It has little to do with religion. There are lots of examples of MAID being pushed upon people that do have other options and made to feel like it's the only one.
It's also a way for collapsing government-run healthcare to save money.
It's also a way for collapsing government-run healthcare to save money.
I have a hard time believe things are going down like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you'd be fine, but you know what you should do instead? Kill yourself"
On the other hand, I do believe (and want) doctors to be like, "You have cancer. We can treat it and you might get a few more months with very poor quality of life. You may wish to consider these other options"
How many examples? What percentage of patients eligible for MAID receive such treatment?
What we do have is the words of people saying they do not wish to die, but are taking MAID due to necessary supports not being offered instead. What percentage would you consider too high for that?
But these are separate issues, no?
I mean, if we don't have MAID, the existing failings of our healthcare system won't just go away; they won't just magically get the support they need. Instead, they'll die anyway, probably in a painful way.
Of course, for this discussion to be worth anything, we'd need more details. What does "support not being offered" mean, precisely? ..How many people is this actually happening to? And no, we can't just believe accounts posted on social media. And even if we did, are we going to get the other side of the story?
What you do have is a handful of anecdotes, to put it in more honest terms.
What's fascinating to me is that the discussion of these anecdotes revolves around wanting to eliminate MAID rather than -- gosh, I don't know -- offering those necessary supports instead? The anecdote (in the article) about it being easier for "some people" to get MAID than to get a wheelchair makes for a great soundbite, but the people who quote it always seem more interested in eliminating MAID than in providing wheelchairs to those in need, for some odd reason.
And now here we are. Maid is a thing, and people are being encouraged to do it while not being provided the alternatives they are asking for. And the numbers for how many are totally illegible but also somehow too low for you to be concerned with.
My activism has long been more focused on getting people the care they need than opposing maid. But regardless people still don't always get the care they need and we have maid for them instead. We said it would be like this and it is like this.
Without having actual data, this is nothing more than an excuse to eliminate MAID indefinitely pending an imaginary system in which no one slips through the cracks; in the meantime, you will force countless more to suffer months or years of needless agony on the off chance that one of them might be one of your anecdotes.
> And now here we are. Maid is a thing, and people are being encouraged to do it while not being provided the alternatives they are asking for. And the numbers for how many are totally illegible but also somehow too low for you to be concerned with.
The only "numbers" I get from anyone like you are a handful of anecdotes that add up to a tiny fraction of a percent of people who elect MAID, and a vanishingly small percent of people eligible for MAID. If you genuinely mean well, I want you to understand: you are being manipulated by people who will do nothing to help those in need, and on their behalf you are campaigning to immiserate thousands upon thousands every single year.
Can't make an omellette though, right?
I'm not really surprised. It looks like Canada's healthcare costs are growing exponentially, and are outstripping growth in GDP. These costs are mostly driven by hospitalizations. If a government can carefully promote the message that hospitalization means suffering, suffering is hard, a life with suffering is not worth living, and that relief is quick and easy, then a route is charted to a reduction in healthcare expense. It would certainly help if the large physician organizations are on board, and the nation's major broadcasters lean into euthanasia-friendly messaging.
See here, in particular the first figure: https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-20...
And here (slightly dated, but still valid): https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/sustainability-of-he...
> I live in Canada and have not seen any such messaging that you have said.
Here's a not-particularly-subtle example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/maid-medical-as...
If you search the CBC, they have articles both for and against MAID. I think its kind of silly to say that all positive news articles about MAID is government propaganda as there is likely to be a non-zero amount of positive experiences with it. Should the government not allow the press to make any comments on MAID to avoid biasing anyone for, or against it? For example, here is a negative video the CBC posted about MAID: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6521196
The only pushing I’m seeing is that by religious people onto non religious people, as usual.
One person’s account of what happened against an entity who is not allowed to discuss their side of the story is useless. And even if the whole account is accurate, it is not sufficient to stand in as proof of a nation’s protocol.