Hacker News Reader

Comment by skyyler | Hacker News Reader

“That’s the beauty, because our law requires that doctors test that you’ve made a rational decision,” Zoraya replied. “Doctors have to test: Is my choice rational, or is it my illness talking?”

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The experience of going on a waitlist and not even knowing if you'll be approved, making backups for that eventuality... it paints a very vivid picture of someone at the end of their rope, trying to end the suffering.

Other people in the thread are implying it's a mechanism for the state to cull undesirables and that feels like conspiracy theory stuff / media spin to me. The state already has plenty of tools to kill those it disagrees with, why would the slow and messy and disorganised medical system have to be part of it?

View on HN

> The state already has plenty of tools to kill those it disagrees with

This is not about people the state disagrees with, but about the undesirable of society. The risk is we get to legitimize euthanasia as a way of getting rid of the poor and homeless.

I'm absolutely horrified by the direction taken by Canada with regards to this. It is mindblowing and hard to believe for me that 1 in 4 Canadians thinks that assisted suicide should be allowed for the poor[1]. Like, how about getting them out of poverty instead? How about providing every citizen with a dignified life before we consider ways to literally put them out of their misery?

Thankfully there aren't enough doctors willing to go on with what seem like the nazi wet dream[2], but I'm left seriously wondering what's wrong with Canadian society.

1: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/new-research-shows-one-in-...

2: https://nypost.com/2024/02/03/news/canada-halts-assisted-sui...

> It is mindblowing and hard to believe for me that 1 in 4 Canadians thinks that assisted suicide should be allowed for the poor

You think that the poor should have fewer rights than others?

I have the right to choose to end my life within the regulations of MAiD. I'd hate to think that I lose that right simply because I'm "poor".

What an absolutely ridicolous way to spin this. Now I'm 100% sure you're not poor by the way.

Weird that only poor people will get recommendations for assisted suicide.

Why aren't middle class families recommended it based on their income?

I've heard a good ol' assisted suicide can solve pretty much anything nowadays!

First you were talking about what is "allowed".

Now you're talking about what is "recommended".

But it seems like what is really going on is that you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to use MAiD to eliminate the poor and you are unable to have a discussion that doesn't take that conspiracy theory as fact.

Apparently you don't know how MAiD works.

If assisted suicide is allowed for a specific cause (like poverty or mental illness) then doctors can actually recommend it to patients[1][2].

I hope this helps you realize that "allowed" and "recommended" in this case can coincide.

1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/arti...

2: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-maid-assisted-su...

>The risk is we get to legitimize euthanasia as a way of getting rid of the poor and homeless.

Ah yes, a slippery slope. Very scary. Don't slide down it!

No, this is not a slippery slope. There are already reports of doctors recommending assisted suicide[1]:

"The practice of referring or recommending assisted suicide has also spread well beyond the traditional boundaries of the health-care system. Notably, MAID is routinely practised within the Canadian prison system, despite similar measures proving deeply controversial in Belgium, a pioneer in assisted suicide legalization."

So don't come and "debate bro" me when you didn't even bother informing yourself beforehand.

1: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-maid-assisted-su...

It is quite literally a slippery slope argument. You've implied that by legalising access to euthanasia (top of the slope), you are creating a scenario where eventually (slippery) the poor and homeless will be euthanised (bottom of the slope). Even just now you sent a link that supposedly supports this position, but let's check out what it says.

>Research Co. found that 73 per cent of poll respondents favoured the current regime, and only 16 per cent opposed it.

>If a Canadian’s only affliction was “poverty,” 27 per cent said they would be fine with legalizing that person’s access to MAID. Another 28 per cent pegged “homelessness” as an appropriate bar to qualify for MAID.

>And 20 per cent of respondents were fine with MAID being handed out to anybody for any reason.

Interesting how right wing politicians only care about poor and homeless people in situations like these. Anyways,

>don't come and "debate bro" me

I would advise you to take your own advice and stop replying to me then. Thank you :)

This is the slippery slope fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy in action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com