Till his dying breath he kept repeating how thankful he was that he lived in a country that didn't force him to live on when he didn't want to.
He was a clear Track 1 case, and I realize Track 2 cases are more complicated, but just wanted to add my story as reporting on MAID spins out of control in our culture war milieu.
I wish my mother had been given the option in her early 50s, the number of people punished by authoritarian governments that deny self determinism and force people to be put through experiences literally worse than torture is mind boggling, I cannot fathom it.
I don't think anyone who has seen it even a single time can honestly make slippery slope arguments, I have to assume it's ignorance and that these people are simply "actually" nerds doing recreational theory crafting. I assume it's the same headspace as flat earthers, it doesn't effect me so why should I care about aligning my thoughts with the real world, let me invent theoretical overlords and victims and argue about this new synthetic world that exists in my imagination.
I just can't be uncharitable enough to believe a person who has seen it first hand, that a person would embrace such unfettered cruelty as to deny a person living in constant hell a drop of water.
That being said... fuck, back in 2000 I did meet a bunch of people that denied hiv existed and said even if it did it was a punishment on gay people and it would be better if it wasn't cured so they would be scared and "behave" (yes, I personally met these people, the non-existence was rare but the "shouldn't develop treatment" was not a minority view in the city I lived in at the time.)
After my mother died, for a while I volunteered with "No one dies alone.", I doubt a single person who has done so for any length of time is going to argue "slippery slope".
People get sent to jail for assisting someone, even if it's just to buy some stuff.
That's government overreach.
I have seen it first hand. Suicide is not a drop of water, it's a loaded .45.
That said there's a qualitative moral difference between easing someone's pain in a way that may hasten death and killing them to ease their pain. Almost no one who argues against MAID is arguing for "all medical interventions, forever".
Unfortunately there are situations where things are a bit different from that. For example, where a parent is (very) abusive. :(
I was trying to allude to the saying "you can never have enough time with the ones you love" which I took as a pivot away from solely parents (ones that are loved) but maybe I was too implicit and that isn't a widly known saying and it seems that by trying to allude to it, I left my intended meaning unclear. Sorry about that.
My fear is that I will be 70-80-90, I won't be able to serve myself even for the very basics, I will have lost my memory, and will be a total burden (all the pain - zero joy) to my close family. Why would I do this to them? Perhaps he had a motivation like this - to make sure he won't hurt your lives, your relationships, etc.
Either way, it is a very difficult choice..
We need some kind of "smart contract" for such cases. Maybe an IFTTT or Zapier workflow that automatically activates the MAID clause if predefined conditions (that you chose while you are still conscious) are met.
Like... If your illness makes you suicidal... Is offering assisted suicide REALLY the best we can do? That starts to feel a lot like "eghh you're too hard for society to care about... We'll just let you die".
As horrible as this might sound, often it's failed suicide attempts that actually are the catalysts for people being able to get their lives back on track... What happens in a society where the government helps facilitate suicide and there's never any "attempts" anymore... Just successes...
Still, I'll bite - it's a good thing.
Why? Well an official path to suicide, as per the arrangements already in place, comes with layers of professional guidance and counselling.
It's not a dispassionate "wave 'em through" treadmill of corpse creation.
The best thing for young people with suicidal affixations is to talk to them and take their concerns seriously, correctly established this could arguably reduce teen suicides by recognising the problem, giving the at risk a place to go, requiring them to detail why they want to die, etc.
If you want to take a dim view of faceless government motivations then you might ask yourself why such a souless collective would want to deprive itself of a potential taxpayer before they've even really started to chip in.
Um, source?
"An expert committee reviewing euthanasia deaths in Canada’s most populous province has identified several cases in which patients asked [AND WERE APPROVED] to be killed in part for social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness, raising concerns over approvals for vulnerable people in the country’s assisted dying system."
-
"Another case focused on Ms B, a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, who had a history of mental illness including suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was socially isolated and asked to die largely because she could not get proper housing, according to the report."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/17/canada-nonterm...
That's a serious ask, not a snarky response.
The headline is Canadians with nonterminal conditions sought assisted dying for social reasons
and my question is, so what happened? Was she killed by the state or did she get some much needed assistance with housing, etc. (or neither).
I'd argue that her coming forward is a good thing in the big picture as it adds concrete examples and data for making a case for better social policy and outcomes.
Both cases were borderline and raised concerns.
Both cases were reviewed.
It is imposssible to have any such system in the real world that does not have concerning edge cases.
It is a system that many people want for both themselves and for their relatives in cases that are clearcut.
The problematic reality about people with mental issues and disabilities is that they are also autonomous people who have opinions, think for themselves, and sometimes decide that their own circumstances are no longer tenable following years, decades even, of struggling through.
See eg: The Last Leg from the UK.
It's not desirable to have a system that kills people that don't want to die and wouldn't choose death if they had better options.
What are the housing options for people with chronic mental issues (eg: the extreme examples of schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc) that have no support and have exhausted friends and relatives?
These are not easy problems.
What is your proposed solution?
Their action in suggesting MAID was not policy, was rapidly caught, and was the subject of a very public inquiry.
Had the suggestion been followed up by the veterens in question there were layers in place, interviews and checks, to make sure that MAID was both desired and appropriate.
No one was killed against their will here.
There's a legitimate debate to be had on the question of whether it was even wrong to alert an injured veteren that MAID was an option given they had the free will and the gumption to reply No way, Feck off, Not interested.
The onus here should be on secondary interviews sorting out whether a person really did have insurmountable chronic pain and problems or whether they were depressed and lacked resources to deal with a situation.
Can you provide details of this?
How does this apply to capital punishment?
> By steering the discussion to that [innocent] minority, which even itself is still debatable, you risk flushing the child with the bath water [and killing the really bad criminals].
When innocent people are killed via capital punishment, they have no choice.
And it's not a "small minority" either. We don't have good numbers, but it's significant enough to be over 22% or roughly 1 in 5. That's not a small minority.
For Florida, since 1973, 30 people awaiting execution have been exonerated so far. The state has executed 106 people.
Out of 136 cases, 30 were shown to be innocent beyond any reasonable doubt. I have no doubt that there might be other innocent people within the 106 that were executed.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/innocen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Flo...
As well, mental illness is not just a state of mind. Sure, there are stories where a failed suicide attempt was the catalyst for someone finally being able to reach out for help, there are also the stories where people have been reaching out for help forever, and help's just not coming. Where they can't afford the medication, or no medication seems to work, or they have an addiction problem and there just isn't any way for them to get into a treatment program, etc.
Not to mention the stories where their attempt left them powerfully sick and/or disabled. We're talking near-miss fatalities here -- recovery from those is rarely painless, quick, or complete.
This isn't a case of medical professionals and program officials just not caring. These eligibility criteria are very carefully considered. In fact, they're SO carefully considered that they've delayed eligibility for MAID due solely to mental illness THREE TIMES to ensure proper safeguards are in place. Currently, it's pushed back to 2027, so we're not even talking about anything that is even a present-day concern.
When someone is determined enough to die, they find a way.
I've read about four or five stories in my lifetime about people who assisted in aiding a dear friend. Most of them just stuffed a pillow in their face when they begged to end their very painful existence.
I've witnessesed my brother in law suffer immensly from cancer before he decided to end it all by assisted death. Near the end he was not human anymore for me. Just a body chock full of medicines constantly trying to survive as much as possible. I can't blame the cells trying to win that desperate war, but it was horrifying to watch him transition from a strong happy human to that state.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-241.ht...
Counselling or aiding suicide
241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.
Also this was in Germany, but still just as illegal.
She was the most amazing and remarkable woman I ever met. There will be an Arte documentary about her early next year (not about this; about her work in Ukraine).
We need a humane way to treat humans.
I would consider two of these absolutely monstrous reasons to assist someone in killing themselves. A broken society opting into killing its citizens because it can’t be arsed with fixing itself is next level evil
I don't think this is necessarily broken by any reasonable standard. If no medication exists, that's not "broken society". Nor is there not being money to give a bespoke treatment to everyone, no matter how expensive it is. If that's broken, no society in history has ever not been broken. Which is just a poor definition.
That said, I don't have any actual insight into the process; I was just extemporizing. So if it sounds fucked up, that's because _I_ fucked up and didn't think long enough about circumstances where someone would be approved for MAID instead of offered other solutions. It's entirely possible and indeed likely that if you can't afford medication or treatment, there's options in place to get that to you instead of approving your MAID appointment.
Please don't judge Canada too harshly just because I misspoke. =)
- Some of those deaths are suicides.
- It is pure fantasy to imagine we can have a society with 0 suicides (when accounting scale, complexity and size).
The choice then becomes: help, or punish.
It is absolutely monstrous to punish, and helping does not mean killing every Tom, Dick and Harry with a case of the Monday blues.
I would also caution with the old adage, don't knock it till you try it. Life in extreme pain is no life at all. Calling on Jesus isn't going to suddenly make excruciating pain more bearable, especially for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus. Maybe toughing it out for a few more weeks or months is worth extra presents in heaven, but unless we have some evidence of that, I think it would be grossly irresponsible, indeed evil, to legislate it. It is, in my opinion the equivalence of torture.
Just don't push it to others under the name of morality out other bullshit.
I would like to be able to die when I want to, in a simple and painless way. Because I will do it anyway jumping under a train or lorry it is just messy for everyone.
Reality doesn't care about how things should be.
Framing it as unchangeable "reality" is intellectually dishonest.
...and what is the implication here? After I broke a bone, I was given a choice between surgery and a cast. I chose surgery - which cant be undone - and I half regretted it when I bumped into things and the titanium bits transferred the force straight the bone, resulting in exquisite pain. Should I have been denied surgery because it can't be undone? I think not, I was given the choice, I hose what I thought was best. Did I make the correct choice? Probably not, but it was my choice to make, and expecting a system with 0% regret rate is impossible.
Not every mental illness makes someone of unsound mind.
I see no difference between a case of someone who does not wish continue because of some incurable mental health issue that makes their life hell, and someone who does not wish to continue due to e.g. terminal cancer.
And this isn’t even something made up for the particular case of assisted suicide. The idea that someone with mental illness cannot make legitimate choice has been around in the legal system for a while, with mental illness leading to reduced sentences, and even being the basis of acquittal in many situations.
There is mental illness and then there is competence, they are related but not the same. Complicating things further in this case would be things like reactive mental states (grieving etc) which might for a time manifest like mental illness but tend to be not diagnosed.
> and a vast majority are thankful of it
A statistic that (assuming it's true) suffers from the obvious self-selection bias of people who chose to jump off a bridge knowing there was a net to catch their fall.
I fully understand someone in their 80s knowing the end is near choosing to leave on their own term.
> At the end, while technically alive, so little of who they were as persons remained, they might as well have been dead.
It sounds like there was some severe mental decline. When undergoing this kind of mental decline, does anybody remain happy? That’s meant as a genuine question, not rhetorical. Of course I’ve heard of the cases where people are constantly scared, feel unsafe, confused, etc. But I wonder if there are more peaceful examples that just make “boring” stories, and aren’t recounted.
There was one guy, an occasional escapee and reasonably physically healthy for his 80s, who had severe Alzheimer's. He just wanted to go home. All the time, that's what he wanted. I forget the details, but he didn't have a home anymore. Nobody came to visit him. We did our best for him, but what can you do with that?
We did our best for all of them. But I remember one evening over dinner where my mom and my brother and I were talking about getting our medical/legal paperwork in order. My mom said, "If I end up like that, just wheel me out to a field and leave me."
We couldn't, of course. But when her time came, we did move her to hospice as soon as there was no hope of recovery. She lived her life and bravely fought the end of it, but she didn't want to be kept around as a body, a shrine to her former self. A choice I deeply agree with.
According to some people I know who work in care homes: yes, some people do. They're confused, have no idea what's going on, but are nevertheless mostly happy.
(but that is in no way to negate the fact that many don't)
You do sound harsh by the way.
I haven't been able to talk to my grandfather, or hear his stories, or learn about him, or share anything with him, or even be a part of his life for at least 5 years now. He will probably be "alive" for another five years. He mostly just coasts through life. He doesn't really get to interact with friends, because the ones that aren't dying, he doesn't remember. When I see him, he asks me about graduating high school, which I did over a decade ago now.
I doubt he would choose to die, but when I get to experience the exact same thing in 40 years, I'm pretty sure I'd rather chew on a 12 gauge. Having a more reliable and less terrifying option is important.
I think there is more than enough info about how to end it painlessly should one decide to part. No 3rd parties needed assuming that person is still mentally and physically adequate enough.
When you have young and healthy people, it's not that easy to hide a suicide, because suspicions of murder will naturally arise.
> As an American, however, I expect to die like he did: poor, mostly alone, and in pain.
If we start looking at people who use MAID as selfless because they are “giving back to society”, and relieving the “financial burden”, what does that make people who choose to stick around? Are they selfish?
No one should be pressured or guilted into choosing an option like MAID - people are more than just balances on a spreadsheet.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/21/magazine/german-doctors-a...
It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and there is a 0% chance they are going to change their mind.
Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.
I think you’ve answered your own question there. Deep consideration is not usually something done quickly, and arguably depth of consideration improves when others are involved to provide additional perspectives.
“People should be in charge of their own lives” sounds superficially like an appealing principle, and in an abstract sense is a worthy one - but reality is messy at the edges, and we know that the concept of informed consent has nuances. There are many circumstances where it would be unethical to grant someone’s request even if they swear blind that it’s what they really want.
If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period?
Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on the waiting period.
Potentially this can be studied statistically. Just collect data regularly after an event (such as binge drinking event) to evaluate how quickly people's judgement stabilises. That way we may find that the death of a spouse doesn't cloud the judgement, in which case the waiting period is 0.
Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.
The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?"
And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period.
In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.
Are you saying if someone buys a rope and ties a noose, then lets it sit there for at least 90 days, then they can use it to hang themself after a bad day and that's not suicide in reaction to the bad day?
Perhaps it'd be best to circle back and check the actual specifics?
That tends to not be what happens-- instead, the correction is used as a rebuttal against people who don't like it, but the correction and its implications aren't considered by people who liked how the story went in the first place. Even now, that comment is the top one in this thread, and it has not been edited to add any additional clarification or corrections.
Requiring someone be of sound mind before making permanent decisions is reasonable and pretending it's not only makes it possible for people to make permanent -- and in this case, deadly -- mistakes because you don't want to inconvenience someone else.
Like you said, if you're 100% clear headed and you know you want to die, you'll be able to do it in two weeks just the same as you could in one. If you're going to have euthanasia it's more important to me that it be absolutely clear the people doing it are capable of making that decision in that moment than making it as easy and quick as possible.
And this isn't choosing to end your life in isolation, this is asking someone else to kill you. They have the right to know that there is as little chance as possible you would regret this a week, month, or year from now if given the opportunity.
There is a tendency in our time to think about all issues in terms of economy. I think that's wrong, that we shouldn't think about life and death as economical questions, that it is a reductive discourse. Others might disagree, of course
For example, is this really a question about being in charge of one's own life or about what services that should be offered in a society? I guess that's also a link to the OB/GYN example you give; at least some health care professionals might think it is unethical to damage an organ or body that's working: primum non nocere
Others, who have another philosophical view on what health care is, may say that the society should offer the services that people want or need
The other is supervised. This is usually to empower older to people to consider their options.
We can agree to disagree on what supervision means, but a bridge net and a mandatory process without a (subjective) additional waiting period, are very different situations to me.
The human psyche is a frail and changeable thing-a pause in a long-held mental routine can lead to greater consideration at any age, not just for the young.
I think the obvious counterpoint is that MAID is about people enlisting others to help kill them, which is no longer merely "being in charge of their own lives".
The question is just as much about us as it is about them.
And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.
Do you really want to be the doctor that didn't press for more consideration for a patient that ultimately takes their own life?
I get the idea of giving women control but as a doctor it's also their right to refuse a procedure to not bear that burden. It's similar to the theory of justice that states it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished.
It's easier to deal with a lot of angry patients vs one that commits suicide.
At least with the euthanasia there's not really going to be any rebounding patient regret to deal with!
Indeed, they shouldn't.
>lasik
Which a lot of people report regretting and saying that has only made things worse...? Not a great example.
Just stop there. Don't infantilize people.
And how exactly is the doctor supposed to distinguish between those who have a “0%” chance of changing their mind and those who have a 1% or 5% or 10% chance of changing their mind?
This is complicated, because forcing doctors into doing things that they consider unethical isn't ideal either.
You’re assuming a clear state of mind and perfect circumstances. Suicidal thoughts are very common in depression. I would say giving people with depression access to euthanasia is more cruel than forcing them to seek help. Suicidal thoughts are also common in people who are struggling financially or people who have curable ailments but no access to healthcare. I would also say letting people kill themselves because they are poor is also much more cruel than denying them euthanasia.
Bodily autonomy is important but we still require you wear seatbelts when you drive.
You made your decision which is fine, though through choice you are now an unrestrained heavy object that could hit the other occupants of the car.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-drivers-...
Nobody's forcing people with religious or moral objections to commit suicide. If they object to paying for others to do so, then they can stand with the people who have similar objections to paying for a military. Or with the people wondering why the churches those religions people belong to aren't paying taxes.
I don't even know where you're going with that kidney comment.
Once you understand the neuro-chemical underpinnings of stress etc. time delays will make more sense.
Well, any person involved in the process of making something real? And that would include doctors right? Why doesn't doctor/health professionals opinion matters if they are the ones actually executing the request?
Full-grown adults in a society don't live alone - others opinion matters too.
And that's the point. The person expressing the wish (and expressing it before the death) did.
People make choices. We should let them, wherever possible. Yes, there are consequences - but we also let people fly wingsuits and base jump, and those have known consequences as well. Would you also enjoin people from doing that after a traumatic event? What about mountain climbing? Diving? Crossing the street?
If you apply the "no major choices after a traumatic event for a while" line of thought, we'd need to install temporary guardians for anybody who has a traumatic event. That doesn't work.
Someone jumping out of an airplane with a wingsuit is wearing an ordinary skydiving rig complete with reserve and AAD.
One week seems a bit short but honestly not like he has that many years left anyway so the best he can hope for is going out on his on terms.
I am super critical on euthanasia for younger people. I think it should only be allowed for cases when it is absolutely medically certain that they will die soon. But 80+, if you lived that long you probably know yourself pretty well at this point and are unlikely to change your mind. Aging, when coupled with mental decline, is horrific. It is good to allow them to go in a humane way.
I had multiple relatives with dementia die and I have always felt a sense of relieve that their suffering had finally ended.
But they do permit contingencies. I would assume he went through the application process before she died.
Honestly this Canadian policy got Soylent Green all over it. I am not going to pretend otherwise.
It's an uphill legal battle to get people to understand that laws saying you have to get the patient's depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation completely under control before they're allowed to start hrt when that's the source of those problems is untenable. Because while there are reasonable and empathetic folks there's faction who is pushing these laws as a means of soft-outlawing the treatment all together.
Ahh local politics, truly nothing else like it.
I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.
The downward slope quickens faster than any would like once it starts. The body or the mind slips away, leaving someone either trapped in a shell that doesn't work, or momentary fragments of the person who was among a sea of futile vapid existence.
Our medical technology is not there and shows little sign of being close to resolving either issue.
Rather than slowly wasting away I too would rather have the option to twist to the side off the cliff rather than the long slow painful stair tumble down the hill.
In these cases, I'm not sure these people had the agency and capacity to continue living in a way that makes sense as human beings.
I gauge much of my value and purpose in life based on how I can serve my family and community. I don't really exist for me in a sense, and I can't exist without other people. I'm part of something a lot bigger than I am. If at any point it comes to be that I'm not serving a purpose in this great network, well, I'm not sure I'd see a point in carrying on. I may still be breathing, blood still pumping, but I'd be functionally dead as a part of a community.
Choosing death is literally gambling that the purpose is over despite never knowing the future.
I guess we're on the same page to some degree. If the future might hold some meaningful potential, wait it out.
But we disagree about grandma, in this case. If grandma doesn't have the emotional and general psychological capacity to offer care, concern, stories, or heart, then she shouldn't be expected to anymore. There are limits to humans. It's why we die in the first place; we're not immortal, and we aren't supernatural.
In situations where I've seen this play out, I think it's actually quite unfair and cruel that we expect grandma to continue offering her humanity to those around her when she has clearly lost most of it, and is barely hanging on anymore. If her life hurts her, we should not expect her to extend herself so we can hopefully gain something for ourselves despite her suffering.
We have to ask ourselves: do we want these people to live for themselves, or for us? Is this a reciprocal, mutual desire we have for them, or does it fit a narrative or convention that's more suitable to us and our own wants and comforts? Is letting someone die too scary and uncomfortable for us? Are we attuned to how much they actually suffer and how little their future really holds?
I suppose at some point we have to admit it doesn't make sense to lament not knowing the future. For example, when my mom died it took her 7 years, 3 of which were absolutely awful for her, 2 of which were spent in relative confusion or outright senility. It was all downhill, no turning around, no improving, just a steady descent into pain and madness. Saying "I can't predict the future" at that point is kind of insane. She'd lost her mind. She was enduring kinds of pain I came to understand as being indescribable and unbearable.
Hoping for a turn around so I could hear her voice, her care, more stories, etc... No, that's for me, and she's already gone. Why make her suffer more?
For what it's worth, I don't eat animals because I despise the idea of needless suffering. I won't intentionally cause suffering of a sentient creature because it's one of the most needless, unnecessary, overtly harmful things I know of in the universe. I can't bring myself to have an animal suffer because I want to enjoy eating its meat, and likewise, I can't expect a human to suffer because I want to (hopefully) enjoy their presence or some function they serve for me. No, that's a bizarre pressure or expectation to put on someone. Especially if it's for my own fleeting gratification. That doesn't enrich our relationship or deepen our connection. It's just me and what I want. Who cares what I want, when someone is in the throes of dying?
How is the desire to avoid burdening others selfish?
"You can't choose to kill yourself because that would be suicide" is a tautology, not an argument. What's the basis for these beliefs?
immature: "I know what life means and this is not the meaning of life" OR "we should not burden others with our remorse and pain and so share nothing with anyone lest it cause them pain too." (I hope I don't have to elaborate how this is immature.)
arrogant: "who knows better what I need than me? I know it well enough that no one else matters"
selfish: "If I am the one who wants something, why can't I have it? who are you to say I can't have what I want?"
suicide is a mental disease and a psychological imbalance. The suicidal need a redefinition of what life means.
immature: "I know what life means and that is not the meaning of life." or "Suffering cannot be unbearable, can always be improved by sharing it, and everyone has a robust support network ready and willing to share their pain."
arrogant: "15 thousand suffering people, their families, and their doctors and support staff all need to redefine life as I see it."
selfish: "I know what's best for everyone. Differing opinions are mental disorders and psychological conditions and should be discarded out of hand."
What makes your opinion the only privileged one here? Honest question, I just feel like we're operating under different frameworks and there must be something else I'm missing. Can I ask your opinion on the soul and afterlife?
I don’t operate under libertarian principles.
So, what principles do you operate under? That's been my question the whole time. If this is your personal beliefs vs that of the states above, I think that seems rather arrogant, hence my thought that maybe religion is involved? I'd love to know how you came to feel so strongly.
It's arrogant and selfish to force people to live on for as long as doctors can keep their body alive. No euthanasia just means more messy suicides.
When an old man claims this, that is arrogant.
> to force people to live
I don't think anyone can force another to live beyond their ill-fated death.
What I read from your comment, is that you think peoples fear of loss impacts the discussion to much and shouldn't be given much weight in the question?
My own view is that a happy life has value. Death is neutral (for the person who dies - it's affect on others may be either positive or negative). And that (all else being equal), causing someone to live an unhappy life has negative moral value.
That latter bit seems to be something that many people not only disagree with, but don't even give proper consideration. Perhaps due to stigma around devaluing of life, so evolutionary bias towards life, or perhaps because their own life is good enough that they find it hard to empathise with those for whom life is an overall negatige experience.
However, I don't think the solution to that tragedy to to make people suffer through. I think the solution is more and better institutions that reduce that suffering so fewer people are pushed to make the choice to end it.
I'm not trying to have a go btw - it genuinely seems an intractable problem to me.
Someone with advanced dementia may be too far from that threshold to change the decision for them, but that doesn't mean that better institutions wouldn't move the needle.
There are lots of ways we can change systems and institutions to change the choices people make and I see good people working to make that happen.
I guess it is a kind of a platitude. I'm not trying to claim that such changes are easy, simple, fast, or even obvious (though some may be.)
The choice behind death is that it's preferable to the alternative. Before we had medically assisted options, people would do it in more painful ways, but they'd still do it. Many cultures had the idea of "walking off into the wilderness" when your time was there.
When that time is is a personal choice. By all means, let's put some non-gatekeeping hurdles in the way (e.g. mandate a conversation or three with a therapist), but ultimately, we should all be in charge of our own life.
> This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty.
> I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.
-have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2027)
-be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
-have enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable
My parents both died of glioblastomas, a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer. As the surgeon explained after the biopsy, "This is what you will die from." 3 months from diagnosis to death for my mom, a year and change for my dad. Seeing that process up close made very clear to me what I wanted for myself.
All of this was reinforced for me by the experience of Brittany Maynard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Maynard
She was diagnosed with a glioblastoma and was given 6 months to live. She moved from California to Oregon so she could die in a controlled and humane manner. She wrote about that here: https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suic...
I get the thought of medically-assisted suicide wigs some people out, and we have to be careful to make sure the urge isn't just a temporary distortion of mood and thought. But having seen it up close, I am very much not interested in spending months dying slowly and dragging my family through hell just to make sure random people not involved don't have to think about hard things or deal with their feelings about death.
The short answer is people almost never know the cause of a glioblastoma. My parents only lived in the same place for like 6 years, and they moved around a fair bit. Nobody else in my family had one so far, so the next likely data points are me and my brother. Not a lot you can do anyhow, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In Christianity life is about suffering. You're basically earning heaven points. But when you no longer live for god but only for yourself there is no reason to suffer.
I'm not sure that is true. And even if it would be true for Christianity, I'd guess the same could be said for Buddihsm [0]. Buddhism monks in particular seem to be a miserable lot, as they (try to?) never smile ... at least on photos as shown in temples in Thailand.
The core of Christianity, from my understanding, is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and through accepting Jesus (not through works) one is able to get to heaven. This I think is the defining contrast of Christianity with other major religions, as in Judaism, Hindusm, Buddhism, Islam and probably others good works are needed to get to a better afterlife or reach a final state (nirvana?).
Though please correct me if I am wrong in any of this, as I don't know all of every religion.
P.S.: I myself was born in The Netherlands, but for the last 7 years or so been living in Thailand.
---
This is true in much of mainline Protestant Christianity, but it's less clear cut in the Catholic and Orthodox branches or in some of the hard-to-categorize groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc). They still emphasize that it's only through Christ you can be saved, but they place varying degrees of emphasis on what you should be doing and why.
None I'm aware of says anything about heaven points through suffering, though.
From your link, Suffering in Buddhism is prescribed as the First Noble Truth:
> Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering:
> birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering;
> union with what is displeasing is suffering;
> separation from what is pleasing is suffering;
> not to get what one wants is suffering;
> in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
Which part of it is true that "life is about suffering" ?
As for Buddhist monk, you could try looking up Ajahn Brahm - that might offer a different perspective.
Christianity isn't the only religion/world view that has the perspective that your life has value to others, even if you yourself feel doomed.
From the Havamal, the wise words of Odin:
> The lame can ride a horse, the handless drive cattle, the deaf can fight and win. It’s better even to be blind, than fuel on a pyre; a corpse is of no use to anyone.
This depends heavily on the "flavor" of Christianity.
This was touched upon in a game called Indika released this year......there's a story there how a guy ended the suffering of his young child who was in constant pain, and was told by a priest during confession time "well you see by killing your son you condemned your soul to eternity in hell, but your child is now definitely in heaven, so actually you did a good thing by sacrificing yourself!". And so the guy went and killed the rest of his family, having come to a logical conclusion that he can't get any more condemned to hell than he already is, but if he guarantees that his entire family goes into heaven then surely that's an absolutely amazing thing to do. I don't know if this was based on a true story or not, but the logic totally applies.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint_mo...
I am also going through a cancer scare myself and have been thinking about the future.
Sometimes it is helpful to review the wisdom of the ages, so I'll leave some here for ponder, as I don't know that I'm convinced the short of it is always the best decision:
> The lame can ride a horse, the handless drive cattle, the deaf can fight and win. It’s better even to be blind, than fuel on a pyre; a corpse is of no use to anyone.
I suppose at some point, one's disability does truly leave them beyond repair, beyond productivity. But maybe there is comfort knowing your existence fuels a paycheck for whomever is charged woth your care? But that may be undesirable if it subtracts from your heirs.
In many branches of Christianity what you do find is a belief that life is a gift from God and that it's sacrilegious to decide on your own to end that gift earlier than He does. That's not a glorification of suffering per se, but a prioritization of the will of God over your own will—it's based on a belief that even if you don't understand how now, His plan is always better than yours.
I realize that nuance like that doesn't do well on this forum when it comes to religion in general and Christianity in particular, but I do think it's important to accurately represent the other perspective instead of attacking a straw man, even if the other perspective is religious.
This doesn't preclude suffering, though, which I agree is a central tenant of Christianity. I would argue the primary role of suffering, from the Christian view, is to bring about conformity to Christ in this life.
People tell me I'll change my mind (perhaps similarly to how people treat people who say they don't want kids). But I doubt I will. I've seen lot's of older people (and people who's lives are not good) still want this when it comes to the time when it applies. The only reason it's not more commonplace is social stigma (and legal obstacles) against it.
Both of my parents (in their 70s) mentioned how they want to go out the same way once they're incapable of living and start suffering. I feel the same about it as well. I understand there are very small amount of cases where people shouldn't be able to take this way out, but it's a net good. I really hate how global media is trying to turn it into a big conversation and "slippery slope", because if anyone who has seen their loved one suffer... they would never want this program to end.
You can talk to real people that work or live in a hospice or care home to better understand the death process (they need volunteers for all sorts of stuff). Or look into the formal studies that have been done on the Canadian side.
Controversial cases aside, MAID is more the scheduling of an event that can be seen coming from quite a ways away. I have family members that work in hospice care, and the reality of death makes it seem cruel not to allow MAID.
This isn't healthy people offing themselves when they turn 90. This is people seeing a slow and certain decline and loss of dignity due to a known illness. If you knew that your last six months would be extremely painful, you would lose the ability to walk, lose concentration to have a cogent conversation, not be able to go to the bathroom by yourself, and finally your body would just shut down; wouldn't you want the option to shorten or skip out on the final parts of that experience?
Consentment fraud is a lesser difficulty than stealing someone’s wallet at gunpoint or horribly mutilating people and leaving them in a bathtub. And yet, the consequences of this fraud are fatal, more fatal than extorting their entire life savings from a person. You just take someone who’s currently lonely, not really looked after, perhaps at odds with their parents… and hop, their life is over. Drug addicts, rape victims, lonely adults. So much taxes can be saved.
Easy fraud for doctors, with plenty of incentives to commit it, and the highest consequences for the victim.
But I genuinely understand your concerns.
I find this a bizarre way to assume that a person who has committed their entire lives to helping people would behave.
And people can become zealots for what they believe is best for others
Meanwhile private insurers definitely deny coverage to people with chronic illnesses (not everyone who is sick or dying is on Medicare/Medicaid). In a single-payer system those folks wouldn't slip through the cracks and .... the doctors would be incentivized to keep them alive! (assuming doctors are profit-motivated sociopaths like your average HN poster)
It's not complex, most of it is actually covered even in paramedic training. It's just that instead of sticking the ventilator tube in they inject some potassium chloride. Last month Costco was selling it for about 50 cents a pound. (Potassium salt for water softeners.)
The main cost will be the evaluation, not the procedure.
If it's not, unfortunately, I've seen what people will do anyway. Allowing people to die with dignity and on their own terms is something that I believe in.
I look at my grandma. She's 85, in the middle stages of Alzheimers (usually find and lucid, but sometimes thinks she's in Michigan or Georgia when she's been in Oregon for 4 years), constantly soils herself, can't get up from a chair without assistance (even then it's a struggle), and can barely walk, even with a walker. She got COVID and somehow survived, but got permanent lung damage and now needs an oxygen tank.
She's not living, she's merely surviving. I don't want to be like that. If I found myself in the state she's in, I like to think that I'd admit that I've had a good run, but it's time to move on.
Can you imagine such a decision now?
Then he had to hang himself, because there was no legal or easy way to humanely end his own life.
Apparently he did it wrong, but died anyway. Just more slowly and more painfully, without any support.
* For: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1....
* Against: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.sh...
If the opposite of a statement is just as valid as a statement, it is not an argument. For instance, I could say it is God’s will that we do euthanize people so that they don’t suffer, and God gave us the intelligence to find ways to die that are significantly less painful. My argument has no less logic than theirs.
If “nuh uh” is a substantial rebuttal, your argument isn’t sensible.
* There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia
* Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
* Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
* Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
If I said “euthanasia leads to long lines at the grocery store“ it would be a no weaker of an argument than most of those.
Arguments like these may not all be directly religious, but they come from the same place.
I realize it’s just my opinion, but I’ve still never heard one intelligent argument against it.
this doesn't sound right? MAiD has a 90-day waiting period. He had to have started that process before his wife passed, and just picked the date after she passed.
What's next? We let teenagers choose to die after their first love breaks up with them?
I'm neither against nor for euthanasia, but I also think the situations where it's the best solution for everyone are extremely rare.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-servi...
> Your eligibility assessment must take a minimum of 90 days, unless the assessments have been completed sooner and you are at immediate risk of losing your capacity to consent.
This is wild. How can they differentiate between grief and actual clear thinking desire?
Grief on its own isn't sufficient for assisted dying.
Who are you to make that call?
Personally I don’t think they should. Only I know what’s in my head.
I think my rules would be:
1. Terminal diagnosis at any age - No questions asked.
2. Over 70 - No questions asked — just request MAID and get it.
3. Over 50 but under 70 - Have to request MAID 2 times, separated by 1 month waiting period. Waiting period resets after a year.
4. Under 50 - Have to request MAID 3 times, each separated by 1 month waiting period. Waiting period resets after 6 months.
I’d also be in favor of no questions asked at all in any situation.
Losing a very long term partner is a horrible blow. You go through the grief to get to better times on the other side--but if there's no other side to get to, why go through it?
My memory is that the Canadian rules require more time than that so he probably had already set it up.
- it's a slippery slope
- they are young, they might revive (metaphorically speaking)
- you believe god will punish them with eternal suffering or something, but then a lot of religions are fine with monks willfully passing one "through meditation" in old age
To be clear I mean "in general". Wrt. MAID specifically e.g., a week seem .... very short ... enough for some short term depressive bout or mental leap of judgment to end your live. But then like I said there is a lot to criticize about MAID.
But granting the living dead peace is, I think, not the problem here.
For some reason this made me emotional. I think I would make the same choice if I were in this position.
Many people have the worst days or weeks or years that they look back on and are grateful for the life they live later, physically disabled, paralyzed, elderly, etc. During the darkest of times is when we have to care for each other, not offer a knife so to speak. Even when many during these times would’ve wanted to die and suffer greatly. It’s part of life. This is absolutely sick in a civilized society, but leave it to that murderous thug Trudeau.
Whats suprising to me is that these parents choose to punish their kids instead of end of ending their life. selfish fucks!!
Did you tell you kids that this what you have in store for them because you want to "continue to live" regardless of pain that causes to ppl around you? Absolutely selfish and Vile .
In one case, which was surprising to me, a man who had survived cancer - he was not terminal but certainly wasn't getting any better - elected to die via MAID after his wife died. She passed, he called his doctor and less than a week later he was also dead. He got a chance to visit his family, apparently drive around his hobby farm one more time and then that was it. He didn't want to deal with being alone and seriously ill.
Another friend was in renal and congestive heart failure and possibly could have lived longer but they were driving 100km daily to get to the nearest dialysis clinic and again, this person was definitely dying. So made and appointment and decided to go sooner rather than suffer along for an indeterminate amount of time.
It's quite surprising to me, but these people are in their mid to late 80's and of sound mind and know what they want.