How does "valuing human life" help people who would be deaths of despair under a program like this? That just sounds like idealism.

Life is ultimately valuable, that's why allowing people to have complete ownership over their own destiny is good.

Forcing people to die in pain, misery, and utterly debased is a misplacement of values in my opinion.

And this is often than not a symptom of capitalist valuation. The value of a life is too often viewed as economic [1].

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354671644_VAluing_L...

> pain, misery, and utterly debased

I think this is because we often see pain and misery as "bad things" that must be avoided at all cost. This tends to lead to the assumption that people who have pain and misery in their lives don't have "good lives" and that the only real option then is to end it.

Pain and misery have purpose and meaning. It can cause people to look beyond themselves. Some very beautiful things have come from people who were in deep pain.

> Some very beautiful things have come from people who were in deep pain.

Could it be cruel to put it this way? I'm imagining people living in pain and misery having their suffering distilled into some sort of artistic achievement or pretty "chicken soup for the soul" anecdote that you can consume from the comfort of your home office or living room.

It's almost like saying that their suffering causes you enjoyment, albeit in a roundabout way.

I grew up Southern Baptist in the rural South where "chicken soup for the soul" type fare was very popular and until I was about 12 I would sit with the women in my family after church listening to them swap stories and many of them would have this sort of flavor. Of talking about people's misfortunes and sharing how sorry you felt for them, or how their struggling led them to do something heroic or noble or caused them to get "saved." Sometimes I would be so moved that the hairs on the back of my neck would stand up and then I would feel bad about the enjoyment I was obviously getting. Like we were emotional vampires sitting around relishing all this bad stuff in our little circle.

Is it bad to share stories of people's suffering and bond over them? I suppose not. It just feels off and I don't know why.

It would be a cruel person indeed that would suggest that someone must suffer in agony because it suits their definition of morality.

Tthe health care system works like that sometimes.

An old person had late stage skeleton cancer, extreme pain, drugs didn't help. He wanted to die. The health care system kept him alive against his will for as long as they could

In that case I suppose the reason was instead covering one's own back.

Even the Catholic church firmly defends such people's right to refuse further treatment, and even to terminal sedation (painkillers that will shorten your life by a lot as a side effect). If the health care system actively kept him alive against his wishes, that's on the health care system.

You are using death as a panacea that makes all other treatments pointless.

It depends on the kind of pain, the kind of misery, doesn't it?

Temporary deep pain, that's one thing.

Permanent never ending deep pain and you're old and just waiting to die, that's different.

Or Alzheimers.

> we often see pain and misery as "bad things" that must be avoided at all cost ... only real option then is to end it.

I never heard anyone say anything remotely like that. I believe you're mistaken?

Did you hear someone say that or you're hypothesizing

With that said, the doctors in the article seem crazy, and this: “MAiD is the new society safety net”

Your judgement that my life has purpose and meaning should not be final if I don't agree. I'd rather not suffer just because you find it meaningful or think I should.

But euthanasia laws require a lot more than him getting out of the way with his belief (common to everyone who stood up from bed today) that life is worth living.

It requires, if he is a doctor, that he gives approval to your choice, and in compassion's name try to relieve you from the burdens of guilt and doubt you might have from your choice.

It doesn't just mean accepting that you say "my life is not worth living", it requires them to say, "Yes, your life is not worth living".

Opponents said this was a can of worms, and it seems harder and harder to deny from what's happening in Canada.

(And to repeat, terminal sedation, treatment that hastens death as an unfortunate side effect of trying to relieve pain, as well as refusal of life-prolonging care, is defended even by hardline opponents to euthanasia laws).