The rise is somewhat predictable and surprising at the same time.
Personally I don’t think there is anything more empowering (in this domain) than knowing that you can be in control of the conditions of your own death.
The surprising part is perhaps the speed at which this fundamental societal shift is happening. 3.3% of all deaths in Canada were assisted deaths in 2021!
A very close relative suffered for years before she finally passed away. She passed away before medical assistance in death was available.
Watching that hardcore spark plug of a human be absolutely destroyed by a disease was awful and changed my view on medical assistance in death. We wouldn’t make a dog go through what she did. Offering her some control over her way out would have been much more humane than what she ended up going through.
Yes but during a time when there is mass psycological depression and other chaos is difficult to believe this change is "just due to people becoming more comfortable with the idea".
For reference I'm in favour of MAID as a concept. But a 30% jump in the same year there is other chaos should set alarm bells ringing. The defence of this reached the same levels as a completely different society is somehow also doubly alarming to me...
I understand why it might for you and your own values, but why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently?
Imagine that you're one of these patients. If you're looking at the last poor years of your life anyway, and it turns out that you see they'll be spent in the shadow of a global pandemic and economic crisis, it's sensible that you might want to just turn out the lights and go to bed already.
Making that choice on their own terms isn't something that people do flippantly; instead of assuming we know what the right answer should be for them, isn't it more humble and respectful to assume they made a sound choice and then draw insight from how they were able to do so?
> why should that sound alarm bells for others who might see things differently?
This is not a reversible decision like salted or caramel popcorn. All I'm saying is that numbers like that with a human life be treated seriously. I'm not saying the usual madness of 'halt a thing until we know more'. I'm just saying wouldn't it be prudent to ask the question rather than blindly accepting this as a good thing.
I'm not saying anything disingenuous or in bad faith here so please don't assume my argument comes from this position, this just runs the risk of turning any conversation toxic and political which I'm trying to avoid.
How familiar are you with Canada’s program?? Do you know that mental illness alone is currently not an acceptable reason to seek out medical assistance in death? Do you know that you have to have two fully independent health care practitioners sign off on the request?
It would be quite hard to get MAID if you’re not eligible. I completely understand your concern and if it was administered differently I would share them, but I’ve learned a lot about the program and have a lot of trust in how it’s administered.
I'm familiar enough with the way that these things are structured, why and how policy are implemented from a bureaucratic perspective that I understand when there are un-intentional sytematic bias.
I'm not talking about access to reatment. I'm not talking about individual cases here. As I have said. I am in favour of this in concept and I just think that the reasoning away from a very large spike is concerningly poor and the sort of thing that's used as an excuse if '22 numbers shot up another 30-40% that 'well that's just Canada'.
Again, please don't read intentionally or not that I'm talking about access or applicability. This again runs the risk of taking a conversation down a political or toxic discussion path and serves nobody.
I'm talking about _proper_ large scale understanding of trends here. At best this is bad reporting of a phenomena, at worse there is something there that might be looked back on with concern.
Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”.
Rather, I tried to ask how much you know about the Canadian implementation of MAID. You talked around those questions so now it’s time for some facts.
1.) The increase in 2021 numbers can be explained by bill C-7. C-7 changed eligibility for MAID. When C-7 received royal assent it meant that a patient’s death no longer had to be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for MAID.
2.) Numbers in 2022 will rise as more physicians are being trained in MAID and getting more comfortable with the idea.
3.) Numbers in 2023 will rise even more as in March, mental illness as a sole condition will become eligible for MAID.
Again, all of this is guided by policy that would make it very hard to receive MAID if you’re not actually eligible.
Those are facts and at this point, it seems like you’re trying to use some personal moral queasiness as a way to overlook the evolution of policy.
> Now you’re arguing in poor faith. I never said that that’s “just Canada”.
Yes I apologise but you started accusing me of taking some personal-religios pseudo-moral ground which I find an offensive default assumption. I know you didn't mean to offend, but remember which forum this is, there's probably less book-thumpers here than normal irl.
Now, I'm not introducing moral quandires into this. Please stop enagaging on this level, it's not valid, not just and I won't rise to it.
I'm saying that 30% rise is significant in a year where there are other concerns. Now if this is driven by an artificial depression in the previous year then it's not being reported on, fine.
I'm 200% willing to believe that this is being reported badly by the media.
A 30% increase suddenly stop. (If so that's a bit odd, but OK). but given statistics I claim the 30% will drop but not to zero. If it drops to 25% increase in a 2nd year, there is a _serious_ problem. (not necessarily with MAID) which isn't bein reported on.
Again the only moral concern here is this is not "vanilla or chocolate" these are serious decisions and a glib "comprable to europe" is being concerningly dismissive at a policy level, even if it's meant well to help understand the figures.
Yet again, I'm not accusing MAID as a policy directly of problem/fault but this is a 30% increase in deaths due to mental illness. If this wasn't MAID people would rightly asking more questions in an a-political manner and getting concerned.
Please stop act asif I'm attacking MAID as I have said I AM NOT DOING SO.
> His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss. Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn’t using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia. “Alan was basically put to death,” his brother Gary Nichols said.
> Disability experts say the story is not unique in Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive euthanasia rules — allowing people with serious disabilities to choose to be killed in the absence of any other medical issue.
There will always be people who misuse systems to achieve their own ends (in this case, quite literally.)
What's important to also realize is that the solution isn't to make the system harder to use, because a side effect of that will be that people who NEED said system will find it inaccessible.
e.g. disability insurance is rife with fraud. Insurers combat this by auditing nearly all applications for fraud, and this has the effect of denying recompense for those who are truly disabled, for they do not, will not, or cannot jump through all the arbitrary hoops introduced by the insurer to combat fraud.
I don't have a solution for fraud and abuse of systems, however.
Given that euthanasia isn’t even allowed in other places, and given whats at stake (a literal human life), it seems perfectly acceptable to make it harder to get killed by the government.
The article linked in the parent comment is very well written, please read it. It recommends exactly what Canada should do to mitigate the situation. They have no review boards, and actively recommend NURSE PRACTITIONERS to suggest euthanasia to patients as a treatment alternative. That sounds evil.
Please go And read the apnews article. It’s sent shivers down my spine. Doctors suggesting to disabled patients that it’s “selfish” to not consider euthanasia, then expanding it to kids now? It sounds quite nazi-Esque. Almost as if Canada has decided to just “kill the poor” so to speak instead of helping them out.
I’ve always heard that the beauracracy is one of Canadas biggest issues and now seeing this mix with disabled people being killed like ants sounds like the worst combination.
I did read it. Sounds like there may be some issues that need to be worked on. Possibly some lawsuits filed. But my question was simple: why should other countries not having euthanasia make it harder to get MAD in Canada?
A huge number of countries will never have euthanasia for religious reasons. Nothing else. There is no reasoning behind it, except taboo and scripture.
As for people being individually opposed to euthanasia, meh. The same people are, generally, quite comfortable with leaving people to die in overwhelming pain and misery. As Mother Theresa famously said: "Pain, sorrow and suffering are the kiss of Jesus." The push for allowing euthanasia comes from people who find just as much disgust and distress in the veneration of suffering as people on the other side do in the idea that anyone would ever die prematurely. But I doubt many of the euthanasia supporters would oppose continuing to work on and improve the systems.
In other places this person walks in front of a moving car or jumps off a bridge.
Just because someone was given a dignified end to life for reasons that you may not approve of doesn’t mean that person would be alive if only they were not given a dignified end to life.
Also, basing one’s comment off publicly available information in a situation where by law most information is not public is beyond stupid.
Studies have found that suicide prevention systems at common locations prevent suicides and that people do not seek alternatives. Most regret suicide attempts.
It’s likely that interventions to prevent suicide via the medical system would be effective and offering counseling would help. It’s unlikely that those seeking assisted suicide would walk in front of a car or jump off a bridge.
Every case described in the article seems fine to me. The lives of those dead people had negative value and they clearly agreed with this assessment. The idea that human life has inherent value is fundamentally Christian, and as the Western world slowly dechristianizes its culture - it disappears. On both sides - people are no longer afraid they will go to hell for suicide.
The future is going to be much more extreme. I expect euthanasia to become the leading cause of death by far. Imagine being 70, slightly disabled and alone today, with mental capacity severely diminished. It's too late for any realistic chance of antiaging. There's no rational reason to continue living at that point. Suicide seems unthinkable now - but if it was culturally accepted millions of old people would do so each year. Rich people may as well choose suicide by cryogenics - that one definitely should be an option.
The idea that human life has fundamental value is not necessarily Christian at all (if anything apparently according to modern American Christianity only embryo lives seem to matter). This comes from someone who grew up in a country where Christianity is not the major religion. You don’t need a weird religion to tell people deserve the dignity to live no matter what the perceived quality of life is. The problem here isn’t that they’re given the choice to end it but looks like they’re being coerced into it.
The government isn't killing anyone, it's a doctor who works for the patient. One of my family members chose this, rather than suffer another year or two and then die anyway. According to the article 98% of the cases are like this. Knowing the exact date and time was difficult for me, compared with others who I've watched naturally succumb to disease. That said, this happened with fully informed consent, and in my view there's nothing evil about it - it's a reasonable treatment alternative when the best treatment will only prolong the inevitable.
“[Disability] insurers combat this by auditing nearly all applications …”
“This has the effect of denying recompense for those who are truly disabled”
People who are disabled should be rejected for disability insurance for the same reason people who are dead should be rejected for life insurance: the insured event has already happened.
The time to apply for disability insurance is before you are disabled. Otherwise you will have some very heavy exclusions, or are in fact committing fraud.
That sounds almost like manslaughter charges are in order. It’s one thing if there was nobody there to them, the relatives told them what might be happening and it seems like they just rushed through with it.
This would be worse in the US system without an integrated medical records system. Somebody might feel like their quality of life is not worth living for because they might have stopped taking their medication. Unless a relative tell the doctors that this patient was seeing such and a doctor for depression and abruptly stopped taking their meds a random busy hospital in the city could rubber stamp the approval and kill the patient.
Canadian healthcare system is a weird one. It works great if you have something known and life-threatening, in most other cases the system is optimized to delay and defer. It's always understaffed because nurses generally don't get paid enough, and the ones that work mostly optimize on throughput, not quality.
I had a family doctor in Ontario once that moved from the US and she was in shock how many people 'slip through the cracks' without a follow up after a test. She moved back shortly after. Now I'm in British Columbia and I cannot even get a family doctor because the waiting list in Burnaby (a suburb of Vancouver) is 10 years. And again any walk-in clinic optimizes on throughput, not quality.
I find it strange that the article from CTV chose to focus on the big picture while the this article from AP News focused on a handful of examples. They both also happened to be published within days of each other: the AP News one on August 11th 2022, and the CTV one on August 13, 2022.
I think anyone here can appreciate the startling difference in reporting from the two sources independent of their personal beliefs on the topic given that the dates of publication are so very close.
I have a relative who chose MAID last year, rather than suffer a fairly quick and painful death.
As a Canadian, I am happy we have this humane option. I believe it is imperative that we accept death as part of life, and each get to a point where we are accepting of death, but not seeking it without reason.
What surprised me most about the process was how quickly it occured. Once my relative made the decision, informed the appropriate parties, went through psychological tests, it was only a matter of days before they were gone.
It was shocking to me how quickly it came, but it was what THEY wanted, and they were ready. It isn't up to me, which is the right approach.
My only concern is it becoming normalized to the point those suffering from long-term depression are encouraged to seek a medically assisted suicide rather than play the hand they were dealt.
I can't think of many crimes greater than a government encouraging people to kill themselves instead of helping them overcome their tribulations.
While I agree, it's just as easy for a nihilist to argue that it doesn't matter at all. It purely comes from your perspective on the value of life, which in the case of Canada, the government leaves to the holder of that life.
Why should it be? Theres a strict process in place to request it, it requires phycological evaluation, you can't request it in an unsound state of mind (too far gone into dementia for example).
If someone has a terminal disease then what's the concern? Your religion?
This is a major jump with a flippant response, this is not an individul case, but a social change which should be closely monitored not just 'well it works for europeans'...
I support medically assisted death, but there are legitimate issues that should be discussed and it really doesn't get much attention in Canada. For example, beginning in 2023, those suffering from mental illness alone will be eligible for medically assisted death. I think this raises serious issues of equity in Canada for the physically and mentally disabled. Making no meaningful changes to the health care system to better support these people, but instead offering medically assisted death, does not seem very compassionate at all.
"Medical assistance in dying could reduce annual health care spending across Canada by between $34.7 million and $138.8 million, exceeding the $1.5-$14.8 million in direct costs associated with its implementation."
39 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 80.1 ms ] threadPersonally I don’t think there is anything more empowering (in this domain) than knowing that you can be in control of the conditions of your own death.
The surprising part is perhaps the speed at which this fundamental societal shift is happening. 3.3% of all deaths in Canada were assisted deaths in 2021!
Watching that hardcore spark plug of a human be absolutely destroyed by a disease was awful and changed my view on medical assistance in death. We wouldn’t make a dog go through what she did. Offering her some control over her way out would have been much more humane than what she ended up going through.
Imagine that you're one of these patients. If you're looking at the last poor years of your life anyway, and it turns out that you see they'll be spent in the shadow of a global pandemic and economic crisis, it's sensible that you might want to just turn out the lights and go to bed already.
Making that choice on their own terms isn't something that people do flippantly; instead of assuming we know what the right answer should be for them, isn't it more humble and respectful to assume they made a sound choice and then draw insight from how they were able to do so?
This is not a reversible decision like salted or caramel popcorn. All I'm saying is that numbers like that with a human life be treated seriously. I'm not saying the usual madness of 'halt a thing until we know more'. I'm just saying wouldn't it be prudent to ask the question rather than blindly accepting this as a good thing.
I'm not saying anything disingenuous or in bad faith here so please don't assume my argument comes from this position, this just runs the risk of turning any conversation toxic and political which I'm trying to avoid.
It would be quite hard to get MAID if you’re not eligible. I completely understand your concern and if it was administered differently I would share them, but I’ve learned a lot about the program and have a lot of trust in how it’s administered.
I'm not talking about access to reatment. I'm not talking about individual cases here. As I have said. I am in favour of this in concept and I just think that the reasoning away from a very large spike is concerningly poor and the sort of thing that's used as an excuse if '22 numbers shot up another 30-40% that 'well that's just Canada'.
Again, please don't read intentionally or not that I'm talking about access or applicability. This again runs the risk of taking a conversation down a political or toxic discussion path and serves nobody.
I'm talking about _proper_ large scale understanding of trends here. At best this is bad reporting of a phenomena, at worse there is something there that might be looked back on with concern.
Rather, I tried to ask how much you know about the Canadian implementation of MAID. You talked around those questions so now it’s time for some facts.
1.) The increase in 2021 numbers can be explained by bill C-7. C-7 changed eligibility for MAID. When C-7 received royal assent it meant that a patient’s death no longer had to be reasonably foreseeable for them to be eligible for MAID.
2.) Numbers in 2022 will rise as more physicians are being trained in MAID and getting more comfortable with the idea.
3.) Numbers in 2023 will rise even more as in March, mental illness as a sole condition will become eligible for MAID.
Again, all of this is guided by policy that would make it very hard to receive MAID if you’re not actually eligible.
Those are facts and at this point, it seems like you’re trying to use some personal moral queasiness as a way to overlook the evolution of policy.
Yes I apologise but you started accusing me of taking some personal-religios pseudo-moral ground which I find an offensive default assumption. I know you didn't mean to offend, but remember which forum this is, there's probably less book-thumpers here than normal irl.
Now, I'm not introducing moral quandires into this. Please stop enagaging on this level, it's not valid, not just and I won't rise to it.
I'm saying that 30% rise is significant in a year where there are other concerns. Now if this is driven by an artificial depression in the previous year then it's not being reported on, fine.
I'm 200% willing to believe that this is being reported badly by the media.
A 30% increase suddenly stop. (If so that's a bit odd, but OK). but given statistics I claim the 30% will drop but not to zero. If it drops to 25% increase in a 2nd year, there is a _serious_ problem. (not necessarily with MAID) which isn't bein reported on.
Again the only moral concern here is this is not "vanilla or chocolate" these are serious decisions and a glib "comprable to europe" is being concerningly dismissive at a policy level, even if it's meant well to help understand the figures.
Yet again, I'm not accusing MAID as a policy directly of problem/fault but this is a 30% increase in deaths due to mental illness. If this wasn't MAID people would rightly asking more questions in an a-political manner and getting concerned.
Please stop act asif I'm attacking MAID as I have said I AM NOT DOING SO.
> His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss. Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn’t using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia. “Alan was basically put to death,” his brother Gary Nichols said.
> Disability experts say the story is not unique in Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive euthanasia rules — allowing people with serious disabilities to choose to be killed in the absence of any other medical issue.
What's important to also realize is that the solution isn't to make the system harder to use, because a side effect of that will be that people who NEED said system will find it inaccessible.
e.g. disability insurance is rife with fraud. Insurers combat this by auditing nearly all applications for fraud, and this has the effect of denying recompense for those who are truly disabled, for they do not, will not, or cannot jump through all the arbitrary hoops introduced by the insurer to combat fraud.
I don't have a solution for fraud and abuse of systems, however.
The article linked in the parent comment is very well written, please read it. It recommends exactly what Canada should do to mitigate the situation. They have no review boards, and actively recommend NURSE PRACTITIONERS to suggest euthanasia to patients as a treatment alternative. That sounds evil.
We know exactly why it's not allowed in most places, and that reason has nothing to do with medical care.
I’ve always heard that the beauracracy is one of Canadas biggest issues and now seeing this mix with disabled people being killed like ants sounds like the worst combination.
A huge number of countries will never have euthanasia for religious reasons. Nothing else. There is no reasoning behind it, except taboo and scripture.
As for people being individually opposed to euthanasia, meh. The same people are, generally, quite comfortable with leaving people to die in overwhelming pain and misery. As Mother Theresa famously said: "Pain, sorrow and suffering are the kiss of Jesus." The push for allowing euthanasia comes from people who find just as much disgust and distress in the veneration of suffering as people on the other side do in the idea that anyone would ever die prematurely. But I doubt many of the euthanasia supporters would oppose continuing to work on and improve the systems.
Just because someone was given a dignified end to life for reasons that you may not approve of doesn’t mean that person would be alive if only they were not given a dignified end to life.
Also, basing one’s comment off publicly available information in a situation where by law most information is not public is beyond stupid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610560/
It’s likely that interventions to prevent suicide via the medical system would be effective and offering counseling would help. It’s unlikely that those seeking assisted suicide would walk in front of a car or jump off a bridge.
The future is going to be much more extreme. I expect euthanasia to become the leading cause of death by far. Imagine being 70, slightly disabled and alone today, with mental capacity severely diminished. It's too late for any realistic chance of antiaging. There's no rational reason to continue living at that point. Suicide seems unthinkable now - but if it was culturally accepted millions of old people would do so each year. Rich people may as well choose suicide by cryogenics - that one definitely should be an option.
“This has the effect of denying recompense for those who are truly disabled”
People who are disabled should be rejected for disability insurance for the same reason people who are dead should be rejected for life insurance: the insured event has already happened.
The time to apply for disability insurance is before you are disabled. Otherwise you will have some very heavy exclusions, or are in fact committing fraud.
This would be worse in the US system without an integrated medical records system. Somebody might feel like their quality of life is not worth living for because they might have stopped taking their medication. Unless a relative tell the doctors that this patient was seeing such and a doctor for depression and abruptly stopped taking their meds a random busy hospital in the city could rubber stamp the approval and kill the patient.
I had a family doctor in Ontario once that moved from the US and she was in shock how many people 'slip through the cracks' without a follow up after a test. She moved back shortly after. Now I'm in British Columbia and I cannot even get a family doctor because the waiting list in Burnaby (a suburb of Vancouver) is 10 years. And again any walk-in clinic optimizes on throughput, not quality.
This is by design.
I find it strange that the article from CTV chose to focus on the big picture while the this article from AP News focused on a handful of examples. They both also happened to be published within days of each other: the AP News one on August 11th 2022, and the CTV one on August 13, 2022.
I think anyone here can appreciate the startling difference in reporting from the two sources independent of their personal beliefs on the topic given that the dates of publication are so very close.
As a Canadian, I am happy we have this humane option. I believe it is imperative that we accept death as part of life, and each get to a point where we are accepting of death, but not seeking it without reason.
What surprised me most about the process was how quickly it occured. Once my relative made the decision, informed the appropriate parties, went through psychological tests, it was only a matter of days before they were gone.
It was shocking to me how quickly it came, but it was what THEY wanted, and they were ready. It isn't up to me, which is the right approach.
I can't think of many crimes greater than a government encouraging people to kill themselves instead of helping them overcome their tribulations.
If someone has a terminal disease then what's the concern? Your religion?
(Canadian who supports this being available).
This is a major jump with a flippant response, this is not an individul case, but a social change which should be closely monitored not just 'well it works for europeans'...
"Medical assistance in dying could reduce annual health care spending across Canada by between $34.7 million and $138.8 million, exceeding the $1.5-$14.8 million in direct costs associated with its implementation."