Reports show some Canada euthanasia deaths driven by social reasons

I understand this is a hot-topic, and definitely an extremely nuanced issue, but as a person who knows people who took the MAID (Canadian euthanasia process) way out for a terminal illness, I will be forever grateful for it. It’s not uncommon to meet people whose elder relatives went through it as well, after years of constant pain up here.

It definitely has shortcomings, but I genuinely hope the fixes will not result in rolling back the program completely.

I think doctor assisted suicide is something we should have, but I've read some really messed up stuff about Canada's program.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-...

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c63...

One case (can't find it now, I think it may have been Alan Nichols') had someone claiming the doctor basically pressured them into it, implying they were taking up resources from other patients in Canada's health care system who could use it more.

The reality of our society is that many will meet their end alone and in poverty. Is it so different from parts of our history, where the old chose to take a long walk into the wilderness before the indignity of what follows? I’m not sure. We like to pretend our society is much richer and more capable than it is—that we can take care of everyone. Maybe we can, but I have my doubts. In cases where we fail, I think we should at least allow people the dignity of choosing their own exit. I don’t think it makes much difference whether their suffering comes from a disease of their body or a disease of society. In the short term, both can be inevitable and excruciating.

> patients asked to be killed in part for social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness,

Why is anyone surprised? Did the people who planned out this program never visit a psych ward? They're chock full of homeless people in varying degrees of "I'd rather die than go back to the streets/shelter". Sad but it's how it is.

The government of Canada, when asked for funds to install a wheelchair ramp in the home of a veteran and Paralympian, famously offered to euthanize her instead - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted...

This thing turned into exactly the horror its critics were worried it would. Their concerns were so confidently dismissed from all sides, it was so easy to paint them as naive idealists or hardhearted religious weirdos or anything. They were right and now canada is at the forefront of a modern eugenics movement.

I was always very much in favour of opening up people's right to have control over the manner of their death, philosophically it seems inexcusable to me that we routinely keep people alive well beyond the point where they are not only in unbearable agony, but where their condition and/or medical interventions necessary to sustain them have sapped every last ounce of meaning from their lives, leaving them no option but to starve themselves to death or use some other grisly means to end their own suffering in isolation from their loved ones, when they could have a relatively painless death at the time, manner, and in the presence of people of their own choosing.

I knew that this obviously came with risks, old people being pressured into it to ease the burden on, or speed inheritance for their children, people being pressured to take pressure off the medical system, etc. But I believed that trying to manage these risks was well worth the outcome that people might be able to die with a shred of dignity intact.

I have to say that the Canadian experience has made me wonder whether I was wrong. Not in a strong rhetorical sense, but it has given me more doubt than I've ever entertained before. Are we socially or systemically incapable of managing those risks given a certain institutional configuration? I don't know. Happy for people to provide counter evidence for me if they like. I really don't know what to think about this anymore.

Adults must be left to make their own choices. When the time comes, I want to go in peace, at a time of my choosing (or imposed by fate--for example, if I were to lose my agency or independence due to a medical condition or an incident), and not rot and suffer until I'm "terminal".

All through my life, I've been milked by way of taxes--and I'm OK with it. I've had a decent life; I've tried to actively minimize the damage I cause thanks to my existence. So, when the time comes (and I decide when it is), I don't want to be left begging for relief. I want to go in peace and with some dignity. I absolutely don't want to resort to violent methods or leave a mess for others to clean up.

So, my ask is that a method is made available. If I need to sign up in advance--when I'm deemed to be of sound mind and body--so be it. But I need a way. I deserve it. This is not negotiable.

Some related links:

* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132623/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian (I know he's a controversial figure)

You know you live in a "Brave New World" dystopia when...

With the internet, even the disabled and really old and infirm people can find ways to connect with others, alleviating (somewhat) the social isolation aspect of wanting to take a "long walk in the woods". My gut tells me that newer generations who basically are raised with internet access from day one will have little problem with this.

The technology to remove pain from humans has been invented via CRISPR. It is possible to live with "congenital insensitivity to pain", so we know it can be done safely. It has been demonstrated in lab animals.

I think that this gene therapy should be given to patients instead!

When I was a kid I worked in a grocery store. Every week we had the same people, sometimes 2-3 times a week. They talked to everyone, generally elderly, and seemed very lonely. I can understand facing the end of days painfully alone would push someone to choose their exit.

MAID in Canada is like gun laws in the US. Most lawmakers and most citizens would prefer to have stricter gun laws and stricter MAID laws, but the supreme court interprets the constitution in a way to regularly strike down stricter laws.

There was a time when I was in favor of this idea - helping the terminally ill die with dignity seemed like a compassionate idea. Perhaps it still is. My problem with assisted suicide is not that it's giving terminally ill people a way out, it's the unintended consequences. We've already seen the slippery slope argument proven true time and time again. Young people, poor people, people with mental illness, veterans and the critically injured being funneled into assisted suicide. We've seen authority figures talk of counseling people with the wrong political opinions toward suicide. We've seen the profession attract "doctors" who take such glee in the act that in any other context they'd be viewed as serial killers. I'm sorry, but the number of unnecessary deaths that I'm okay with in order to alleviate the suffering of a few is zero.

For those not actively following the situation, we’re well past the point where they offer and insist that you take the route of euthanasia before prescribing pain medicine in chronic painful conditions.

Does not bode well for a generation of people hunched over their desks leading sedentary lifestyles.

Isn’t MAID something out of Soylent Green?

@dang can I make a generalized comment on the state of Canada in this case?

I think the widespread acceptance of the idea that assisted suicide is a legitimate option that people ought to consider is a society giving up on humanity. I think that there is never a case where there is no hope at all. Even in cases of the most severe illness, with all of the advancements in technology and innovation emerging seemingly every day, you cannot say there is no chance of a cure or a recovery. And even in a failed attempt at such a cure or recovery, there is much to be learned that can be shared with the rest of humanity.

To just focus on avoiding suffering instead of striving to live is not consistent with the attitude that is conducive to the flourishing of life and the advancement of civilization. It is precisely humanity raging against the light — the endless quest for survival and flourishing — that has driven humanity thus far and that will always drive life in general. The assisted suicide philosophy, if you want to call it that, is fundamentally a deviation from the civilizational and biological imperative.

All of this being said, a free society is one where people own their own body, meaning have a right to destroy themselves, with any drug or dangerous behavior, and to even commit suicide. So I cannot see an argument for prohibiting suicide or the provision of assistance in committing it. What's peculiar about countries that have legalized assisted suicide is the bevy of laws they impose to protect people from much milder forms of self-harm, like consumer protection laws that protect people from their own bad consumer decisions. You're not allowed to buy raw milk, but you can get a doctor's assistance in ending your life due to depression!