick, but still alive. His doctor was worried that if he didn’t die fast enough, his death would be reported by tabloids, not the “respectable press.”

So he was given a sedative against his will. His last words, “God damn you”, we’re shouted to the nurse injecting him. Then he was poisoned to death.

And of course things went bad in Germany. “Euthanasia” was not a Nazi innovation. It was being advocated in Berlin throughout the 1920s, from very humane motives.

It was relegalized in Germany a few years ago - I don’t know why it’s excluded from the list of countries that allow it. Bad optics?

That is kind of horrifying, considering his family were not aware of this either, and neither was he consulted about it.

My understanding about George V is that his son, future Edward VIII - an all-around asshole - was pressuring the doctor to euthanize him.

So “the family” knew.

But the “the family” was more interested in securing his inheritance and title.

Which is ironic considering how quickly he threw it away.

The article is the example.

There are massive systematic pressures on our healthcare system and the 'oldest' people who don't work or pay taxes are the big 'cost points'.

Eugenics was very popular among Progressives across western Europe as well as the US. Compulsive sterilization, certification of marriages to avoid unwanted breeding of undesirably character or deformity and worse were considered "the science" of the time, and a moral virtue among a fair few Christian sects as well. Fundamentalists and Catholics were among the few religious groups in the US who opposed it, and were ridiculed as ignorant.

The evils perpetrated in the death camps and elsewhere were nothing more than the logical end conclusion of eugenics in general.