- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
Summary
Euthanasia accounted for 4.7% of deaths in Canada in 2023, with 15,300 people opting for assisted dying—a 16% increase, though slower than prior years.
Most recipients had terminal illnesses, primarily cancer, and 96% were white, sparking questions about disparities.
Quebec, at 37% of cases, remains Canada’s euthanasia hotspot.
Since legalizing assisted dying in 2016, Canada has expanded access, now covering chronic conditions and planning to include mental illnesses by 2027.
Critics, citing rapid growth and controversial cases, warn of insufficient safeguards, while proponents highlight strict eligibility criteria. Debate continues globally.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m surprised it’s that many, but it’s people who are allowed to die with dignity, and released from a life of pain.
I hate we don’t have that right here in Denmark.Not that surprising given how big our aging boomer demographic is. This was my father two years ago who had fought a year long battle with cancer before deciding to go with MAID. He was already hospitalized in palliative care and it may have only saved him a day or two more of suffering. In fact after how rough his final night was, I wish he had been able to let go a day earlier.
It’s ridiculous that there is a prerequisite of terminal illness
There were issues early on and people who shouldn’t have been offered the option, got offered the option.
I mean, anyone who wants the option should have the option. The requirement should be to make an appointment.
No argument against that.
The problem was (as I understand it) the doctor didn’t read the room and it was received poorly.
Quebec has 9 million divided by Canada’s 41 = 22% by population.
What does everyone here think about it? I know it’s typically seen as progressive, although so was eugenics in the early 1900s.
My gut feeling tells me this is wrong. I can’t judge someone for wanting to die while in pain and maybe I would think differently if it were me or my family member. But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.
Maybe it’s just some built-in religious indoctrination from growing up Catholic, but I’m scared that this will eventually de-stigmatize suicide.
We call it “self-assisted euthanasia” but this is essentially legalizing companies to assist in suicides.
I appreciate that you’re looking for discussion, however, I’m hung up on this is the part of your comment:
But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.
I also grew up Catholic, and agree that “human life is something sacred.” However, I’d ask you to consider why you think human is sacred, and what about it is sacred? IMHO, our lives are a gift, and we should appreciate that gift by not squandering our lives, by enjoying life and by trying to share that joy with others. If someone is in extreme and unending pain, it would be extremely difficult for them to bring joy into the world and instead their lives often just introduce suffering for themselves, their loved ones, and their caretakers.
I know one of the arguments against this is that even terminally ill patients sometimes experience miracle recoveries. Similarly, when dealing with terminal illness, there’s a concept know as the “Last Good Day”. My Grandmother had one, where she was nearly comatose for months, had a medical emergency and nearly died, then perked up the next day, was lucid and talking, then died a week later. However, I don’t think we should force people to suffer in the vague hopes that they might have another good day, or in the vaguer hope that they experience a miracle recovery.
I know this gets into a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I’d be curious what your opinion is on DNRs and other forms of with-holding care. I personally don’t think those options are all that different than MAID, though I will acknowledge it’s the difference of action vs inaction. Personally, I think both action and inaction are decisions, as the Canadian band, Rush says in Freewill, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Why should someone be obligated to live as long as they can, at the expense of their quality of life?
I have a friend with a terminal illness who opted for MAID. I’m so thankful that option was available because he was in so much pain at the end. It makes a huge difference to be able to choose a dignified death, surrounded by people you love and who love you.
I’m watching my gramps die right now. His life sucks. He hates it. Taking care of him is a burden.
If he wanted to die, who would I be to tell him no? It’s just torture at that point.
IMO, the logic behind euthanasia being wrong is the same as the logic behind thinking abortions are wrong.
It should not be taken lightly, but it sure as hell should be an option. If it’s not legal by the time I’m falling apart, I’m gonna find another way to off myself lol
same as the logic behind thinking abortions are wrong
I don’t consider a fetus a human life so I don’t see it as wrong. I’m not even religious, I’d say I’m “culturally Christian” sort of like most Jews I’ve met are “culturally Jewish”
The way I view it- you’re gonna be dead for the rest of eternity. Any amount of suffering you are going through now is temporary. You will eventually die.
Of course, I know it’s easy to say that when you’re not suffering in pain like your grandfather may be. So like I said, I’m not judging and I’m holding reservations on this until I’ve thought more about it.
Really, to be frank, I think people already have the option to kill themselves. They have always had that option. What I really disagree with is giving our institutions the ability to kill people. I don’t trust our healthcare systems, I don’t trust our government, and I don’t trust all the middlemen in between. They could pressure people who don’t need to do or they could rush judgements.
Killing oneself can be very hard, especially when you’re old as hell. Nobody is going to assist or even just allow you to kill yourself because if they did, they would be committing a crime. Sure if you have a cool grandchild they might get you a deadly dose of drugs. But that’s a huge risk you’re exposing your grandchild to if they get caught.
I see your point about the suffering being temporary, but the idea of being dead forever probably doesn’t really make the suffering any easier :P
Canadian here. I’m all for it, so long as the person isn’t doing it from lack of access to services that would improve their condition. It’s a question of bodily autonomy and denying MAID is no different than denying abortion.
It’s a good option to have, imo. People will try to commit suicide, even without this.
They’ll fail and become a larger burden to society in a lot of cases. Or run up medical bills and exist miserably.
With this method, folks who are interested have to clear a hurdle beyond their own emotions and survival instincts.
If they’re committed to the act, this ensures a dignified end vs many terminal conditions.
Suffering near end of life can be horribly tortuous. The ability to end the suffering on your terms with dignity is a benefit to society and those suffering.
Do you feel hospice care is a bad thing? It’s one step removed from assisted suicide in many ways.
In hospice care they often give you enough drugs to end it quickly, and instruct the caregivers to NOT call emergency services.
We’re all going to die, at least we can make it somewhat civil.
If self-assisted euthanasia (SAE) has risen from 0% to 20% of all deaths. Then “other” methods of death must have dropped equal to 20%. If that collection of “other”, is drawn-out cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s etc. then I see this as working. If those conditions have not seen a comparative reduction, and all we’ve done is replace suicide with SAE then I think this hasn’t worked as intended.
But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.
Why does length even come into it? This may be an argument from absurdity, but imagine someone born with such a debilitating birth defect that the only way to keep them alive beyond a few minutes is by putting them in a machine that keeps them alive. They have a fully functioning brain but are fully encased in this machine and only experience darkness and pain. At what point does their life become meaningful? 50 years? 80? If doctors can keep them alive for 2000 years, is that life better or worse than if they died after 6 minutes?
What I am getting at is that the length of the life has very little to do with its quality. And when it comes to medically assisted dying, almost nothing to do with it as people have to be over 18 with demonstrably low quality of life.
I’m scared that this will eventually de-stigmatize suicide.
Why is that a problem? Like, our first priority should be providing good healthcare (and that includes mental healthcare), but if someone doesn’t want to live anymore, why is it anyone’s business but their own? That sounds to me like the most important of human freedoms. Being kept alive against one’s will seems like the most horrible, criminal, torture.
We call it “self-assisted euthanasia” but this is essentially legalizing companies to assist in suicides.
And what do companies have to do with it? Companies don’t come into it at all in MAID.
And what do companies have to do with it?
We live in capitalist countries. Anything and everything will have money involved. Even public healthcare involves money changing hands with private contractors and such. There is no way to get around this fact. And wherever money changes hands it creates the potential for perverse incentives that we are possibly opening the door wide open for.
What I am getting at is that the length of the life has very little to do with its quality.
I see what you’re saying. I think if somebody cannot sustain life by themselves in a practical sense, then it’s a different scenario. For example someone being born in the scenario you outlined would not live without intervention. However, we are talking about the inverse. A body that would otherwise survive (at least for the near future) and we are artificially ending it.
It feels wrong to me in both scenarios. A sort of symmetry in a way.
but if someone doesn’t want to live anymore, why is it anyone’s business but their own?
I think here I need to separate two groups of people. 1) somebody who has a terminal illness and is in pain. I think in these scenarios, I am more open to the idea. 2) people who are depressed or in some sort of chronic pain who otherwise could live a full life
In the 2nd scenario, I think that suicidal thoughts is a mental illness. It’s not something healthy adjusted people think, even when they are in pain. By indulging in their desire, we are doing them a disservice. Like I brought up before, I made the analogy to addiction.
When someone is addicted, they make the conscious decision to use a drug. It’s their body, it’s their choice. They have the autonomy to do whatever they like- even if that choice is going to kill them. For example with fentanyl leading to an eventual overdose.
I think we, as a society, need to take care of these people. We need to provide them treatment and get them off the drugs. The solution isn’t just to put them in a box and give them a ton of drugs so they can use until they die. To me, it feels like we’re throwing away their human dignity in the name of individualism. We should take care of each other, not indulge each other’s worst thoughts and actions.
This is what makes me feel wrong about this.
A body that would otherwise survive (at least for the near future) and we are artificially ending it.
Just because the body can keep going doesn’t mean it’s a worthwhile life. Imagine yourself lying in a hospital, conscious but unable to move, unable to speak coherently, unable to even control your bowels. Add unending pain to the mix. What life is that? You would condemn a person in that state to perpetual torture just because ending their suffering “feels wrong” to you? Forcing that person to continue living if they don’t want to feels a lot more wrong to me.
- people who are depressed or in some sort of chronic pain who otherwise could live a full life
These are medical problems that should obviously be treated medically as a first resort. But a lot of those situations have no solution and a full life is not possible. Chronic pain, even when it wont kill you, is incredibly damaging to the psyche and limiting to one’s quality of life. Depression isn’t just someone feeling sad - it’s a physiological condition that there might be no recovering from. If someone (in cooperation with medical professionals) determines that there will never be a significant improvement to their quality of life, who are you to tell them they can’t end it?
To me, it feels like we’re throwing away their human dignity in the name of individualism.
Dying with dignity is the main goal of medically assisted death. There is no dignity in living months or years wishing, pleading, praying for death but not dying, or worse: being kept alive against your will.
> And what do companies have to do with it?We live in capitalist countries. Anything and everything will have money involved. Even public healthcare involves money changing hands with private contractors and such. There is no way to get around this fact. And wherever money changes hands it creates the potential for perverse incentives that we are possibly opening the door wide open for.
It’s not like these perverse incentives don’t exist without MAID. Nursing Homes, etc. have an incentive to keep people alive and in their care as long as possible.
It’s not like these perverse incentives don’t exist without MAID
sure but it doesn’t take too much imagination to come up with some dystopian futures where human life is not treated with the sanctity that we are used to
i think maybe that’s my key objection here. it uncorks this wine bottle that cannot be resealed. we are forever fundamentally changing our relationship with death and destigmatizing the act of snuffing out a life.
i think it’s something most people have not really put much thought into the long term implications of this ideological shift
We live in capitalist countries. Anything and everything will have money involved. Even public healthcare involves money changing hands with private contractors and such. There is no way to get around this fact. And wherever money changes hands it creates the potential for perverse incentives that we are possibly opening the door wide open for.
In this case, corporations oppose MAID because sick and dying people need a lot of very expensive health care (skilled nursing, hospice care, etc) so they would much rather force them to stay alive in order to continue profiting off them.
Think about the suffering that we were forcing on people by not allowing people to choose to die.
Life is important, but living with constant pain or a useless body and no way to improve is barely living.
People should be able to make their own choice about their situation.
As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning (e.g. it can’t be authorized like other medical procedures via power-of-attorney or a parent making that particular medical decision for a child, etc), I’m all for it.
Basically, “my body, my choice”. No one asked to come into the world, and if they want to leave it painlessly and with dignity, I feel it should be their right to do so.
As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning
So let’s imagine an individual. They go through a period of 1 or 2 years where they are in pain and suicidal. They go through all the checks and procedures that we put in place and doctors clear them for execution. They end up dead.
What if that individual were going through a slump of 2 years and afterwards they would have passed through that life phase and could have been happy and had a positive experience with life again.
How could we know? This is the issue I have. It’s sort of like selling fentanyl to addicts. Yeah, it’s their body their choice. Yeah, they know the risks of overdose. But they’re addicted. They aren’t necessarily acting rationally.
I’m not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong. To be honest, I don’t really know how I feel about this in general, I’m just laying out my thoughts.
As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planningSo let’s imagine an individual. They go through a period of 1 or 2 years where they are in pain and suicidal. They go through all the checks and procedures that we put in place and doctors clear them for execution. They end up dead.
First off, using the word “execution” is pretty loaded. I just wanted to put that out there, especially because you’re, “not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong.”
Second, as of right now, MAID for mental illness on it’s own is not available in Canada.
The big thing you said, but kind of glossed over is, “doctors clear them”. It’s not just on the individual who is making this decision, but health care professionals who use their professional opinion on the mental state of the individual. If a person is suicidal, generally a mental health care professional is involved.
Obviously, this system isn’t perfect, but no system is perfect. Doctors do mess up and individuals can be influenced by their families/finances. I think these are all good reasons to be skeptical, but I also don’t think they’re reasons to completely prevent access.
For reference, I’m not trying to change your mind so much as defend my position on the matter.
What if that individual were going through a slump of 2 years and afterwards they would have passed through that life phase and could have been happy and had a positive experience with life again.
To me, that’s a lot of unknowns. And depending on the level of pain, physical and/or emotional, asking me to “stick it out” for a few years is a BIG ask with no guarantee at the end of it, and I would be suffering all the while. Think of it like how some people refuse chemo when diagnosed with cancer. It’s a grueling process with no guarantee at the end. Some opt to not go through that preferring to make the best of the time they have left untreated.
The only one who can really know if it’s worth it is the person. While it’s definitely something that affects more than them (family, friends, etc), those issues, IMO, are “family meeting” issues that should be left to those affected and not the law.
Edit: On a personal note, I think I would much prefer having the option of one last adventure and then a painless, planned ending (everything wrapped up, no burdens for my family, etc) than the thought of wasting away, forgotten, in a nursing home.
A counter example that came to my mind is rabies. Look up how that progresses. There’s absolutely zero chance that I would be putting myself through that if I were diagnosed with it and it was too late for the vaccine. Assisted dying just ensures that nobody has to go through the trauma of finding my body.
Have you ever had to watch a family member decline though? What about a pet? How did you treat that pet? Did you prolong their suffering and watch them slowly die unable to eat or drink or did you do something about it so they did not have to suffer? Why are humans different if they themselves, sound of mind, choose to end their own suffering?
An acquaintance of mine’s relative chose to go this way due to ALS. It was their choice and the last year was hell on the family, even though the relative had selected assisted dying.
Before modern medicine, how exactly do you think they handled grandma who was losing her marbles and lived in a one room farmhouse with the rest of the family? Especially if they’re violent and nasty. Is it right to withhold care/food/water and let nature take its course? Is that murder? Was there murder or suicide? Lots of this stuff has happened throughout history within the privacy of a family. People were likely more “religious” back then but we didn’t have the regulations or medical oversight to document things as such. Likely they just told people that their relative died of natural causes, buried them on the family plot and were done with it.
It is hell to witness the pain and confusion someone you love has when they have a degenerative disease and the Herculean effort it takes to care for someone in a condition like this. A family simply cannot do this alone without paying an exorbitant amount of money for medical and support staff - around the clock.
It’s like anything else in history:
- Ban abortion and abortion still happens, but without any shred of dignity, humanity or compassion.
- Ban drugs and guess what, they still exist on a dangerous black market.
- People still kill themselves without the help of medical assistance in dying. This just provides a path to dignity and closure for the person and their family for those who choose it. And I’m sure if you’re intent on ending your life, you don’t give a fuck about the stigma.
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to “de-stigmatize” suicide? So people can talk about it and we have more of a chance to intervene with people who do not have a lethal disease?
Everyone I have encountered who brings up “suicide is never an option” in relation to issues like this has never had to witness it. I’m 100% going out this way if I ever have a lethal disease.
What does everyone here think about it?
Very wrong for government to get involved with that part of life. I recall hearing a story about something similar from the UK, where two sons ended up “rescuing” their mother from an end-of-life home where she was not given the very basic care that would have actually solved her health problems, because dying was seen as a medically viable option. Eugenics was also very popular in the mid 1900s, but was abandoned not because it was a bad idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application.
You do understand how your example is different though, right?
By “end-of-life” home I’m assuming you mean hospice, which is absolutely not the same as medical assistance in dying (MAiD). I don’t know the story, however, hospices exist in many countries. Hospices do not provide “very basic [medical] care” - they are there to manage pain, manage symptoms to an extent, and provide a comfortable space for that person to die. If the family did not agree that their family member should have been in hospice they needed to seek a second opinion. Hospices are not there to cure someone’s medical condition. If you go into one it is because you are imminently dying.
The mistake of the medical staff in putting this person in hospice is not the same as someone who is of sound mind, learns that they have a terminal disease, and chooses for themselves to go through the medical assistance in dying process.
MAiD is a process with multiple checks and balances with multiple levels of oversight. You are able to opt out at any time prior to the final event.
idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application
What I find interesting is that nowadays we see eugenics in a bad light. Back then most progressive liberals endorsed it. But the Catholic church- condemned the idea of eugenics. It was seen as an affront to God’s creation. Us artificially manipulating something that should not be manipulated.
I agree with your statement above. I don’t trust our institutions. I believe people will fall through the cracks and will get killed unnecessarily. Suicide is a permanent thing that you can not undo. It’s a similar reason I have misgivings about capital punishment.
Eugenics is completely different — in fact, it’s the polar opposite of MAID. Conflating the two is like arguing that rape and sex are the same thing.
I’m not comparing eugenics with euthanasia. I’m comparing the perception of what “progressive” meant back then to right now.
The point I’m trying to make is that just because something is considered progressive today does not mean it won’t be considered barbaric tomorrow. This is why I don’t immediately support something just because it appears to have a veneer of idealism. I think it through carefully.
I’m not comparing eugenics with euthanasia. I’m comparing the perception of what “progressive” meant back then to right now.
… by comparing eugenics and MAID. There are lots of things that were considered progressive back then (e.g. workers’ rights) that are still considered progressive today. Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?
… by comparing eugenics and MAID
Definition of compare: To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.
Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.
What we are comparing is the societal perception of eugenics in the early 1900s and the perception of euthanasia now.
Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?
To make the point that just because something seems progressive on its face doesn’t necessarily mean it will stand the test of time. It is an example. I think it’s a good example because of how relatively horrible eugenics seems today relative to how positively it was seen in the past. Perhaps you could find other examples, I’d be happy to hear them.
All I’m saying about euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever acronym you wanna give it- is that it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink. That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits. I think that’s what you actually have an issue with, not the feigned pearl clutching about some comparison.
Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.
Then why bring it up? Why don’t we discuss your favourite chicken soup recipe while we’re at it?
it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink
“Groupthink” is to presume we’d have the right to deny them agency over their person. MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.
That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits.
Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky. What you have talked about at length is eugenics, despite your claim that eugenics are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?
