Hacker News Reader

Comment by julianlam | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Why would it be relevant whether euthanasia is or isn't allowed in other places?

We know exactly why it's not allowed in most places, and that reason has nothing to do with medical care.

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.

They want people to jump off a bridge like a normal person

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com