As a physician, I can tell you that euthanasia has been always around in every society and at all times. MAID just made the arrangement formal. Before MAID, it was implemented by withdrawing life-saving treatments (usually due to side-effects), rising doses of narcotics (for painful conditions) or even "terminal sedation" (the most explicit form of euthanasia before MAID-like laws).(And of course, patients always had the option of taking their own lives). In any healthcare system, there has to come a point where patients (and their families) and their doctors decide to terminate efforts aimed at extending life. In most cases, MAID is just a way to shorten the unpleasant interval between that decision and death. Given all that, it is not that surprising that 5-7% of deaths are attributed to MAID. The debate about MAID is another example where a lot of otherwise rational people fall prey to misguided sloganeering.
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries and almost always has been. Terminal sedation and intentional rising doses of narcotics would be considered ACTUAL murder in 100% of those cases where euthanasia is illegal.
If you are a physician and don't know this you should be immediately investigated.
I don't think it's that misguided. The incentives are so perverse here that, if the government isn't abusing it, they are acting incompetently. it would almost be better if they just had the actuary provide an expected life and expected cost chart and we agreed to pay the potential MAID recipient's estate 10% of the savings remaining on the day the chose to go, if they choose MAID.
How are incentives perverse? Would it be better to have a system that only incentivizes life extension, no matter the suffering it causes, no matter that it will still ultimately end in death?
> The debate about MAID is another example where a lot of otherwise rational people fall prey to misguided sloganeering.
This is the same level of argument as saying that people who vote for the other guys must have been tricked by FOX News / MSNBC / Russia / Tik Tok / transtrenders / tradwives, and if only they truly understood their actual self-interest they would agree with you on all things. It's a bad style of argumentation, albeit very popular in academia ('why do the poor keep voting wrong?').
There are legitimate reasons to oppose Canada's euthanasia program on its own terms, and it's not surprising the Canadian government has very carefully shielded MAID from any sort of public input or oversight, since it's deeply unlikely it would pass a majority vote in its current form. There is consistent public opposition to euthanasia being available to anyone but late-stage terminally-ill people (and even then, it's divisive at best). There is strong public opposition to euthanasia solely on the grounds of mental health.
More broadly, I think people are increasingly sick of the misuse of the term 'healthcare' (or 'public health') to sneak unpopular or controversial policies past the electorate, and the idea of 'death as healthcare' is probably the most extreme example of this trend. When people cannot express democratic opposition to policies they deeply oppose, don't be surprised if you get pushback and populism.
I don't follow the author's logic. They seem to assume anyone choosing MAID has been failed by the healthcare system. While that's certainly possible for some of cases, every single person eventually reaches a point where their health is failing. Many know in well enough advance, and in Canada you can choose to decide when/how to end things.
The health care system can and should be improved, but there will always be people choosing MAID regardless. We should use a different measure for how to improve healthcare, and not falsely correlate MAID as a failure metric.
This is completely dismissive. People are choosing to kill themselves and the government is helping them do it. The question is why?
"We should use a different measure for how to improve healthcare, and not falsely correlate MAID as a failure metric." No this is actually a perfectly legitimate question. Are people choosing to kill themselves due to a lack of available healthcare?
Is the government using assisted suicide as a mechanism to relive a overburdened medical system? Legit questions. Dont dismiss them.
The anti-MAID brigade has been asking "legit questions" for ages and has yet to come up with anything resembling actual data supporting their view. At some point the burden is on people pushing to eliminate the program to actually argue their point rather than "just asking questions."
No one dismissed asking a question. I'm pushing back against a logical hole in the argument. Even with better healthcare, everyone's heath eventually fails. Using something that happens to 100% of people as an indication of anything is a mistake.
You introduce several forms of asking "why" as a reaction to my comment, but that's exactly what I argued for: a better metric with the actual possibility of causation.
I only personally know one person who has chosen MAID. He was a close family friend and was very ill. He decided that once he got to the point where he could no longer walk that he didn't see any further point in living. There was nothing more any medical system could do for him. He reached that point and he died on his terms.
I also had family member die recently; he was 95 years old. At 85 he said it was time to go into a home and went and did that for a few years. But at 95 he just decided he was done. He told everyone and then he just stopped eating. Within in a week he was gone.
according to chatgpt, 25% of people die of cancer in canada; presumably dying of cancer is a lot worse than MAID so one might expect this number to grow beyond 5% unless there are just that many people that object to it for themselves on philosophical grounds
According to StatsCan it is actually a bit more, but varying year-to-year. Pre-Covid it looks like it was closer to 27% or 28%, now closer to 26%. So a lot of room to grow, if we made the assumption that all those dying of cancer would prefer to choose their date of passing. Personally, I think the more immediate source of growth in the number of MAID administrations should come from those who died after requesting MAID but before MAID was able to be administered, which would give an increase of 19% in administrations.
About 18 months ago in Quebec, my aunt, who was terminally ill with cancer, had to go to the hospital for severe pain. I had a phone call with her just before she went in, and while the idea of suicide had come up occasionally, usually during bouts of sundowning, it wasn't her focus at that moment. Once she was in the hospital's care, she was offered a permanent solution to her suffering. After a seemingly normal visit with her sisters that night, she died by assisted suicide the next morning. Her sisters were shocked and devastated.
While I think people should be free to choose, I don't know how much information hospital staff should be able to give.
Difficult.
Edit: I'm not 100% certain as to the timeline. She may have been in the hospital for 2 days.
You have to have 2 independent medical assessments at a minimum as well as written consent that is witnessed. So its not like you can just say you want to do it and then they just off you right there. She could have had all sorts of reasons for not telling anyone including her sisters. There's nothing in your anecdote that disputes she could have planned it long in advance and just not told anyone.
"There's nothing in your anecdote that disputes she could have planned it long in advance"
It seems implausible.
She lived with her sisters and while she was quite capable of many tasks, I think that long term subterfuge was beyond her. She was well into mental decline.
"You have to have 2 independent medical assessments at a minimum as well as written consent that is witnessed"
"One of the things it means to be Canadian is to honour the rights and wishes of other people. That’s part of what makes it a wonderful place to live: most people genuinely believe in equality and respect for others, including people who don’t look like them."
In my opinion, this drives the narrative in this article, and is at the root of why there is little stigma in Canada surrounding MAID.
It has little to do with religion. There are lots of examples of MAID being pushed upon people that do have other options and made to feel like it's the only one.
It's also a way for collapsing government-run healthcare to save money.
Are those "other options" going to be "sitting here and dying naturally, maybe drowning in your own vomit, maybe dying of starvation"?
I have a hard time believe things are going down like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you'd be fine, but you know what you should do instead? Kill yourself"
On the other hand, I do believe (and want) doctors to be like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you might get a few more months with very poor quality of life. You may wish to consider these other options"
It's not always the way you imagine it will be. I've posted this in this thread already but it seems most people haven't seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AJ3W_sbI
This veteran seeks help and isn't able to get what she needs. What she is offered is MAID. That's the reality; sick people who aren't getting medical care are offered the comparatively cheaper option of death and it's very insulting for them.
> There are lots of examples of MAID being pushed upon people that do have other options and made to feel like it's the only one.
I'm not really surprised. It looks like Canada's healthcare costs are growing exponentially, and are outstripping growth in GDP. These costs are mostly driven by hospitalizations. If a government can carefully promote the message that hospitalization means suffering, suffering is hard, a life with suffering is not worth living, and that relief is quick and easy, then a route is charted to a reduction in healthcare expense. It would certainly help if the large physician organizations are on board, and the nation's major broadcasters lean into euthanasia-friendly messaging.
What is the source that the healthcare costs are growing "exponentially" and are outstripping growth in GDP? I would accept that its increased but definitely not exponentially.
As well, I live in Canada and have not seen any such messaging that you have said.
I think any article that cites assisted suicide statistics without breaking it down by Track 1 vs Track 2, should not be taken seriously.
The author cites 5% as the “number too high” but as someone who’s had a family member who’s been through the MAiD system, Track 2 is pretty difficult to get so I would t be surprised if most of that 5% is Track 1, but we wouldn’t know from this article.
The vast majority of MAID provisions (95.9%; n=14,721) were for individuals in Track 1; 4.1% (n=622) of MAID provisions were for individuals in Track 2. (See Section 2) [1]
This evil Track 2 still requires that a recipient of MAID have "grievous and irremediable medical condition". It requires informed consent and primary capacity. It's not a law to bump off demented old people.
Limiting euthanasia to people with imminently terminal conditions is how you keep people in pain. The very best palliative care can still accompany suffering beyond anything a well and able person can begin to perceive.
Mental healthcare and social care and all these perpetually under-funded margins do need to be improved. MAID is not the preventative healthcare that we all need throughout our lives, but we need to be honest about the balance. Is it worse to end life prematurely for the "wrong" reasons, or to make someone suffer for the "right" reasons? This is dirty ethics. Get out the way and let people decide for themselves.
Readit News
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries and almost always has been. Terminal sedation and intentional rising doses of narcotics would be considered ACTUAL murder in 100% of those cases where euthanasia is illegal.
If you are a physician and don't know this you should be immediately investigated.
This is the same level of argument as saying that people who vote for the other guys must have been tricked by FOX News / MSNBC / Russia / Tik Tok / transtrenders / tradwives, and if only they truly understood their actual self-interest they would agree with you on all things. It's a bad style of argumentation, albeit very popular in academia ('why do the poor keep voting wrong?').
There are legitimate reasons to oppose Canada's euthanasia program on its own terms, and it's not surprising the Canadian government has very carefully shielded MAID from any sort of public input or oversight, since it's deeply unlikely it would pass a majority vote in its current form. There is consistent public opposition to euthanasia being available to anyone but late-stage terminally-ill people (and even then, it's divisive at best). There is strong public opposition to euthanasia solely on the grounds of mental health.
More broadly, I think people are increasingly sick of the misuse of the term 'healthcare' (or 'public health') to sneak unpopular or controversial policies past the electorate, and the idea of 'death as healthcare' is probably the most extreme example of this trend. When people cannot express democratic opposition to policies they deeply oppose, don't be surprised if you get pushback and populism.
These policies are supported by a strong majority of people.
The health care system can and should be improved, but there will always be people choosing MAID regardless. We should use a different measure for how to improve healthcare, and not falsely correlate MAID as a failure metric.
"We should use a different measure for how to improve healthcare, and not falsely correlate MAID as a failure metric." No this is actually a perfectly legitimate question. Are people choosing to kill themselves due to a lack of available healthcare?
Is the government using assisted suicide as a mechanism to relive a overburdened medical system? Legit questions. Dont dismiss them.
You introduce several forms of asking "why" as a reaction to my comment, but that's exactly what I argued for: a better metric with the actual possibility of causation.
I also had family member die recently; he was 95 years old. At 85 he said it was time to go into a home and went and did that for a few years. But at 95 he just decided he was done. He told everyone and then he just stopped eating. Within in a week he was gone.
Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01 Deaths and age-specific mortality rates, by selected grouped causes https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=131003...
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications...
Dead Comment
While I think people should be free to choose, I don't know how much information hospital staff should be able to give.
Difficult.
Edit: I'm not 100% certain as to the timeline. She may have been in the hospital for 2 days.
You have to have 2 independent medical assessments at a minimum as well as written consent that is witnessed. So its not like you can just say you want to do it and then they just off you right there. She could have had all sorts of reasons for not telling anyone including her sisters. There's nothing in your anecdote that disputes she could have planned it long in advance and just not told anyone.
It seems implausible.
She lived with her sisters and while she was quite capable of many tasks, I think that long term subterfuge was beyond her. She was well into mental decline.
"You have to have 2 independent medical assessments at a minimum as well as written consent that is witnessed"
Could this not have happened at the hospital?
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications...
In my opinion, this drives the narrative in this article, and is at the root of why there is little stigma in Canada surrounding MAID.
It's also a way for collapsing government-run healthcare to save money.
I have a hard time believe things are going down like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you'd be fine, but you know what you should do instead? Kill yourself"
On the other hand, I do believe (and want) doctors to be like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you might get a few more months with very poor quality of life. You may wish to consider these other options"
How many examples? What percentage of patients eligible for MAID receive such treatment?
I'm not really surprised. It looks like Canada's healthcare costs are growing exponentially, and are outstripping growth in GDP. These costs are mostly driven by hospitalizations. If a government can carefully promote the message that hospitalization means suffering, suffering is hard, a life with suffering is not worth living, and that relief is quick and easy, then a route is charted to a reduction in healthcare expense. It would certainly help if the large physician organizations are on board, and the nation's major broadcasters lean into euthanasia-friendly messaging.
The only pushing I’m seeing is that by religious people onto non religious people, as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AJ3W_sbI
The author cites 5% as the “number too high” but as someone who’s had a family member who’s been through the MAiD system, Track 2 is pretty difficult to get so I would t be surprised if most of that 5% is Track 1, but we wouldn’t know from this article.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications...
Limiting euthanasia to people with imminently terminal conditions is how you keep people in pain. The very best palliative care can still accompany suffering beyond anything a well and able person can begin to perceive.
Mental healthcare and social care and all these perpetually under-funded margins do need to be improved. MAID is not the preventative healthcare that we all need throughout our lives, but we need to be honest about the balance. Is it worse to end life prematurely for the "wrong" reasons, or to make someone suffer for the "right" reasons? This is dirty ethics. Get out the way and let people decide for themselves.