Canada Euthanizing Poor People

[Evie]

Yes, in that case it should not be considered an option unless the patient themselves bring it up.

 

[Lexicus]

Disgusting

Why do you say so? Don't you support balanced budgets and believe capitalism is a superior form of social organization?

 

[Lexicus]

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

This, and similar posts you've made in this vein, are bad strawmen. There does not need to be any plot or organized conspiracy; in my view, the state offering assisted suicide while failing to do everything possible to allow people to live is quite bad on its own. Actively foreclosing options for people to live under a neoliberal logic of cost-cutting is absolutely contemptible and I don't see any problem with how @Synobuns has described it.

Blaming MAID for policies that existed does not stand up to scrutiny.

This strikes me as another strawman or at least distortion/oversimplification of the point. The point is that the existence of MAID provides (or could provide) a political justification for policymakers to reduce funding for other programs (like more generous disability benefits). The ones to blame are the policymakers.

 

[João III]

Why do you say so? Don't you support balanced budgets and believe capitalism is a superior form of social organization?

When have I said this?

 

[Lexicus]

When have I said this?

I don't know, I'm just assuming it from some of the other things you've said. Are you an anticapitalist then? Do you know what MMT is? Do you think government budget deficits should always be as small as possible?
I'm just curious, because I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously hold the views that government deficits are bad, that capitalism is good, and that euthanizing people to save money is disgusting.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously hold the views that government deficits are bad, that capitalism is good, and that euthanizing people to save money is disgusting.

Don't know if Joao himself has all of those views, but there's no reason to think people can't have all three concurrently. I don't agree with the first two statements either, yet I can see how some would and still ask to prioritize human life and seek other cuts.

 

[Estebonrober]

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

my bad, I get what you are saying, I just saw more dogpiling a center left regime and figured it was another proto fascist type doing the dogpiling. If you are criticizing it from the other direction I likely agree with your criticism.

 

[Lexicus]

ut there's no reason to think people can't have all three concurrently.

No, there are many reasons to think this actually. It is trivial to show that both capitalism and deficit reduction kill people every day.

 

[Senethro]

Euthanasia in this situation may not be in line with values we profess to aspire to, but it is very much in line with the values Anglo-American societies run on.

 

[Joij21]

my bad, I get what you are saying, I just saw more dogpiling a center left regime and figured it was another proto fascist type doing the dogpiling. If you are criticizing it from the other direction I likely agree with your criticism.

Maybe that's your problem. Try to be less emotional and be open to other viewpoints.

 

[João III]

I don't know, I'm just assuming it from some of the other things you've said.

Please don't assume I hold one position because I hold another, unrelated position

Are you an anticapitalist then?

I favor distributism, so I suppose you could say that

Do you know what MMT is?

Are you referring to Modern Monetary Theory? I would not say I'm particularly familiar with it

Do you think government budget deficits should always be as small as possible?

I'm not sure how you're defining "as small as possible", but in general, I'd say no

I'm just curious, because I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously hold the views that government deficits are bad, that capitalism is good, and that euthanizing people to save money is disgusting.

I would not describe deficits as "good" or "bad". Laissez-faire capitalism is bad. Killing people to save money is abhorrent.

 

[Lexicus]

Please don't assume I hold one position because I hold another, unrelated position

I favor distributism, so I suppose you could say that

Are you referring to Modern Monetary Theory? I would not say I'm particularly familiar with it

I'm not sure how you're defining "as small as possible", but in general, I'd say no

I would not describe deficits as "good" or "bad". Laissez-faire capitalism is bad. Killing people to save money is abhorrent.

cool dawg

Am I right in guessing you are you a liberal Catholic (or come from a liberal Catholic background) then?

 

[Kyriakos]

No, there are many reasons to think this actually. It is trivial to show that both capitalism and deficit reduction kill people every day.

Yes (and I can think of glaring proponents of such, eg some at fox news), but I have to suppose you can find others who are in favor of capitalism but not when applied to force people to kill themselves.
I am not arguing with the claim that being pro-capitalist inadvertently will lead to more misery; I agree with that claim.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

while individual autonomy is important, i don't think deciding whether someone can be saved or not should be the purview of government with broken incentives. people in a dark place will make choices they would not in the future, and can't be taken back. i can't envision a scenario where the state, empowered to make this evaluation for them or even just give advice, will consistently act in the best interest of the individual.

a recipe for tragedy, with close to no upside. i get that some people are suffering unbearably and have 0 prospects of it ending otherwise. that's a scenario that can and does really happen. but i don't think this decision should in any way be tied to the state or to private interests outside the individual making it.

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

which is higher than state-funded media, though probably not much.

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)

quite true. but the broken incentives remain regardless, and we can/should expect such policy to result in more euthanasia than otherwise, with a non-trivial fraction of that being done on people who are not "irredeemable" (by some hypothetical future version of themselves). helping people along on suicide is the opposite of what we should be doing in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Lexicus]

which is higher than state-funded media, though probably not much.

Rebel News is more trustworthy than NPR or the BBC?

 

[Lexicus]

I have to suppose you can find others who are in favor of capitalism but not when applied to force people to kill themselves.

Okay, my literal point is that you cannot hold these positions simultaneously without a contradiction.

 

[João III]

cool dawg

Am I right in guessing you are you a liberal Catholic (or come from a liberal Catholic background) then?

Hmm I don't know if I would call myself a "liberal Catholic", but that's because I prefer just "Catholic". I like what I've read from the writings of Dorothy Day, and she's been described as a "Christian anarchist". Does that make me a "liberal Catholic"? I don't know, but that is fine if it does. Does it make me a "Christian anarchist"? That is also fine

 

[Evie]

A thread titled "Canada euthanizing poor people", quoting an article starting with "Why is Canada euthanizing the poor", with quotes such as "a woman was forced into euthanasia", "tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him", accusing the government of having an eye on fiscal advantage (because the parliamentary budget officer reported on the new bill...). All of that is in the opening post of this thread.

The implication is not "Some poor people in Canada are chosing to die because the government isn't funding the help they really need". Especially with the mention of the budget savings, it's out and out "The government is intentionally pushing people toward euthanasia because it's cheaper". Which is what I'm addressing.

Syn's initial reply to me, in the context of the OP, came off to me as more of the same ; this has since proven inaccurate, but does not invalidate the problems with the OP.

I'll also note that "Doing everything possible to allow people to live" is (like most form of social progress) by its very nature an ever shifting goalpost, where the more we do, the more we become aware of how much more we could do. Setting it as a condition for euthanasia amount to stating euthanasia will always be morally wrong for government to offer.

Which, considering it is a fundamental right in Canada, is unacceptable. Fundamental right should not be contingent upon hazy or unattainable goals. Even difficult goals are dodgy.

I will finally note that, as Valka rightly pointed out, death never stopped being an option for all these people. It was just a more painful and dehumanizing (starving yourself to death, shotting yourself, overdosing, etc), more traumatic for the family (clear process with time to prepare vs secretly prepared decision with no warning, often finding the body or having to identify it yourself), and at time, requiring people to die sooner than they otherwise would have (to make sure they died while still capable of it). Unless you consider it a moral good to scare people into continuing to suffer, I don't particularly see the above as a morally superior position to euthanasia.

 

[Lexicus]

but does not invalidate the problems with the OP.

I'm not defending the OP, it is a dumb attempt to ignore the issues at play in favor of simplistically claiming liberals are murderers or whatever.

 

[Evie]

Then I fail to see how my responding to the OP's presentation by treating it largely as it is constitutes a strawman.