So, the cause of the problem isn't the suicides - but they are offered (and used) as a way-out of it. This eases the burden on the state to do something to solve the root problem (why improve their condition, when they just off themselves and they wont be bothering us with their need for help anymore?).
> Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death after failed bid to get better housing
https://www.liveaction.org/news/euthanasia-unjust-social-con...
> a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.
> And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment (emphasis theirs)
> So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”
Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.
Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).
>This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.
Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one.
More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.
Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.
For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
- Fear of pain
- Fear of old age, or aging in general
- Fear of debility
- Fear of loss of autonomy
- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions
Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).
I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a moral framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.
There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.
Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.
Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.
Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.
The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.
It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.
Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!
> More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Here is the study:
https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD...
The relevant question:
"At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in dying because of the following reasons?"
(a) Poverty Agreeing 27% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 16%)
(b) Homelessness Agreeing 28% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 17%)
>found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%?
(Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).
That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent.
I hope you can see why that is important context to know.
>Dishomest "interpretation", eh?
As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder.
Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.
In 2021 there were 10,064 deaths by MAiD in Canada, fewer than 7 were self-administered[1]. Making greater than 99.9% of MAiD deaths euthanasia, or at least consented-to mercy killings. I personally think calling them "assistance in dying" implies an autonomy in the actual act that does not exist. The autonomy is theoretically[2] in the decision (until the exact moment of administration), but this is the case for all suicides.
"Assisted dying" also, to me, implies inevitability. That the person is already dying, and that this process is just made easier. 219 of the 10,064 MAiD deaths (2.18%) in 2021 were of people whose deaths were "not reasonably foreseeable" (not in progress)[1]. "Assisted dying" is a disingenuous term for these deaths, "assisted suicide" is better. I don't know whether the change in terms would have altered the polling results. I'd presume that most people realize that poverty is not a lethal condition, but I don't know what's going through their heads as they answer the question.
[1] - https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
[2] - Except for those who feel pressured into it for social or economic reasons.
The world being what it is, it's increasingly the opposite: others left or encouraged even to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) so people dont have to help and support them.
In Canada it's increasingly becoming a trend for poor people to commit assisted suicide, not because they have some incurable disease and pain, but because they can't get by and are depressed by it.