My Canadian parents are in their 80's so naturally a lot of their friends of the same age are dying. And two of them have been via MAID.
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.
My dad (age 75) got diagnosed with ALS and within a month of the diagnosis opted for MAID. He had only just lost control of one leg, but he knew what was coming. As much as we begged him for more time, he didn't want any of it.
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.
These are all excellent examples of how MAID should be used, I think the concerning thing is the widening of the eligibility criteria - especially when things like mental illness start to make you eligible.
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...
If you are sufficiently mentally ill and determined enough to die that you get through the MAID screening, counselling, information sessions, etc, then you are determined enough to die by other, messier, likely more painful, certainly more traumatizing to the people around you methods.
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.
> 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
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.
You're getting downvoted, but honestly, I agree with you.
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. =)
My wife helped a friend die in Germany 10 years ago. He'd acquired some cyanide, which resulted in a long, protracted death because he took too much and vomited most of it up. It was messy, painful and traumatic, but she sat with him until the end.
When someone is determined enough to die, they find a way.
Terrible to read he still suffered a lot. I hope your wife is ok.
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.
I heard a first hand account of someone help their father with last stage cancer administer a morphine drip, everyone said their goodbyes and he went to sleep. Only to wake up hours later and say, it is working and they both struggled to milk the bag to increase the flow, they talked for 20 minutes while they both tried to "fix it" and he finally went back to sleep for the last time.
That's wild, because in my understanding it's an indictable offence to aid and abet someone to end their own lives in Canada. Like more than 10 years jail
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.
The document goes on to detail the medical exemptions we're talking about here. What's the law in Germany?
She didn't care, and she got away with it. And if she were still alive today, I wouldn't be talking about it since the statute of limitations is not passed.
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).
B.s. parent literally gave an example of someone that got access to MAID a week after their doc visit. I’ve changed my mind on things after a month. Not saying MAID is bad or should be banned. I’m saying people will 100 percent abuse the system. My concern is healthcare system practiioners. I am dealing with a ton of people whose job it is to press our family into a decision we don’t want to make. This includes an md, a social worker and a care coordinator. Canadas health care for old people and folks with dementia is a disgrace. Maid should not have to be the only option with dignity.
...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-regret it because when I bump into things and the titanium bits transferred the force straight to 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.
Accepting suffering as part of the human condition. In the Christian faith, Christians are taught that suffering is part of life and good things can result from it. Like what? Empathy, love, and compassion from caregivers, friends, and family to the suffering person. Also, the suffering person may express love to those around them. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified and suffered one of the most horrible deaths imaginable. He did it as an act of love for humanity. A Christian might argue that it was also to serve as an example of enduring suffering.
And you and anyone else can still opt to live and suffer if you see value in it. The beauty of freedom is that you can do you, and nobody can force their beliefs on you.
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.
I accept your suffering if you choose so. If I knew you personally, I would even do all I could to help and comfort you. However, I cannot condone you imposing suffering on others in the name of YOUR religion.
Christians can suffer as much as they like. To everyone their weirdness.
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.
I never said anything about imposing my beliefs on others. I merely responded to the question about whether there was any other course when things are terminal.
It’s strange to me how resistant society is to the idea that mental health is health. Not all there is to health, but someone suffering from terminal cancer is typically regarded very differently from someone suffering from an incurable mental illness.
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.
I'm with @navane, you're concerned about what is very much a minority edge case.
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.
I get your point, but there are already MULTIPLE examples of people combining the mental-health component + some externality that is fundamentally a societal failing and coming to the conclusion that MAID is the optimal outcome.
"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."
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.
There’s a stigma/taboo attached to suicide, and that’s because suicide is kind of a show-stopper bug opened for modern society. And it does not want to admit the problem because it’s not capable of doing anything about it.
Support phone numbers or “talk to someone” are there to defuse and keep the person living so they die of old age. Or if they do suicide successfully later on, the system washes its hands clean and avoids dealing with ingrained deep issues that cause suicides.
Both cases concerned people who requested euthansia, and repeatedly so.
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?
That concerns a small minority of cases, the vast majority is elderly dying people who want to keep their dignity. By steering the discussion to that minority, which even itself is still debatable, you risk flushing the child with the bath water.
By hesitating to discuss, you enable bureaucrats to suggest maid when they want to save money instead of treating a disability (which has already happened in the case of the Olympian).
The single bureacrat in question was flagged, investigated, and removed from contact with veterans.
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.
It's a demonstration that the system currently in place has verification checks.
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.
Many people are opposed to capital punishment due to the small minority of innocent folks it eliminates.
> 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].
There's a difference. The people with MAID choose to die.
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.
Suicide is the ultimate “my body, my choice” issue, even more than abortion is. It’s monstrous to force someone with severe mental health problems to live if they don’t want to. I live an incredible life now that people envy, but I’ve had been through torturous mental health problems in the past. If I knew I had to face a year or two of my dark times again and I’d have 50 more years of my great life afterward I’m not sure if I’d choose to live.
The entire reason why the mental illness discussion is complicated is because with mental illness it’s not clear it is a choice.
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.
> The idea that someone with mental illness cannot make legitimate choice has been around in the legal system for a while
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.
Are you calling for nonconsensual human experiments that will (depending on the outcome) either inflict grave emotional injury onto people who are already so badly injured that they want to die, or that'll be used as a justification for stripping people of their bodily autonomy?
Catching people who jump off bridges doesn't involve lying to people who're entrusting you with their very last bit hope.
> 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.
MAID is the net in the context of impulse driven suicide. If a person’s natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, there is a 90 day assessment period.
The government defines reasonable to save money. I’m surprised at people who think bureaucrats like those from the motor vehicle licensing departments will be able to handle such decisions.
Oh well. You don't need to nanny everyone. They have probably tried all the drugs that have made it all worse. You don't have any real context for someones personal decision like this.
"Some provisions are in place, including a requirement of having two independent healthcare providers confirm that the patient is eligible before their request is approved."
Sorry for your loss. I don't know if he got to explain to you (all) the reasons behind his choice.
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.
> I will have lost my memory, and will be a total burden (all the pain - zero joy) to my close family.
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.
Yeah man, it does suck. I do wish I'd had more time with both my parents, they both died really early in their 50s, I don't think you can ever have "enough" time.
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".
Of course your absolutely right and I'm very sorry if that's been your experience.
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.
> 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.
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".
To be honest, my grand parents both died in their nineties and their last two years were really sad. It was not so much the physical decline but the mental one. At the end, while technically alive, so little of who they were as persons remained, they might as well have been dead.
I fully understand someone in their 80s knowing the end is near choosing to leave on their own term.
My bio father (he was not a part of my life, which is important to note when you get to the end of this comment) lived to 89, for certain values of "lived". He had long ago exhausted his ability to support himself financially, he was blind, deaf, unable to get around town on his own, had substantial age-related mental health issues, as well as a litany of small but significant health issues. I cannot speak for him, but I'd like to think that if I came anywhere close to that existence and I had the option available, I would opt for an end on my terms that respected my dignity and that of my family. As an American, however, I expect to die like he did: poor, mostly alone, and in pain.
My mom died on her own terms in the states at 57 and her doctor gave her the pills to do it at home. It wasn’t as nice as dying in the hospital, but her life quality had been pretty bad for the last decade and doctors will help even in my state where assisted suicide isn’t legal (Washington state rather than Oregon).
How long ago was this? Ever since war on opioids started, doctors have been extremely closely scrutinized by the DEA. Actually helping and even treating patients in some cases is a good way to risk losing your license and livelihood, and possibly your freedom. (and the War on Opioids didn't just apply to opioids, it caused a massive pendulum swing that affects all "controlled substances" not just pain pills, hence why it would be relevant here)
> As an American, however, I expect to die like he did: poor, mostly alone, and in pain.
All you need is a "beer brewer's kit" - gas bottle, simple plastic bag, and hose from the tank. There is an Aussie guy who explains how it all works on YouTube.
>"I would opt for an end on my terms that respected my dignity and that of my family. As an American, however, I expect to die like he did: poor, mostly alone, and in pain."
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.
That's just it: I wouldn't trust myself to be expert enough to do it properly. That, of all the things I might be asked to experience in life, begs for a knowledgeable, caring expert. You're right, of course, but that raises the endlessly fascinating question of why more people don't make that choice.
It is probably hidden a lot more than we think when old and sick people make that choice. When you're weak enough and want to end your life, it might not be a huge effort, and it might not be noticeable. And health care people probably hide it sometimes to not upset relatives.
When you have young and healthy people, it's not that easy to hide a suicide, because suspicions of murder will naturally arise.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I wondered, when you described feeling "really sad" and the sense that people "might as well have been dead," I'm wondering if you're speaking about your own emotional response or trying to convey how the individuals themselves felt about their situation?
Well, they experienced extended physical suffering and having the mental acuity of a toddler. Feel free to try to convince me that not being able to recognise your own kids and the person you have been married with for seventy years while gradually fully losing your hearing and sight and not being able to leave a bed is somehow a worthy experience. I personally question if you can even talk of experiencing anything because that would imply there is something left which can meaningfully process experiences. And that’s the part which came after the initial decline when they were just insanely mean to their loved ones all the time.
My grandfather had Alzheimer's, and for years he lived a stressful life. He constantly kept wondering why he's not in his home (he was), as well as some random paranoia, like that I was a thief that had come to steal from him, or that he was elected mayor against his will, etc. It wasn't great for him.
My mom is 94 and in reasonably good health for that age. My dad just died after a decade of decline with dementia. My mom often tells me that she just doesn't want to wake up one morning. And she wants to go out while she is still on top. All her friends are gone, husband is gone, she lives but can't do any of her hobbies like gardening anymore. She is tired and there is nothing left in life besides waiting for death. I think it would be good if we had a better culture around dying and let people die in dignity if they don't want to live anymore.
My grandmother was absolutely unambiguous about it. Even when she was still mobile and living at home, she'd say things like "I hope it's my time soon" and "I want to follow your grandfather." Quite happily, too. She didn't seem depressed. Just sick and tired of her friends dying and her own inability to do anything for herself.
If you know an ancestor with Alzheimer's or other generic "you just kinda decline" diseases, they "die" long before their heart stops beating.
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.
What does it have to do with anything? What I want for my future self now is obviously 1. having the choice and 2. reasonable care so that the choice isn't forced.
> 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.
My mom ran an adult foster care home. Half the population was elderly, half developmentally disabled. I liked helping out with the developmentally disabled folks. They were a handful, but they were basically enjoying life. But the elderly wing was mostly people warehoused and waiting to die. I remember happy moments, but I don't remember anybody who I'd call happy, and quite a lot of them were miserable.
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.
My Oma went through Alzheimer's. Sbe went from being a functional adult, to forgetting how to speak English, to mistaking family members, to recognizing no one, to being unable to feed herself over the course of 10 years. But she seemed happy most of the time, usually smiling, would light up when she saw people, she would attempt to sing along to whatever music was playing. So I'd say she remained happy most of the time, which made it much easier to deal with from our end.
My mother passed from Alzheimer's. There was a few-month period in the middle-end phase where she no longer had the capacity for long-term fear or existential dread, but was still able to eat food and listen to music. What remained of her was reasonably content until things progressed. Happy? No, not really. But it was a lull in the storm of pain that preceded and followed. A silver lining to the mushroom cloud.
> When undergoing this kind of mental decline, does anybody remain happy?
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)
Yeah any time I've been to a nursing home they have a lot of activities to keep them stimulated - usually some sort of musical performance every week day (usually by volunteer community groups, sometimes school kids), themed days ( Valentine's Day, farm day, pet day, Easter, Christmas, etc) - even the immobile and mentally-declined still enjoy the music and patting a dog.
If I start to develop some kind of age-related mental deterioration that is uncurable (eg dementia, alzheimers), I'll probably find a way to exit before I become incapable of making decisions like that independently, because I'm less scared of death than I am of losing myself like that
It's not at all surprising to me! I fully expect to want to euthanise myself once I'm done with life (and I'm going to be pretty upset if it's not an option for me when it gets to that point).
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.
I live in the neighbourhood in Canada with a lot of elder people. I mentioned in one of my previous comments as well, and MAiD is probably one of the best things that happened in our country in the past decade. I have distant relatives who took the MAiD way out (one because of the age, the other one terminal illness). It's not very uncommon to hear once every quarter in the coffee shop in my neighbourhood people chatting about this program. Older people are generally happy having a way out, rather than suffering and bringing pain to their close ones.
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.
I've been in many discussions over the decades about this--and I see a huge skew: those who have never seen someone have a bad death tend to think euthanasia is a bad thing, those that have had someone close die a bad death tend to have a recognition that there are situations worse than death.
I've been a paramedic for a long time and I completely agree with this. Years ago I may have been against something like MAID, but once I got into healthcare and especially this job, I now fully support it. It's something that I would hope is there for myself when I need it.
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.
Thank you, that has been my honest take as well. My grandma went through extreme dementia/Alzheimer's while she lived with us when I was a kid. I remember being worried about her state every day when both of my parents had to work. Remember hearing her passing out in the hallway and dragging her back to her bed when I was 13, before calling my mom. Before she got into that state, she was cheerful and mentioned how she didn’t want to lose her sanity ever. The day she passed away has been ingrained deep into my memory. I would never want my children to ever experience what I have felt during those days.
These HN comments are both uplifting and wild to me at the same time. I live downtown Toronto, work on Bay St and all I hear is how insane we are allowing all these people to kill themselves with MAID, even on the occasions I log onto twitter, if Canadian stuff comes up I always see some "omg the Canadians are crazy all killing themselves" - I always thought MAID was great but had started to wonder if I'm wrong headed about that.
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?
Yeah, I hear that in the west as well. I’m relatively young, but enjoy having chats at the park and cafes around me, where median age is probably 50+. So, you get to hear personal stories from people who lost someone in recent times. Obviously there’s always reluctance in discussions as well, like “that person is very strong, I don’t think I’d be able to sign up for that”. But they usually end with “I’m glad that they passed away on their own terms”. I think there’s a disconnect between our social circles (ages 25-50) and supermajority of people who end up taking MAiD way out (70+). So, we don’t hear the heartbreaking but peaceful stories that often.
The problem I have with MAiD is I’m not sure the subject really decided it. Forged signatures do exist (a lot) and you’re only a socialist state away from trying to save on public health expenditures by incinerating unwilling patients after pretending their agreement. Without much trace than two witnesses who say “He said it”. Not like it already happened for handicapped people in Germany. I’m quite sure it already happened in Canada, and by dozens.
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.
No system is perfect, and at some point there will be fraud. From what I recall, at every single point the patient has the ability to stop the process up until the last minute. All patients require to be in a state of mind to keep making authorizations at every step. I understand your concerns, but I would be willing to take this risk, as I really want both my parents and everyone I know to have this option. Whether they choose it or not, I will always respect and support them at every step, but leaving them in agony and continuous suffering is not something I'm willing to overlook.
IIRC the patient can make a request in advance specifically covering the case of them being too out of it to consent. Obviously, in such a case if they're then out of it there's no final authorization needed.
Insurance companies in the US have armies of doctors whose sole purpose is to deny care to sick people. CA health system is less fucked, but no reason to think this system is exempt from various forms of corruption. Families wanting to fast-forward their inheritance, romance scammers trying to marry people who they can manipulate into this, doctors who want to get rid of difficult patients. That's just off the cuff what I could think of.
Have you never heard of eugenics in the 1900s? The most highly respected doctors working for the most highly respected governments were sterilizing, surgically dehumanizing and murdering men, women and small children for the greater good of society. Doctors being some kind of benevolent super-humans is a cartoon fantasy.
The problem I have with NOT having programs like MAiD is that you CAN be sure that the person didn't decide it. They are at the mercy of the whims of fate because we are not willing to give them agency.
I wonder why OP thinks doctors would have any incentive to do this. It doesn’t benefit them personally and there is just a vague benefit of lower medical care costs provincially.
This is probably the worst part of living in a lower trust society. We just keep decreasing the bar of "good faith". It really sucks, yet I get your point.
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.
I mean if you replace "taxes" with "profits" you have the current American healthcare system. Condemning people to die from a lack of treatment in order to save on profits.
That does not make any sense. Old people’s healthcare gets paid by the US government, literally everyone up and down the healthcare chain earns more profit by extending someone’s life who would rather die.
Wait, so if you cut out the middleman, doctors would make more money keeping people alive and the government would pay for it? Huh that's the opposite of "death panels".
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)
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.
Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? Especially people in their 80s, they have earned the right to agency.
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.
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.
Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning".
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.
You can't access MAID in Canada any faster than 90 days unless you are at immediate risk of losing your faculties such that you couldn't make the choice. You need multiple specialists to assess you and sign off on it etc.
Why do you assume he did? Specifically, why do you assume he started it in response to his wife's death rather than completed it in response to his wife's death?
> why do you assume he started it in response to his wife's death rather than completed it in response to his wife's death?
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?
I'm not sure, I assume good faith on HN, so I'd guess that it was in the works for a a while? But yeah, it's 100% not a process that can be done in a week, like, for sure.
Absolutely. The thing is, guyzero told a nice little story in which the speed and seamlessness of the process were portrayed as a positive aspect. If it turns out those details were completely incorrect, then he was being extremely misleading with the way he told that story, and any emotional feel-goods one might get from it should be just as invalid as negative knee-jerk reactions.
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.
Is there any country in the world with laws allowing assisted dying that actually allows what you describe, or is it a fantasy that’s irrelevant to the actual policies we’re discussing?
The user you're responding to is very clearly presenting a hypothetical argument, not something that actually exists.
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.
i dont think id characterize those as limits on individual freedom, as much as a requirement of individual freedom. you actually have to want it, vs a whim where you might be drunk and not make the choice you wanted
Yes, it's true that for the choice to be a free one you have to actually want it, but making another person the arbiter of that reduces freedom insofar as there will be people who do freely want it and are forced to wait, or who freely want it and are rejected due to being able to prove they want to to the arbiter's satisfaction.
Making sure someone has actually done the deep consideration necessary for an informed decision of a certain magnitude is not cruel, authoritarian, or denying anyone their agency. It's simply making sure they're actually using their agency.
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. If you're not of clear mind to make the decision in the first place, you're not of clear mind to make the decision not to. Whether you said six months or a year ago that you want to die when your wife dies is irrelevant, you don't have the mental faculties at that moment to confirm you want to do it.
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.
> Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration.
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.
The same reason that pills come in blister packs and bridges have nets-if you add a delay to methods for ending one's life, a significant portion of people change their minds.
One is to prevent unsupervised actions from taking place. This is usually to empower younger people to reconsider.
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.
Would you feel the same way if the waiting period were objective? Say a study was performed with varying wait periods, the percentage of people who changed their minds and opted out was tracked, and the final length was set somewhere on this curve to minimize both the delay and the number of people who may have changed their minds. There are ethical problems with that precise setup, but you get the idea.
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.
The issue is that every OB/GYN has seen patients that regret the decision. And for most they will have seen instances where that regret ultimately led to suicide.
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!
How common is this, really? I think you would have to weigh the chances of someone going through multiple specialists (psych evaluation, obgyn, possible other referrals) over the course of months and then magically they come to regret the procedure well into their full adulthood? At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery, lasik, or braces.
It’s not common at all - on the contrary, the majority of ob-gyns have never seen a patient return and express regret about their voluntary sterilization, let alone know of one who was driven to suicide by it. I don’t know how this commenter came up with the idea.
Everyone should be in charge of their own lives. Except doctors, who should shut the fuck up and do as their told. And people with moral and religious objections who should shut the fuck up and keep paying for this. And people who’d like to sell a kidney, who should shut the fuck up and understand that it’ll be taken after they’re dead when it’s of no value to them.
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.
> Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?
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".
Right, but if the vending machines with suicide pills are specifically for suicide, then the help of others is still very much necessary. And of course, you'd want to prevents kids and drunk people from using the machines, so you'd need some kind of a gatekeeper.
And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.
Even with a pill machine every person involved in the process of setting is facilitating each suicide. This is not the same as recognizing that someone who hangs themselves has a right to do so.
The question is just as much about us as it is about them.
I guess there are many perspectives on this; these are questions that touches on many serious ethical and philosophical topics: health care, the value of life, death, autonomy, ...
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
Grown adults are prevented from making decisions all the time. Wearing a seat belt for example. Why should it be OK to force someone to wear a seat belt all of the time, but not OK to have a waiting period if someone decides they want to die?
Well, partially, because it’s hell on the first responders to have to clean up a fatal accident scene, which is made worse if the death(s) could have been prevented.
I don’t disagree, but you are making the case for regulating grown adults. For the parent post “who decides how long the waiting period should be?” The answer is society. Right now society says none, but it shouldn’t be looked upon in horror if that changes. If I had to choose, I’d choose seat belts optional over on-demand euthanasia.
> But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.
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.
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.
Should the doctor have control over his life? Or just his patients?
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?
I don’t understand the confusion over the person’s express wishes, it sounds very reasonable, maybe even noble to me. I’m 30 and healthy (afaik), but if my main community is my spouse and they die when I’m 80, I’d like euthanasia as well. I don’t even need the cancer background, that just sounds horrible. Maybe my mind will change when I’m actually 80? But I doubt it
A lot of equations and generally good advice for the younger set changes when you're in you 80s. I think unless you've had a pretty unstable life or have real serious mental illness you know yourself pretty damn well by that point.
Longer waiting time also means longer suffering. It is a trade-of to consider.
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.
>Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it.
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.
Flying a wingsuit out of an airplane as part of a skydive is not particularly dangerous. It's the base jumping, wingsuit or no, that is extremely dangerous.
If someone became extremely risk taking after a traumatic event, putting their life at stake at several occasions, it's not unreasonable to believe that - at least in some countries - the person would be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, possibly through a temporary involuntary commitment
one line that is crossed is putting others at risk or pulling them into their actions. I can't think of many scenarios where I'd support involuntary commitment when it was just the individual and their actions.
Ye sorry didn't mean to come out as snarky. There is this old man that get to watch a color movie before being put to death in the movie. I didn't mean the escavator scene in some sort of meme reference. More like some slippery slope argument.
This happens with transgender individuals looking to start hrt stuck in a basically the same catch-22.
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.
In your first example, I suspect there was probably other things present you weren't made aware of. Currently the requirements in Canada include (only copy those relevant to your example).
-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
Yes, I know very little other than that he was a cancer "survivor" - he wasn't about to die of cancer imminently but I think he had some sort of long-term ongoing health issues. But he was apparently well enough to drive a car!
The "alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable" clause is very broad, but doctors have to first agree that the person is suffering intolerably, so it's not entirely a blanket clause.
Yeah, I get that. Once you've accepted death is inevitable, you start to think carefully about what kind of death you want.
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.
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.
Yeah, they were actually both left temporal lobe glioblastomas. Every time that comes up with a doctor they get a funny look and ask where they lived, obviously suspecting some environmental cause.
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)_/¯
>She passed, he called his doctor and less than a week later he was also dead.
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.
I completely admit I have a limited, second-hand account of the situation. It's quite possible that the circumstances were such that this was planned in advance of the wife's passing.
I know it's morbid to discuss but the relief of financial burden on society is also significant. Not only do they die with dignity, but they are giving back to society.
This is not a good argument for MAID, and I think there are countless dystopian sci-fi stories that exhibit this reasoning that I’d like to avoid (The Giver, Logan’s Run, Soylent Green, etc)
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.
Agree 100%. I am hoping to use the MAID option on myself one day. Cancer runs in the family. Of course I hope to get to at least 80 or so. There is definitely such a thing as a "good death" and a "bad death" having seen both close-up in family members. Knowing my $ is going to my children instead of some scammy health insurance providers will give me the final smile on my face, and my last thought will be "I WON"
IMO the financial aspect is the strongest argument against assisted suicide. When the government can save money by encouraging you to kill youself the incentives are just really bad.
> 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.
For some reason this made me emotional. I think I would make the same choice if I were in this position.
While I disagree with some of them and find some more important than others, I think that the lists cover most of the arguments and positions mentioned by people here on HN
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use religious arguments on here and I’ve been here since the beginning. Most of those arguments are religious. I do not consider “Euthanasia is against the word and will of God” a sensible argument, though I realize, of course, that like half of humanity would disagree with me. But nobody who has any formal training and philosophy or debate would.
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.
While it's true that the first section in the arguments against euthanasia is "Against the will of God", the others aren't. Arguments such as
* 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
are not primarily religious and you will find them repeated several times here in various wordings. The argument "Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life" may be based on religious belief but I don't think it's a uniquely religious standpoint that life has some form of sanctity
Those arguments aren’t all religious but they are mostly very weak. It is properly regulated in places. Nobody is pressured into it. There’s no evidence or logic to support the idea that euthanasia is some slippery slope to concentration camps, in fact it’s been legal in places for a time and nothing of the sort has happened.
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.
I don't want my health holding back my family or depleting my wealth. I am 100% for MAID. If you have ever had persistent pain you know how little of it is required before you want to check out. People should be able when they want to.
There is a HUGE amount of things you can criticize about MAID specifically (and should) but honestly there are only a few reason why we shouldn't let the living dead go:
- 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.
From other comments I learned that the period is not a week but more like 90 days and required conditions are more stringent, too. Just in case someone reads my previous comment at a later point.
This is actually not possible per the requirements set out in the legislation; I suspect the poster didn't get the full picture. It's always possible an individual doctor can ignore the system and do whatever but I doubt it when there's a legal path for this spelled out.
Grief on its own isn't sufficient for assisted dying.
Health care can do a lot these days and extend a persons life by a lot, but with this the question about the quality of life arises. Assisted dying is one answer to this. Personally, half-way through life, I plan to avoid it by keeping myself fit with exercises, cycling and running.
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.
Talk to me when you have to put your life on hold and change diapers 6 times a day while tolerating abuse from dementia patient.
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 .
I'm sorry but people that just lost their life partner a week ago are really not "of sound mind" when it comes to taking such kind of decision and it's criminal in my opinion to let them.
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.
> 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.
Other replies saying the process doesn't actually work like this notwithstanding, there's a pretty clear difference between someone in their 80s with ongoing cancer and a physically healthy teenager.
> 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.
> is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and through accepting Jesus (not through works)
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.
That’s not what life is about in Christianity at all. Life is about choice in Christianity. Freedom. You can choose to live for yourself or for others, for the world. Dwelling on one’s suffering is a form of egoism that distances one from others and thus God. That’s why suicide is a sin in Christian theology, because it arises from individualism, which denies the Holy Spirit that comprises and composes us all. Asking “why don’t they have the right to kill themselves” is the wrong question from such a theological standpoint. The right question is “why aren’t we rushing to their aid, especially when we have the chance to prevent the type of suffering that would inspire such egoism.” That opportunity certainly won’t always exist, sometimes organisms just break, it’s just the risk of material existence, and coping with that powerlessness is also a part, no doubt the hardest part, of shedding ego.
Thank you for a great comment! I just wanted to highlight the notion of meaning, as you touch upon, that all challenges and sufferings make opportunities to choose God. At least in the Catholic Church, unity with Christ (including, metaphysically, taking part in his suffering on the cross), and letting one's ego go, is the point
There are many different strains of Christianity. In some of them, like many varieties of Calvinism, the notion that people have freedom to choose anything is explicitly rejected.
I posted this quote in another comment, but felt the harshness of your tone may have been dervied from the topic of Christianity.
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.
While I can appreciate where you're trying to come from, I wouldn't be so quick to make such an all-encompassing statement. Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." There's a duality here (the now/then tension) in that Jesus brings the fullness of life both here and in the next life.
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.
Well that entire dogma is giving us monsters like Mother Theresa who thought that by letting people in her care suffer she made it more likely they will make it to heaven - and well, the Catholic Church has agreed with that interpretation and made her a Saint.
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.
It seems to be a fundamental truth of human existence that we're all extremely critical of others for how quick they are to believe nutty stories about people they disagree with, while sharing that fault. Tribalism is wired deeply into our DNA.
Why is the alternative dogma egocentric hedonism? To me, the alternative to what she was doing is "dogma" of caring for another human. If they need help, if they cry out in pain, help them - not collect imaginary points of sending them to heaven. Not sure where egocentric hedonism plays into this.
You’re replying to someone who presumably thinks that if they personally didn’t have religion, they would be an egotistic hedonist. They don’t realise that doesn’t apply to many other people. I think with people like that, we’re better off if they keep their religion.
I'm doubtful. Way more people are willing to hurt others if they think it's for the greater good compared to people willing to hurt others just for personal gain.
I understand what the end looks like. My grandmother went through it, and she was the only exception her "dry" memory car facility allowed after her withdrawls started. She had been living on two meals at Chilli's a week, with the rest of her caloric intake derived from wine.
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.
It would be helpful if you clarified what brand of Christianity you're talking about, since it's a very old religion that has many many different branches with different teachings. Some of these branches are totally on board with assisted dying, others are not for various reasons. Very few are because suffering is about "earning heaven points".
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.
"In Christianity life is about suffering. You're basically earning heaven points." I think you're conflating WoW with other people's faith somehow. YMMV
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.
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.
My sample size as an adult is still small, but I've seen this in pets and I've seen this in humans.
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.
You might be narrowing the definition of life to mean "body and mind fully active; useful spirited existence; painless existence". But ask the senile when they are no longer senile, or the once-despressed, or the ones who live in pain (sickle-cell anemic?) if death is better.
I'm well-aligned with Seneca, the Stoic philosopher who said death is an open door. If you want to die, do it. However, if you choose not to go through that door, your must live your life with purpose and conviction. There's no shame in going through that door if you no longer have the capacity to live purposefully, though.
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.
> 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?
Who are you to judge whether someone who has lived for over seven decades should go on living or not? If they feel their life is done, have nothing left to live for, and fear degenerating into a husk of their former selves (dementia) stuck inside a broken brain for as long as their body holds out, than why should they hang on?
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.
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.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious how you can reconcile your beliefs with those definitions, which I feel apply equally well to your own arguments:
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?
In order to play a reverse uno card, you would have to at least use established reasons. Instead you chose libertarianisms: “dont tell me what to do; I will decide what is best for me”
I understand, but many do. Society as a whole is no longer entirely aligned with you, as is evidenced by Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, parts of the US, parts of Australia, and a number of others.
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.
Immature, arrogant, and selfish is a good description of a person who demands other people stay alive despite immense suffering, just so you can feel morally superior and not have to experience loss.
I agree that we should avoid such terms in general in this forum as it degrades the discussion. I think we can all agree that these are complex ethical questions where several values are at stake and there isn't one obviously superior ethical stand.
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?
Not the OP, but I think fear of loss is part of it. But a lot of it is just an entrenched/assumed (and IMO not particularly justified) moral valuation of life above all else.
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.
You know what? Yes, I make selfish decisions about my life. So does everybody else. We do not exist to satisfy the needs of other people.
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.
I'm partially with you, in that I do see tragedy in these choices. I see tragedy that we lack the cultural and economic institutions to support peope towards the end of life in ways (especially ones that don't make them feel like a burden.)
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.
Forgive me, but your last sentence seems like a platitude. What would such institutions look like, and how might they reduce the suffering of someone with, say, advanced dementia?
I'm not trying to have a go btw - it genuinely seems an intractable problem to me.
I think dementia and euthanasia is already legally and morally very complicated so not sure that is the best example. I do think that dementia often causes problems due to strain on caregivers and cost of outside help. If you have systems of support and resources for these caregivers, then fewer people would be inclined to end their lives to avoid becoming such a huge burden. If you legalize euthanasia and have good frameworks for people to use to determine where their limit is, then people who don't want to become a burden aren't pushed to kill themselves while they still have time.
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.)
I think the idea is that there are many factors that might motivate somebody's decision that their life is not worth living any longer. Each individual will have a different threshold for that, but if there are institutions that can alleviate the reasons for the people on the fringe, then there will be net fewer people that choose death when they otherwise may have.
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.
> 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.
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.