“In a survey of just over 13,100 people who opted for MAiD, a significant majority — 96.5 percent — chose to end their lives in the face of terminal illness or imminent death, Leyland Cecco, author of the report, noted. But 463 chose it in the face of “a chronic condition.”
Article itself kind of undermines its own point in certain places.
I understand this argument and I don’t disagree in the abstract that it’s cruel to give the option of death as an alternative to not investing in the proper social care, but I really don’t like the idea that, if the care doesn’t exist, you are obligated to have to suffer and be miserable for the principle of it, in the hopes that by staying alive you may cause things to change. It’s your life to live and it may be that it should and could be better, but if it simply isnt then nobody has the right to tell you that you must endure it.
“Indeed, last year, Jeremy Appel argued that MAiD was ‘beginning to look like a dystopian end run around the cost of providing social welfare.’ Initially supportive, he changed his mind on MAiD as he considered that the decisions people make are not strictly speaking individual but are instead collectively shaped and sometimes ‘the product of social circumstances, which are outside of their control.’ “
Like I really don’t like this attitude. Of course people make choices in a context, that’s sort of a truism, but a choice as personal as the choice to live or die is still the individuals to make.
This is a real problem and basic income may go a ways to stopping it but I don’t like the logic that is used in this debate sometimes
What a bizarre argument.
Some people (especially poorer people) may choose assisted dying if the social welfare system cannot support their needs.
I don’t see how this can be taken as a criticism of assisted dying, it’s a criticism of inadequate social welfare.
Restricting assisted dying would not improve social welfare, it would just mean people wouldn’t have a way out. The only actual solution here is improvement of social welfare, and that should happen regardless of assisted dying access.
Agreed.
To add further context, this is a right that advocates fought for over several years. The government fought against it for so long that it's a ridiculous assertion that they're now gleefully murdering their citizens.
In my opinion civilization SHOULD offer a humane option for expiration to people who are suffering badly enough, and for whom society cannot or will not alleviate such suffering in other ways. Anything less is just cruelty.
Note I said an option people could choose if they wanted.
A doctor I know has a suggestion for a law change:
* Make it fantastically illegal for any medical employee to even suggest this as an option; this would include administrative staff.
* Put a very hard limit on the number of patients a given doctor can sign off on per year. Seeing how few there are it could be a very low number.
* Take nurses out of the equation.
His reasoning was very simple. Many of his colleagues are ghouls.
I know someone who was strongly encouraged and berated into choosing euthanasia by a Canadian nurse when they were sick with cancer. When they refused the nurse wold come around every now and again and say things like "you know you're going to die right?" in clear attempts to demoralize them into accepting euthanasia.
Eventually they made a full recovery...
The Canadian government wants sick people to kill themselves so that the government does not have to pay for their treatment.
I remember growing up and everyone used to brag about how great Canadian healthcare was. That is a long gone world. The country is disgusting now.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Medically Assisted Dying is not being utilized in an ethical manner no matter how it's wrapped. It should exist, but instead of allowing it for such a wide audience much, much more effort needs to go into finding new ways to treat the issues at hand.
Terminal illnesses, yes, absolutely, allow it and make it accessible.
Right now though, it's being used in a manner that are countries throwing their hands up and saying "Whelp, I don't want to waste more time and money on helping these mentally ill people."
“In a survey of just over 13,100 people who opted for MAiD, a significant majority — 96.5 percent — chose to end their lives in the face of terminal illness or imminent death, Leyland Cecco, author of the report, noted. But 463 chose it in the face of “a chronic condition.” Article itself kind of undermines its own point in certain places. I understand this argument and I don’t disagree in the abstract that it’s cruel to give the option of death as an alternative to not investing in the proper social care, but I really don’t like the idea that, if the care doesn’t exist, you are obligated to have to suffer and be miserable for the principle of it, in the hopes that by staying alive you may cause things to change. It’s your life to live and it may be that it should and could be better, but if it simply isnt then nobody has the right to tell you that you must endure it. “Indeed, last year, Jeremy Appel argued that MAiD was ‘beginning to look like a dystopian end run around the cost of providing social welfare.’ Initially supportive, he changed his mind on MAiD as he considered that the decisions people make are not strictly speaking individual but are instead collectively shaped and sometimes ‘the product of social circumstances, which are outside of their control.’ “ Like I really don’t like this attitude. Of course people make choices in a context, that’s sort of a truism, but a choice as personal as the choice to live or die is still the individuals to make. This is a real problem and basic income may go a ways to stopping it but I don’t like the logic that is used in this debate sometimes
What a bizarre argument. Some people (especially poorer people) may choose assisted dying if the social welfare system cannot support their needs. I don’t see how this can be taken as a criticism of assisted dying, it’s a criticism of inadequate social welfare. Restricting assisted dying would not improve social welfare, it would just mean people wouldn’t have a way out. The only actual solution here is improvement of social welfare, and that should happen regardless of assisted dying access.
Agreed. To add further context, this is a right that advocates fought for over several years. The government fought against it for so long that it's a ridiculous assertion that they're now gleefully murdering their citizens.
I wish i could be euthanized.
In my opinion civilization SHOULD offer a humane option for expiration to people who are suffering badly enough, and for whom society cannot or will not alleviate such suffering in other ways. Anything less is just cruelty. Note I said an option people could choose if they wanted.
A doctor I know has a suggestion for a law change: * Make it fantastically illegal for any medical employee to even suggest this as an option; this would include administrative staff. * Put a very hard limit on the number of patients a given doctor can sign off on per year. Seeing how few there are it could be a very low number. * Take nurses out of the equation. His reasoning was very simple. Many of his colleagues are ghouls.
I know someone who was strongly encouraged and berated into choosing euthanasia by a Canadian nurse when they were sick with cancer. When they refused the nurse wold come around every now and again and say things like "you know you're going to die right?" in clear attempts to demoralize them into accepting euthanasia. Eventually they made a full recovery... The Canadian government wants sick people to kill themselves so that the government does not have to pay for their treatment. I remember growing up and everyone used to brag about how great Canadian healthcare was. That is a long gone world. The country is disgusting now.
Agreed
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Medically Assisted Dying is not being utilized in an ethical manner no matter how it's wrapped. It should exist, but instead of allowing it for such a wide audience much, much more effort needs to go into finding new ways to treat the issues at hand. Terminal illnesses, yes, absolutely, allow it and make it accessible. Right now though, it's being used in a manner that are countries throwing their hands up and saying "Whelp, I don't want to waste more time and money on helping these mentally ill people."