will be expanded next March to give access to people whose sole medical condition is mental illness, which can include substance use disorders.
So not drug use, but mental health conditions which the government considers drug addiction to be.
This will never be used by a drug addict. It will be used by people with untreatable and severe schizophrenia or similar afflictions. If you don’t want to live in a nightmare world with no hope I think it should be your right to end it peacefully.
I get suicide makes people uncomfortable, but you’re uncomfortable with it in a cozy apartment and good health. You think your protecting vulnerable people from a big scary government, but you’re just forcing them to suffer needlessly.
Given that the intent here is to make assisted suicide legal for people who by definition are not of sound mind what protections are in place for people who would qualify for assisted suicide by way of mental health issues but also might not be fully competent to make this decision themselves? Who can step in and say that the patient actually is competent, and by what standards is that judged? Who can step in and say a patient that wants assisted suicide is not competent, or has been manipulated? I’m not worried about people who are genuinely suffering, the fact is we’ve never been able to stop them from killing themselves and we never will be. I’m worried about someone putting poison in the ear of someone with a treatable disorder, convincing them to “do the right thing and not be a burden”.
Not many really ever look into safeguards of these programs and let their imaginations take the reins. Here’s the basics of MAID.
The things you need to get the process started is sign off from two doctors or nurse practitioners from two completely independant medical practices who are not directly involved in any long term care planning for the patient and are not experiencing any financial incentive. Doctors are allowed to refuse participation for any reason. They also must have demonstrated expertise in treatment of the condition for which someone is using as their reason for seeking MAID.
In the event of a non terminal illness one also needs a witness to back up your decision to pursue MAID to sign off on all the papers. There are some restrictions about who can count as a witness but in addition to those this person cannot :
-benefit from your death
-be an unpaid caregiver
-be an owner or operator of a health care facility where you live or are receiving care
The law requires all other potential services and harm reduction strategies be discussed as options and made available and stress is to be put on that you can opt out of the process at any time.
Once the paperwork is signed it begins a 90 day minimum assessment period. Witnesses found to be in violation of any of the witness or doctor restrictions are liable to be criminally charged.
People without decision making capacity are ineligible to apply for MAID. If their case is degenerative they can waive their final consent requirements but people can legally specify under a different program in palliative care a pre-determined termination criteria to pick what level of mental degeneration activates the order and it must be signed off on while the person is of sound mind or else your only choice is a naturally occuring death.
Lastly the final assessment requires active consent and cannot be in a state judged to be mentally incapable of decision making authority unless they previously waived that requirement. The person must be given every opportunity to opt out.
Finally the assessment request now requires a mandatory sign on for data collection for posterity. This is for purposes of determining if the system is being potentially exploited requiring the data in regards to identifying whether race, Indigenous identity and disability seek to determine the presence of individual or systemic inequality or disadvantage in the context of or delivery of MAID. The data regarding everyone who seeks the program, the doctors and the witnesses who signed on and those who decided later not to pursue then is referred to an investigative inquest body and the presence of the program has to be occasionally reviewed by federal Parliament and actively renewed over a predetermined cycle.
So what’s stopping two Kevorkian’s from just signing off on everything?
You can pretend that safeguards will prevent undesirable deaths (like say patient manipulation, or informed consent which Canada has stopped pretending to care about), but the permissibility alone makes it inevitable.
Backflips and somersaults scenario. How many people in every hospital right now are spending the last week of their lives suffocating? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
You invent scenarios to make MAID unpalatable. The people who want MAID have actually lived through reality.
It’s unfortunate that people want to die and they physically can’t kill themselves at that moment, but there is no moral obligation to grant desires that people can’t fulfill themselves. (There is also the autonomy objection, even if the patient has perfect decision making, killing them now derives then if any future decision making).
We do have an obligation to prevent unreasonable deaths, especially if we are the one’s actively killing them as is the case with MAID.
Therefore a system that potentially (or rather inevitably) causes moral bad without any moral good, is not a morally good system and has no benefit to existing.
The reality is that unreasonable deaths will happen, and expanding it (and lowering the thresholds) will increase the percentage of assisted suicides that don’t meet some metric of moral permissibility.
There is also the societal harm objection, if illnesses/conditions are treated by euthanasia, and euthanasia becomes a popular way of death (like it is increasingly so in Canada) the incentive to improve treatment of those conditions is weaker. It does not result in a improving society in the long run if euthanasia is an acceptable option to certain conditions (note, this refers to more than just medical health but also living or social conditions).
Part of the system works off of a similar system to triplicate prescriptions which has a cooling effect. Basically every time a single doctor signs off on this it gets flagged in the system along with what other doctor is doing it. Doctors know their data is being tracked by an active investigative body, physical hard copies are required and who their second doctor is is relation to their participation is actively logged and guaged. A two kevorkian system would set up a red flag and cause an in depth investigation with potential criminal persecution.
Not saying that it could not happen but it would create an undue legal risk for any doctors who would try it and doctors are made very aware of the data logging requirements of the program.
Fight to make these services easier to access then. If they are easier to access, the poison wont take. If you waste all your pooitical energy fighting this, and then dont have enough to fight for better social supports and easier access to them, well then you’ve just made things worse
Edit: I’ve chosen life, I know how dark depression and hopelessness gets, but I’ve also been abandoned by my family and original community, and have spent almost a decade now being my own support network in a metropolis where I cant keep a community for very long. Our social support systems are GARBAGE right now and if I ever DID end up chosing death, I wouldnt want some bleeding heart like you who’s going to fight this instead of making community supports easier to access blocking me from ending my suffering. Living alone with multiple different conditions that prvent you from being stabily employable is fucking hard, and if it’s not something you’ve chosen its cruel to leave someone with no way out if it
Edit 2: I like the downvotes with no comments, really shows that people want to just be against something to feel good about themselves without having to think about the consequences of denying said thing
Good to see at least someone around here has some fucking clue regarding the purpose of this law…
Just “feeling mentally unwell”, as another commenter put it, is not enough to qualify. The law specifically requires the applicant “experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable” and “be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed”
If someone makes a “request for medical assistance in dying, 2 independent medical practitioners (physicians or nurse practitioners) must assess it.”
And that’s just a couple of the high bars one must clear to qualify.
But, I can say this about Lemmy: given the quality of the discussion on this post, this place really has turned into an excellent replacement for Reddit!
It’s a hard argument, but untreatable depression can technically be terminal.
If mine weren’t treatable, it would be.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are messy subjects, but it’s just so awful to not allow this for situations where we’d consider it cruel if an animal were in the same situation.
We can provide a “good death” to people who have nothing but suffering left in their life.
If my time comes, I’ll take it in my own hands, but the fear is that something will happen where I can suddenly no longer make that decision.
“We’d consider it cruel if an animal where in the same situation”
Mercy killing animals isn’t an actual thing, they can’t possibly consent. The reality is that we kill animals at will for basically any reason, so we have no problem lying to ourselves that we are performing a mercy killing.
Most recently one had a problem with bone loss in its femoral head. It couldn’t walk much at all and was getting further injuries because of that. The other ducks would also leave it behind. Being alone is very stressful for a duck.
You can’t do a hip replacement on a duck. They wouldn’t understand or be able to recover. In any case, she’d easily get picked off by a daytime predator. Eaten alive.
You better believe that euthanasia was the best course of action for her.
So you read the duck’s mind? Do you think the duck even has a conception of what death is? According to you it wouldn’t even understand a hip replacement. Why are you assuming that it therefore wishes for death?
Anyway the point of this is that killing the duck is permissible because killing ducks is always permissible. The delusion that you are making the best decision for it is impossible to know. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant to the permissibility of killing humans.
The criteria by which we are able to kill mentally incapable animals (species membership or even low mental ability) is not the same by which we can argue for assisted suicide. Because humans and ducks are radically different objects with different inherent moral valuations.
Additionally consider that your comparison is morally relevant. If it is permissible to mercy kill ducks based solely on presentation, without being able to determine the ducks desires. Then it follows that we can kill humans based on presentation alone as long as we don’t know there desires. Even worse if we undermine the validity of there expression of desire it is permissible to kill them anyway.
“Look this paraplegic wants to live, they must be delusional who would want live like that, time to get the MAID”.
Even stupid films like Million Dollar Baby, embed the perception that disabled people just want to die.
As much as people want to be nice and give people whatever they want, it is without question that as soon as you permit others to actively kill other people, it’s going to be open to abuse and severe ethical consequences. The history of MAID is a fine example of that, it’s expansion was actually made by a court decision to make the law more consistent. True logical consistency would naturally follow to permit assisting suicide in all cases, after all why are we discriminating against people with very temporary conditions. Clearly they are just as capable of experiencing suffering as any other person.
No, people against assisted suicide are likely the same types that say “life begins at conception” or “the death penalty is perfectly fine the way it is”. I don’t think they think beyond how they can control other people’s lives.
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is a process through which a doctor or nurse practitioner assists an individual, at their request, to intentionally end their life[2]. The process for MAID in Canada involves the following steps:
Eligibility: To access MAID in Canada, you must meet specific eligibility criteria. You must be at least 18 years old, capable of making decisions with respect to your health, and have asked for MAID yourself without any pressure from others. You must also have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which means that you have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability, you are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability, and your illness, disease, or disability causes you enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to you and cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable[5].
Request: If you wish to request MAID, your health care provider will ask you to complete and submit the Request for Medical Assistance in Dying form. By submitting this form, you are formally asking for MAID and stating that you believe you meet all the eligibility criteria[2].
Assessment: Two independent medical practitioners must assess your eligibility for MAID. They will review your medical history, conduct a physical examination, and discuss your options for care. They will also discuss your decision with you to ensure that you are making an informed choice[2].
Final Consent: You must provide final consent immediately before receiving MAID. You can withdraw your request for MAID at any time and in any manner, even if you are found eligible for MAID[4].
Procedure: MAID can happen in one of two ways: a doctor or nurse practitioner gives a drug to the patient that causes the patient’s death, or a doctor or nurse practitioner prescribes a drug for a person, at the person’s request, that the person can swallow and cause their own death[5].
The 2021 revisions to Canada’s MAID law enhance data collection and reporting to provide a more comprehensive picture of how MAID is being implemented in Canada, including under the new provisions. The monitoring regime is important to supporting transparency and public trust in how MAID is being delivered[1].
Except all of that is bullshit now, because now they’re allowing drug addiction to be a qualifying condition to get assisted suicide, and you’re trying to cover up how fucked up that is with outdated information and lies.
Jesus Christ, people. Just because you want a policy in place doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful. Would it fucking kill you to be honest about one damn thing?
So not drug use, but mental health conditions which the government considers drug addiction to be.
This will never be used by a drug addict. It will be used by people with untreatable and severe schizophrenia or similar afflictions. If you don’t want to live in a nightmare world with no hope I think it should be your right to end it peacefully.
I get suicide makes people uncomfortable, but you’re uncomfortable with it in a cozy apartment and good health. You think your protecting vulnerable people from a big scary government, but you’re just forcing them to suffer needlessly.
Given that the intent here is to make assisted suicide legal for people who by definition are not of sound mind what protections are in place for people who would qualify for assisted suicide by way of mental health issues but also might not be fully competent to make this decision themselves? Who can step in and say that the patient actually is competent, and by what standards is that judged? Who can step in and say a patient that wants assisted suicide is not competent, or has been manipulated? I’m not worried about people who are genuinely suffering, the fact is we’ve never been able to stop them from killing themselves and we never will be. I’m worried about someone putting poison in the ear of someone with a treatable disorder, convincing them to “do the right thing and not be a burden”.
Not many really ever look into safeguards of these programs and let their imaginations take the reins. Here’s the basics of MAID.
The things you need to get the process started is sign off from two doctors or nurse practitioners from two completely independant medical practices who are not directly involved in any long term care planning for the patient and are not experiencing any financial incentive. Doctors are allowed to refuse participation for any reason. They also must have demonstrated expertise in treatment of the condition for which someone is using as their reason for seeking MAID.
In the event of a non terminal illness one also needs a witness to back up your decision to pursue MAID to sign off on all the papers. There are some restrictions about who can count as a witness but in addition to those this person cannot :
-benefit from your death -be an unpaid caregiver -be an owner or operator of a health care facility where you live or are receiving care
The law requires all other potential services and harm reduction strategies be discussed as options and made available and stress is to be put on that you can opt out of the process at any time.
Once the paperwork is signed it begins a 90 day minimum assessment period. Witnesses found to be in violation of any of the witness or doctor restrictions are liable to be criminally charged.
People without decision making capacity are ineligible to apply for MAID. If their case is degenerative they can waive their final consent requirements but people can legally specify under a different program in palliative care a pre-determined termination criteria to pick what level of mental degeneration activates the order and it must be signed off on while the person is of sound mind or else your only choice is a naturally occuring death.
Lastly the final assessment requires active consent and cannot be in a state judged to be mentally incapable of decision making authority unless they previously waived that requirement. The person must be given every opportunity to opt out.
Finally the assessment request now requires a mandatory sign on for data collection for posterity. This is for purposes of determining if the system is being potentially exploited requiring the data in regards to identifying whether race, Indigenous identity and disability seek to determine the presence of individual or systemic inequality or disadvantage in the context of or delivery of MAID. The data regarding everyone who seeks the program, the doctors and the witnesses who signed on and those who decided later not to pursue then is referred to an investigative inquest body and the presence of the program has to be occasionally reviewed by federal Parliament and actively renewed over a predetermined cycle.
So what’s stopping two Kevorkian’s from just signing off on everything?
You can pretend that safeguards will prevent undesirable deaths (like say patient manipulation, or informed consent which Canada has stopped pretending to care about), but the permissibility alone makes it inevitable.
Backflips and somersaults scenario. How many people in every hospital right now are spending the last week of their lives suffocating? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
You invent scenarios to make MAID unpalatable. The people who want MAID have actually lived through reality.
It’s unfortunate that people want to die and they physically can’t kill themselves at that moment, but there is no moral obligation to grant desires that people can’t fulfill themselves. (There is also the autonomy objection, even if the patient has perfect decision making, killing them now derives then if any future decision making).
We do have an obligation to prevent unreasonable deaths, especially if we are the one’s actively killing them as is the case with MAID.
Therefore a system that potentially (or rather inevitably) causes moral bad without any moral good, is not a morally good system and has no benefit to existing.
The reality is that unreasonable deaths will happen, and expanding it (and lowering the thresholds) will increase the percentage of assisted suicides that don’t meet some metric of moral permissibility.
There is also the societal harm objection, if illnesses/conditions are treated by euthanasia, and euthanasia becomes a popular way of death (like it is increasingly so in Canada) the incentive to improve treatment of those conditions is weaker. It does not result in a improving society in the long run if euthanasia is an acceptable option to certain conditions (note, this refers to more than just medical health but also living or social conditions).
Part of the system works off of a similar system to triplicate prescriptions which has a cooling effect. Basically every time a single doctor signs off on this it gets flagged in the system along with what other doctor is doing it. Doctors know their data is being tracked by an active investigative body, physical hard copies are required and who their second doctor is is relation to their participation is actively logged and guaged. A two kevorkian system would set up a red flag and cause an in depth investigation with potential criminal persecution.
Not saying that it could not happen but it would create an undue legal risk for any doctors who would try it and doctors are made very aware of the data logging requirements of the program.
Fight to make these services easier to access then. If they are easier to access, the poison wont take. If you waste all your pooitical energy fighting this, and then dont have enough to fight for better social supports and easier access to them, well then you’ve just made things worse
Edit: I’ve chosen life, I know how dark depression and hopelessness gets, but I’ve also been abandoned by my family and original community, and have spent almost a decade now being my own support network in a metropolis where I cant keep a community for very long. Our social support systems are GARBAGE right now and if I ever DID end up chosing death, I wouldnt want some bleeding heart like you who’s going to fight this instead of making community supports easier to access blocking me from ending my suffering. Living alone with multiple different conditions that prvent you from being stabily employable is fucking hard, and if it’s not something you’ve chosen its cruel to leave someone with no way out if it
Edit 2: I like the downvotes with no comments, really shows that people want to just be against something to feel good about themselves without having to think about the consequences of denying said thing
I agree with you. I’m pretty sure some Nordic countries have had this policy for some time, too.
Good to see at least someone around here has some fucking clue regarding the purpose of this law…
From: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html
And that’s just a couple of the high bars one must clear to qualify.
But, I can say this about Lemmy: given the quality of the discussion on this post, this place really has turned into an excellent replacement for Reddit!
Exactly.
It’s a hard argument, but untreatable depression can technically be terminal.
If mine weren’t treatable, it would be.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are messy subjects, but it’s just so awful to not allow this for situations where we’d consider it cruel if an animal were in the same situation.
We can provide a “good death” to people who have nothing but suffering left in their life.
If my time comes, I’ll take it in my own hands, but the fear is that something will happen where I can suddenly no longer make that decision.
“We’d consider it cruel if an animal where in the same situation”
Mercy killing animals isn’t an actual thing, they can’t possibly consent. The reality is that we kill animals at will for basically any reason, so we have no problem lying to ourselves that we are performing a mercy killing.
You are making no sense.
I have pet ducks.
Most recently one had a problem with bone loss in its femoral head. It couldn’t walk much at all and was getting further injuries because of that. The other ducks would also leave it behind. Being alone is very stressful for a duck.
You can’t do a hip replacement on a duck. They wouldn’t understand or be able to recover. In any case, she’d easily get picked off by a daytime predator. Eaten alive.
You better believe that euthanasia was the best course of action for her.
So you read the duck’s mind? Do you think the duck even has a conception of what death is? According to you it wouldn’t even understand a hip replacement. Why are you assuming that it therefore wishes for death?
Anyway the point of this is that killing the duck is permissible because killing ducks is always permissible. The delusion that you are making the best decision for it is impossible to know. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant to the permissibility of killing humans.
The criteria by which we are able to kill mentally incapable animals (species membership or even low mental ability) is not the same by which we can argue for assisted suicide. Because humans and ducks are radically different objects with different inherent moral valuations.
Additionally consider that your comparison is morally relevant. If it is permissible to mercy kill ducks based solely on presentation, without being able to determine the ducks desires. Then it follows that we can kill humans based on presentation alone as long as we don’t know there desires. Even worse if we undermine the validity of there expression of desire it is permissible to kill them anyway.
“Look this paraplegic wants to live, they must be delusional who would want live like that, time to get the MAID”.
Even stupid films like Million Dollar Baby, embed the perception that disabled people just want to die.
As much as people want to be nice and give people whatever they want, it is without question that as soon as you permit others to actively kill other people, it’s going to be open to abuse and severe ethical consequences. The history of MAID is a fine example of that, it’s expansion was actually made by a court decision to make the law more consistent. True logical consistency would naturally follow to permit assisting suicide in all cases, after all why are we discriminating against people with very temporary conditions. Clearly they are just as capable of experiencing suffering as any other person.
This place is full of raving lunatics.
I’m not used to a world where left wing thoughts are this stupid and ill informed. That’s the realm of right wing media, ime.
You’re not even acknowledging any of my argument.
It’s so fucking weird.
No, people against assisted suicide are likely the same types that say “life begins at conception” or “the death penalty is perfectly fine the way it is”. I don’t think they think beyond how they can control other people’s lives.
Could also be a question for society why it is a nightmare world
It’s totally different information from the OP.
It’s probably reasonable for untreatable patients who suffer to no end.
You don’t fucking know that. Stop supporting bad policies you know are harmful.
How this works in real life:
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is a process through which a doctor or nurse practitioner assists an individual, at their request, to intentionally end their life[2]. The process for MAID in Canada involves the following steps:
Eligibility: To access MAID in Canada, you must meet specific eligibility criteria. You must be at least 18 years old, capable of making decisions with respect to your health, and have asked for MAID yourself without any pressure from others. You must also have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which means that you have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability, you are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability, and your illness, disease, or disability causes you enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to you and cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable[5].
Request: If you wish to request MAID, your health care provider will ask you to complete and submit the Request for Medical Assistance in Dying form. By submitting this form, you are formally asking for MAID and stating that you believe you meet all the eligibility criteria[2].
Assessment: Two independent medical practitioners must assess your eligibility for MAID. They will review your medical history, conduct a physical examination, and discuss your options for care. They will also discuss your decision with you to ensure that you are making an informed choice[2].
Final Consent: You must provide final consent immediately before receiving MAID. You can withdraw your request for MAID at any time and in any manner, even if you are found eligible for MAID[4].
Procedure: MAID can happen in one of two ways: a doctor or nurse practitioner gives a drug to the patient that causes the patient’s death, or a doctor or nurse practitioner prescribes a drug for a person, at the person’s request, that the person can swallow and cause their own death[5].
The 2021 revisions to Canada’s MAID law enhance data collection and reporting to provide a more comprehensive picture of how MAID is being implemented in Canada, including under the new provisions. The monitoring regime is important to supporting transparency and public trust in how MAID is being delivered[1].
Citations: [1] Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law - Department of Justice https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html [2] Medical Assistance in Dying - Provincial Health Services Authority http://www.phsa.ca/health-info/medical-assistance-in-dying [3] Medical assistance in dying: Overview - Canada.ca https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html [4] Get the facts on MAID | Dying With Dignity Canada https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/end-of-life-support/get-the-facts-on-maid/ [5] MAiD - End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada http://eol.law.dal.ca/?page_id=2472 [6] A medically assisted death - Canadian Virtual Hospice https://www.virtualhospice.ca/maid/articles/a-medically-assisted-death/
Except all of that is bullshit now, because now they’re allowing drug addiction to be a qualifying condition to get assisted suicide, and you’re trying to cover up how fucked up that is with outdated information and lies.
Jesus Christ, people. Just because you want a policy in place doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful. Would it fucking kill you to be honest about one damn thing?