Former paralympian tells MPs veterans department offered her assisted death
cbc.caAs a Canadian I want to point out this article is quite misleading.
The issue is far more systemic than this article claims. In Canada MAID is the 6th leading cause of death, and is rising so fast it is basically guaranteed to be the 3rd cause by 2025.
Doctors that will not back the MAID initiative are fired, every year they expand the criteria under which you can be euthanize, right now they want to expand it to include poverty.Their are reports of children and confused elderly being tricked into euthanasia without their families knowledge. And we get reports on how much all this is saving the government.
> Their are reports of children and confused elderly being tricked into euthanasia without their families knowledge
Interesting, can you provide links to these reports? It's a pretty serious assertion.
From google
Terminally ill children as young as 12 should have euthanasia choice, expert panel urges
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/terminally-ill-children...
Canadian Bill to Allow Euthanasia of Dementia Patients
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/canadian-bill-to-allow...
FIRST READING: To countries considering legal euthanasia, Canada a model of what not to do
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/first-reading-to-count...
EXCLUSIVE: Doctors slam Canada's 'perverted' new law that allows people to be EUTHANIZED if they are suffering from mental health problems
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11440261/Canada-e...
What Euthanasia Has Done to Canada
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/03/opinion/canada-euthanasia...
Canadian man claims assisted suicide is being pushed on him by hospital
https://nypost.com/2022/11/08/canadian-man-assisted-suicide-...
Assisted Suicide for Poverty
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/assisted-suicide-for-p...
Canada opens door to expanding assisted dying
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51620021
Canada expanding assisted suicide law to include the mentally ill, possibly enable 'mature minors'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadas-expanding-assisted-sui...
A quick google search did not return anything, mainstream media does not cover stories like this, and I cannot remember where I read these stories. I know the last one I read was about a family suing the government to stop the euthanasia of their son(I believe). And I have read articles similar to this one of the elderly going to the hospital and being offered euthanasia instead of medical care.
I did find this forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2022/08/15/canadas-n...) that talked about a troubling case I had not heard or and included lots of details about the whole system.
But when all you need is a nurse practitioner and a signature from someone with dementia or other mentally crippling disease, of course things like this will happen. Agree or disagree with how some European countries do it, this is not that same thing. The people pushing this are the doctors and nurses you go to to get medial treatment from, and the oversight is non-existent.
From where I sit it seems like your perception on this topic is quite different then the reality.
I was curious what 6th leading cause of death means in terms of percentages. From the annual report on MAID (medical assistance in dying) in Canada:
> In 2021, there were 10,064 MAID provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada.
> The number of cases of MAID in 2021 represents a growth rate of 32.4% over 2020. All provinces continue to experience a steady year over year growth.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
Yes, tho percentage is not a great way of interpolating the data since it has been 99% linear since its inception with a slope averaging 1.7k additional deaths per year.
Sad but unsurprising story. How do you reach your targeted cost per user without implementing death panels? “Sympathetic” agents will feel this pressure more and more, but there is a way to avoid this solution that is even more insidious.
No need to preemptively offer to help kill somebody. Just make their life so miserable that they ask for it.
Refusing them the medical care they need to not be miserable will go a long way toward that goal.
Edit: plot twist: I just realized this could be the official way that death panels are implemented. A “black spot” is placed on the person’s record indicating that no more treatment is to be paid for, unless they ask for somebody to kill them. Agents are, of course, forbidden from telling the person with the black spot. So this agent would indeed have been trying to skirt the rules by clueing the person in to their status. Thus, the agent clandestinely fighting death panels would be fired. It does not seem outside the realm of possibility to me that this truly might have been an agent fighting an active death panel.
Just wait until you hear about insurance companies.
Yeah when it's the entity with a monopoly on force it's more insidious
While this is likely not due to an official policy, it is certainly due to a conflict of interest.
Medical personnel should not be involved in euthanasia. While they have the requisite medical knowledge, medicine should be about saving lives, or at least palliative care.
Euthanists should be a separate thing, if they exist at all. Euthanasia is about death, not life.
No one should go to the doctor for medical care and be provided death. Such a situation destroys trust.
>Medical personnel should not be involved in euthanasia. While they have the requisite medical knowledge, medicine should be about saving lives, or at least palliative care.
Speaking as an American who's talked to a lot of Canadians and made many trips there, one issue is that pallative care can bleed into euthanasia due to tolerances around opiates... what happens when you give someone enough medication to cure their pain, and they overdose? Or if you give them enough in a bottle to do so on their own? That's how you get to a point that people are handed nothing but Tylenol and an offer of a suicide booth or whatever... that is.
Then again, to reiterate: I'm not Canadian, I'm American, so I can only comment on my own experiences.
For example, after I tried pretty much every antidepressant on the market, my psychiatrist told me my depression was not chemical based but a rightful reaction to life's circumstances, that I had CPTSD on top of my autism from the previous interventions I'd had tried (some of which I detailed in an anonymous essay that triggered a congressional investigation), gave me a reoccurring prescription for alaprazolam and suggested I take up a sport like target shooting or basket weaving.
Apparently it scared folks when my response to the above was to go down to the gun range adjacent to the local military base, rent a handgun, and practiced unloading the clip into a target at twenty yards like I'd done back on Pearl Harbor day in high school with my dad.
The woman working the range kind of narrowed her eyes when she saw my ID.
"Bloomington? Have you even shot a gun before" she rightfully asked. (I suspect they had people show up and try to shoot their nine like a rap video and have to be removed from the range -- part of why I never bought one in 412 is the range nearest me had no rangemaster and had issues with folks who wouldn't follow the four rules... and might follow you to your car if you asked them to.)
"Oh yes. I've shot a bolt action twenty two, a 357 magnum, and a Colt 1911. The last two are too much kick, do you have anything in the forty caliber range, and can you show me the safety -- I've only shot an automatic one."
Around the same time they'd threatened to cancel the undergrad's paper if they reported on a string of suicides, and I later found out there were some severe sexual assault issues where kids who were on athletic scholarships were straight up told they had to go through the informal judicial process if they wanted to continue playing the sport that paid for their education.
The above is why I originally worked hard to attend a school that doesn't have a strong athletics program instead of where I ended up doing my aborted PhD, and why I think sports should be separate from the university as is done in the EU, UK, and many other more functional democracies, why I believe in a personal right to firearms ownership, and why I worry greatly about so called democracies that institute things like universal health care without respecting responsible firearms ownership... it creates a lot of issues when you disarm people, abuse them, then tell them suicide is an option. They might decide to not just kill themselves.
In fact, I suspect that meta level thought pattern: "Why would I end my life, instead of the abuser making me suicidal" is the source of many of the lower body count spree killings you see in the media. (The ones where they stop after a clip rather than try to make it into the record books -- the latter types should not have their names repeated when possible.)
>Speaking as an American who's talked to a lot of Canadians and made many trips there, one issue is that pallative care can bleed into euthanasia due to tolerances around opiates... what happens when you give someone enough medication to cure their pain, and they overdose? Or if you give them enough in a bottle to do so on their own? That's how you get to a point that people are handed nothing but Tylenol and an offer of a suicide booth or whatever... that is.
I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. Yes Doctors work with a lot of people on the edge of death, so their patients die all the time. Also Canadian doctors are not liable for the harm they cause in the same way as American Doctors. But poor care, freak accidents, or patients too close to death save are not the same thing as euthanasia.
>I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. Yes Doctors work with a lot of people on the edge of death, so their patients die all the time. Also Canadian doctors are not liable for the harm they cause in the same way as American Doctors. But poor care, freak accidents, or patients too close to death save are not the same thing as euthanasia.
My bad... I was saying if you're on the edge of death, nudging towards euthenasia when the situation could be cured with some kind of assistive device is abusive.
>Also Canadian doctors are not liable for the harm they cause in the same way as American Doctors.
Then I guess they can do things like caution someone the amount needed to cure their pain may kill them? I've never really had a doctor who did anything but treat the relationship as extortionary -- if I don't make a fuss about whatever mistakes they make, they won't try to say I should go into a mental health facility.
(It's really exhausting when the barrier to your mental health is lack of income.)
Sorry if my post was a bit rambly or unclear, I'm just... not having a good day... and trying to distract myself with the news.
Sounds more like employee misconduct.
From the title, it sounded like Canada's official position
This whole article and comment thread is a strawman, in that it presents a single case in spmething that simply should not be adjudicated on a case by case basis.
Euthanasia, death panels, palliative care management, healthcare budgets, transparency or lack thereof ...
These are all (full stop) system level decisions. Show us all the data, all the decisions, all the controls, all the dollars.
Then as a society we decide the parameters, the gray areas, and then each case fits in one area or another.
The Independent article is a but blogspammy (little by way of original reporting, and more than half the page is ads). This CBC article is one of its sources and I found it more informative: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted...
It has the key paragraph:
> Veterans Minister Lawrence MacAulay revealed last week in testimony before the same committee that four — perhaps five — cases of Canadian military veterans being given the MAID option by a now-suspended veterans service agent have been referred to the RCMP.
As another HN comment here noted, it does seem like employee misconduct more than standard policy action.
It's easy to blame a single bad actor in individual cases, but there still exists the very serious issue that it is even possible for single bad actors to advocate for killing their patients. Add to that the bureaucratic capture, and it's all but inevitable that we will see more, and more disturbing cases. After all, as soon as euthanasia is a profession, there will be people who will need to perform that role. They will want to be good at their job and get promoted. They may take great pride in being the best at it. There will be training courses on how to best euthanize a human. There will be departments dedicated to performing the act and they will have budgets and administrators. And those administrators, wanting to secure their performance bonuses, will seek to expand their department and demonstrate value. Perhaps through growth, perhaps through efficiency. Likewise, ICU care is very expensive. If euthanasia is an option, hospital administrators, being conscious of budget constraints and wanting to best serve the most people, may look to euthanizing seriously injured patients. They may even convince themselves it is in the patient's best interest - we're putting them out of their misery after all.
My point is, this sort of undertaking quickly and inevitably becomes an ethical minefield. The only winning move is not to play.
> The only winning move is not to play.
That's not a winning move for those that sought the right of voluntary euthanasia (that to which the subject consents).
As for your argument we can see it in action expressed via the number of firefighters that start fires to keep themselves employed and I take your point that the only defence is to eliminate fire departments.
If you think that the edge case (killing people) outweighs the normal case (treating people), then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not arguing against the idea that a small number of people have suffering so severe that they may seek suicide to alleviate it. I'm arguing that the normalisation of such "treatment" is fraught with unintended consequences and perverse incentives. And people may (will) be killed who otherwise would not have been as a result.
And your plan to deal with unintended consequences is what?
To avoid any legal assisted dying at all under any circumstances?
To prevent innocent people from being killed as a result, yes. That does seem like the more ethical choice.
This is not about my opinion of whether an individual should be allowed to end their own life - which I'm agnostic of. This is about the normalisation and institutionalisation of such practice as inherently risky and devaluing of human life.
When you allow the state to end a life under any circumstances, you open the door to allowing the state to end a life under any circumstances. (aka - the slippery slope argument)
Right, you are arguing a strawman
Well that escalated quickly.
This (still) isn’t Reddit.