Canada Euthanizing Poor People

[Estebonrober]

Is it? Social workers and government employees recommend it, sorry, "urge you to consider" it now.

why do you like wallowing in **** so much? why do you lick the boot so hard and never question why so many do with so little and so few do with so very much?

 

[Evie]

Oh, and for the record, contrary to the bovine digestive byproduct misrepresentstion in the initial article, bill C-7 was not the government randomly deciding to remove "reasonably foreseeable death" as a criteria.

It was the government responding to a Superior Court of Quebec ruling that said "Reasonably Foreseeable Death" was unconstitutional, too, and did not respect the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.

Which, most constitutional expert worth their salt had already told the government would happen. The 2015 Court Ruling was pretty obvious.The Government just tried to get away with not fully implementing it, until the Quebec Superior Court put an end to it.

So, again, this is NOT a program government wanted to implement. This is something they dragged their feet on as much as they could while the Courts dragged them into it kicking and screaming.

Trying to turn that into a government plot take some spectacular pretzeling.

 

[GenMarshall]

Don't attack me! It's the liberals of Canada who are actively encouraging the poor to kill themselves through a state funded suicide program called MAID.

This does not strike me as what liberals would do. This sounds more like that it would come from the conservative and far right spectrum.

In looking at the article, it's coming across very suspicious when I plug it into ground news as no other news sources but Spectator UK is reporting it. What also doesn't help is that the source, as reported by Ground News is that it leans right with mixed factuality (I haven't scanned Spectator UK through Media Bias check, but I suspect a similar result).

 

[Evie]

It's the courts who ruled that it was a constitutional right, as clearly said. Multiple times. "Reasonably foreseeable" was pretty clearly never going to be acceptable under the 2015 decision, and most every legal expert said so. The quebec superior court merely made it official.

I don't know what kind of brain it takes to turn that into "suicidal frenchies", and I don't know that I want to know, but I'm glad I got a different model.

 

[Synobun]

why do you like wallowing in **** so much? why do you lick the boot so hard and never question why so many do with so little and so few do with so very much?

What are you on about? I'm a crippled socialist.

 

[Synobun]

I've seen barely any evidence of that, and most of it from sources that are on the Rebel News level of trustworthiness.

That such testimony almost universally comes from oppnents of MAID also has me suspecting they mgiht be equating "he mentioned the possibility, that's urging me!". Which is bollocks.

The odds of a government program to actually push this through social workers and other government employees (ie, that they're actually told to encourage/urge people to chose euthanasia) that would somehow remain secret are absurdly low. All it would take is one social worker opposed to suicide (and there are, uh, a huge honking lot of those) to blow the whole things open, and medias in Canada are not that complacent whatever fringe types think. All the more so when multiple governments (social workers are *provincial* employees by and large) would have to be involved. Thie idea that this is any sort of organized program is in full on Moon Landing was Faked conspiracy theory territory: the odds of a conspiracy on that scale existing are frail.

"Brilliant" initiative by local over zealous employees or at best a local administrator, that's a possibility. But that does not a program make.

Sure it does*. And it has been recommended to me**. Look at me! I'm Rebel News!

*Something doesn't have to be a secret government conspiracy for the government to generally view and treat a populace poorly, and for those advocating for the government dime or policy to utilize detrimental rhetoric or personal feelings.

**I don't oppose MAiD and have flirted with using it myself.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That’s pretty sad.

I don’t totally understand why people need assistance unless they’re severely disabled, makes me think of Jerry Seinfeld saying, “Are there no tall buildings where these people live?”

I guess they want to make sure the method works but I’ve heard of people attempting suicide and then being glad it didn’t work.

Part of the issue is defining what is or is not "severely" disabled. The POSs in the Alberta government are just itching to kick people off disability benefits whose disabilities are "invisible" - ie. severe depression, anxiety, brain injuries that let them function at some level that if you didn't already know their history you wouldn't be able to tell they had a problem... in short, they figure that if you're not in a wheelchair or blind, you're not disabled.

Oh, and speaking of blind... the feds cut funding to a group that worked to translate books into Braille for the blind; guess blind people don't need to read. I really don't get Trudeau's attitude over things like disabilities. His own mother is bipolar, and so much of what she was vilified for in the '70s and '80s happened because at those times she was manic, out of control, incapable of rational decision-making, and nobody knew it was due to a disease she had because she hadn't yet been diagnosed.

By the way... fibromyalgia and thyroid-related things have been pretty bad for me lately. If I posted these comments as they turned out before proofreading and editing, they'd look like alphabet soup.

 

[Evie]

Actually, yours is the first reasonably credible testimony I see. The rare other claims I had heard to date were as I described.

Even assuming the worst case scenario (that the recommendation came with pressure, was not a legitimate response to concerns you had brought up or questions you had asked, that it was presented to you as the one option rather than one of many, etc), which I will as I don't think you should have to be asked for the details, the rest of what I said stand.

A government program of euthanizing the poor, this still is not. Calling MAID that is false.

Calling Canada's disability assistance a program for killing the poor...well, that would be closer. Hyerbole, still, and true of a lot of country, but...hyperbole can be a good figure of speech.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it should never be recommended by doctors/nurses that the patient just kills themselves (has help to be killed).
Besides, if the issue is financial, the state isn't helping you by providing facilities for assisted suicide or euthanasia; it is just saving money by refusing you any help.

 

[NovaKart]

Part of the issue is defining what is or is not "severely" disabled. The POSs in the Alberta government are just itching to kick people off disability benefits whose disabilities are "invisible" - ie. severe depression, anxiety, brain injuries that let them function at some level that if you didn't already know their history you wouldn't be able to tell they had a problem... in short, they figure that if you're not in a wheelchair or blind, you're not disabled.

Oh, and speaking of blind... the feds cut funding to a group that worked to translate books into Braille for the blind; guess blind people don't need to read. I really don't get Trudeau's attitude over things like disabilities. His own mother is bipolar, and so much of what she was vilified for in the '70s and '80s happened because at those times she was manic, out of control, incapable of rational decision-making, and nobody knew it was due to a disease she had because she hadn't yet been diagnosed.

By the way... fibromyalgia and thyroid-related things have been pretty bad for me lately. If I posted these comments as they turned out before proofreading and editing, they'd look like alphabet soup.

Okay I realize my post may have been confusing. I meant assistance in committing suicide.

I don’t think people should have to be disabled at all to get government assistance.

 

[Synobun]

Actually, yours is the first reasonably credible testimony I see. The rare other claims I had heard to date were as I described.

Even assuming the worst case scenario (that the recommendation came with pressure, was not a legitimate response to concerns you had brought up or questions you had asked, that it was presented to you as the one option rather than one of many, etc), which I will as I don't think you should have to be asked for the details, the rest of what I said stand.

If that's the criteria, the recommendation was both right and proper—there is no expected cure for me or the potential of remission. Treatment is solely in the realm of management, and most of those are expensive and not covered by any government program. From a financial and future expectations viewpoint, a premature end is the likely result regardless, whether it be by the government's hand or my own, or my body inevitably failing.

My actual position on MAiD is that I don't overly care, because the result is what I expect. You are likely correct from a legal standpoint, but from someone directly impacted by the policy and the people who operate within it, the results have been what I would describe typical. These loosened requirements will naturally lead to people choosing death when there is technically (logically, not legally) a path for them to not be forced into that choice. I think the process of a guaranteed, safe, peaceful death with a witness and someone by your side is a right, same as you, but I also recognize the convenience this bears to the state. If you look at how disabled people are forced to live, it is not a stretch to see how a MAiD with easier access will lead to unnecessary deaths.

 

[Evie]

Well,as far as the state is concerned the state, again, fought tooth and nail to prevent MAID and then fought tooth and nail again to try and restrict its use, even when most legal experts agreed they were going to be overruled by the courts. Then they tried again with the narrow restrictions, and that too failed.

Any which way you cut convenience to the state, the state made it very plain that they didn't want this. They tried their level best to prevent this, until it was obvious any further fighting would be a waste of time.

As to the concept of unnecessary deaths...well, arguably. I mean, I don't know. If the law not letting them get help is the only thing keeping them alive right now - meaning they really view desth as their best options already - is the problem the fact that we're no longer forbidding them? I'd say it's the conditions we let fester, not the (unconstitutional) restriction we removed, that are at fault. They wanted to die before, we just didn't let them.

If people's suffering is so great that they consider death the best option, forcing them to stay alive is not solving the problem, it's just prolonging the suffering.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay I realize my post may have been confusing. I meant assistance in committing suicide.

I don’t think people should have to be disabled at all to get government assistance.

Yes, I know what the general topic is here, thank you.

"MAID" stands for Medical Assistance in Dying." As in the same sort of quick, compassionate way society generally expects people to accord to our cats and dogs when they're injured or elderly or sick past all reasonable attempts to heal them, when they're in unremitting pain, and so on.

I've signed euthanasia permission slips for several of my pets over the years, when they had cancer or got sick in other ways and were past help. The most recent was Chloe, 5 years ago, when she got sick from the mold situation in the apartment I lived in back then. The vet didn't give me any false hope, didn't offer "god's will" or palliative care. He knew there was really nothing anyone could do for her but give her a fast, painless way to end her suffering.

Why that's considered illegal or a "sin" to give humans that same compassion is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Synobun]

Well,as far as the state is concerned the state, again, fought tooth and nail to prevent MAID and then fought tooth and nail again to try and restrict its use, even when most legal experts agreed they were going to be overruled by the courts. Then they tried again with the narrow restrictions, and that too failed.

Any which way you cut convenience to the state, the state made it very plain that they didn't want this. They tried their level best to prevent this, until it was obvious any further fighting would be a waste of time.

As to the concept of unnecessary deaths...well, arguably. I mean, I don't know. If the law not letting them get help is the only thing keeping them alive right now - meaning they really view desth as their best options already - is the problem the fact that we're no longer forbidding them? I'd say it's the conditions we let fester, not the (unconstitutional) restriction we removed, that are at fault. They wanted to die before, we just didn't let them.

If people's suffering is so great that they consider death the best option, forcing them to stay alive is not solving the problem, it's just prolonging the suffering.

If someone seeks improvement and is denied or prevented from doing so, and they then choose MAiD, was death the best option?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Post nicely please and keep to the topic.

 

[Evie]

If someone seeks improvement and is denied or prevented from doing so, and they then choose MAiD, was death the best option?

What's the best option is for each individual to decide for themselves based on their own circumstances, not for us to decide for them. So iT's a question without a good answer that we can give. But presumably, yes, some of them might have prefered other options, which is bad.

But - MAID isn't preventing people from making improvement, and those people were already prevented from making improvement without MAID. Blaming MAID for policies that existed does not stand up to scrutiny.

The only purpose of the "reasonably foreseeable" requirement was to try to make people stay alive against their will when their choice would be otherwise, which the government doesn't get to do.

 

[Farm Boy]

This does not strike me as what liberals would do. This sounds more like that it would come from the conservative and far right spectrum.

In looking at the article, it's coming across very suspicious when I plug it into ground news as no other news sources but Spectator UK is reporting it. What also doesn't help is that the source, as reported by Ground News is that it leans right with mixed factuality (I haven't scanned Spectator UK through Media Bias check, but I suspect a similar result).

Strangely, I don't? But the far far right I know is still nominally religious.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't have an issue with people who only want to die, having state assistance with that. But I obviously have a lot of issues with people asking for help (financial/medical) to make their condition livable, being told to consider euthanasia.

 

[Evie]

Depending on the specific condition and circumstances, I'd say.

If the condition is treatable or the problem solveable but they can't do itbecause current government aid programs don't support it, I don't think euthanasia should be suggested by anyone other than the person who would die. If the patient is the first one to bring up MAID, or even to bring up prefering to die than continue in their condition, then discussing MAID with them is not only appropriate but necessary.

If the condition is NOT treatable by any proven method, if all that's left is maybe means to slightly diminish the pain, and there is no hope of improvement, mentioning the existence of the option (once, in a neutral manner), in case the person is not aware of it, would be in my mind reasonable.

It exists, it's an option, and hiding it completely makes no sense, but great care should be taken to avoid pressuring.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's a bit ignoble to say/mean something along the lines of "yeah, if the gov would give you more money, you could have a quality of life you can live with - literally - but as things stand, maybe consider seeking help to die".
I also don't really see how any decent doctor can say such a thing.
I am not discussing the cases where the patient themselves want to die. Only those where they wish to live but the state has no money, yet has an executioner for them.