Canada euthanasia now accounts for nearly one in 20 deaths

Not that surprising given how big our aging boomer demographic is. This was my father two years ago who had fought a year long battle with cancer before deciding to go with MAID. He was already hospitalized in palliative care and it may have only saved him a day or two more of suffering. In fact after how rough his final night was, I wish he had been able to let go a day earlier.

While people should have the right to end their own lives, i feel like widespread use of euthanasia will degrade the standards of our medical care.

That is the neat part, it does not!

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/suicide-canada-key-statistics-infographic.html

so 4500 "suicides" vs the articles above 15,300 people. I don't think 15,300 is a subset of 4500.

There's a huge push from the right that this is unethical to offer it in the first place and that soon we are just going to let people euthanize themselves instead of "treating" them. I mean, i don't want people to do this either, but who are we to force a choice onto someone?

One step at the time.

Making euthanasia legal for people with terminal illness is already hard enough and I'm glad it is now possible in a lot of countries.

There were issues early on and people who shouldn't have been offered the option, got offered the option.

Whoops I just read the article and it said they legalised in 2016. I guess I'm happy for everyone whos opting for it?

Really? Where?

This is so false. My mom is going through the process now. They make sure the patient is mentally stable when interviewing for this, interview them multiple times, interview family and get their input. If they dont have green lights from everyone involved they get denied, even if they are suffering. My mom had to apply 3 times.

The stat is overinflated. Boomer generation population size outweighs gen x, millenials and gen z combined.

Dunno why this comment is so heavily down voted, m8 didn't even state an opinion

Canadian here. I'm all for it, so long as the person isn't doing it from lack of access to services that would improve their condition. It's a question of bodily autonomy and denying MAID is no different than denying abortion.

I'm watching my gramps die right now. His life sucks. He hates it. Taking care of him is a burden.

If he wanted to die, who would I be to tell him no? It's just torture at that point.

IMO, the logic behind euthanasia being wrong is the same as the logic behind thinking abortions are wrong.

It should not be taken lightly, but it sure as hell should be an option. If it's not legal by the time I'm falling apart, I'm gonna find another way to off myself lol

If self-assisted euthanasia (SAE) has risen from 0% to 20% of all deaths. Then "other" methods of death must have dropped equal to 20%. If that collection of "other", is drawn-out cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's etc. then I see this as working. If those conditions have not seen a comparative reduction, and all we've done is replace suicide with SAE then I think this hasn't worked as intended.

It's a good option to have, imo. People will try to commit suicide, even without this.

They'll fail and become a larger burden to society in a lot of cases. Or run up medical bills and exist miserably.

With this method, folks who are interested have to clear a hurdle beyond their own emotions and survival instincts.

If they're committed to the act, this ensures a dignified end vs many terminal conditions.

Suffering near end of life can be horribly tortuous. The ability to end the suffering on your terms with dignity is a benefit to society and those suffering.

Do you feel hospice care is a bad thing? It's one step removed from assisted suicide in many ways.

In hospice care they often give you enough drugs to end it quickly, and instruct the caregivers to NOT call emergency services.

We're all going to die, at least we can make it somewhat civil.

Why should someone be obligated to live as long as they can, at the expense of their quality of life?

I have a friend with a terminal illness who opted for MAID. I'm so thankful that option was available because he was in so much pain at the end. It makes a huge difference to be able to choose a dignified death, surrounded by people you love and who love you.

You're a very fortunate person and I hope things stay that way for you.

Please do not presume that your good fortune has granted you the wisdom to make decisions for those who have not been so blessed.

As long as it's something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning (e.g. it can't be authorized like other medical procedures via power-of-attorney or a parent making that particular medical decision for a child, etc), I'm all for it.

Basically, "my body, my choice". No one asked to come into the world, and if they want to leave it painlessly and with dignity, I feel it should be their right to do so.

Think about the suffering that we were forcing on people by not allowing people to choose to die.

Life is important, but living with constant pain or a useless body and no way to improve is barely living.

People should be able to make their own choice about their situation.

Sit by the bedside of a loved one as they die in agony that can only be even partially controlled by keeping them comatose. You'll likely soon come to the conclusion that we shouldn't be trying to just live 'as long as we can', but as long as we can well.

There often comes a time when the rest of a person's life will consist only of barely managed pain, suffering, indignity and imminent death. It should be up to the person living that to decide if it is worth it, and and up to the medical profession to deliver a peaceful end if that is what they want.

There are plenty of issues that need to be worked through before it is possible, particularly around coercion, deliberate or accidental, and how it is delivered, but they must be worked through if we are to consider ourselves humane. When an animal we care about is suffering, with no hope of relief, we can make the choice to end their lives to alleviate the suffering, we should be able to do the same for ourselves.

Have you ever had to watch a family member decline though? What about a pet? How did you treat that pet? Did you prolong their suffering and watch them slowly die unable to eat or drink or did you do something about it so they did not have to suffer? Why are humans different if they themselves, sound of mind, choose to end their own suffering?

An acquaintance of mine’s relative chose to go this way due to ALS. It was their choice and the last year was hell on the family, even though the relative had selected assisted dying.

Before modern medicine, how exactly do you think they handled grandma who was losing her marbles and lived in a one room farmhouse with the rest of the family? Especially if they’re violent and nasty. Is it right to withhold care/food/water and let nature take its course? Is that murder? Was there murder or suicide? Lots of this stuff has happened throughout history within the privacy of a family. People were likely more “religious” back then but we didn’t have the regulations or medical oversight to document things as such. Likely they just told people that their relative died of natural causes, buried them on the family plot and were done with it.

It is hell to witness the pain and confusion someone you love has when they have a degenerative disease and the Herculean effort it takes to care for someone in a condition like this. A family simply cannot do this alone without paying an exorbitant amount of money for medical and support staff - around the clock.

It’s like anything else in history:

• Ban abortion and abortion still happens, but without any shred of dignity, humanity or compassion.
• Ban drugs and guess what, they still exist on a dangerous black market.
• People still kill themselves without the help of medical assistance in dying. This just provides a path to dignity and closure for the person and their family for those who choose it. And I’m sure if you’re intent on ending your life, you don’t give a fuck about the stigma.

Wouldn’t it be a good thing to “de-stigmatize” suicide? So people can talk about it and we have more of a chance to intervene with people who do not have a lethal disease?

Everyone I have encountered who brings up “suicide is never an option” in relation to issues like this has never had to witness it. I’m 100% going out this way if I ever have a lethal disease.

But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.

Why does length even come into it? This may be an argument from absurdity, but imagine someone born with such a debilitating birth defect that the only way to keep them alive beyond a few minutes is by putting them in a machine that keeps them alive. They have a fully functioning brain but are fully encased in this machine and only experience darkness and pain. At what point does their life become meaningful? 50 years? 80? If doctors can keep them alive for 2000 years, is that life better or worse than if they died after 6 minutes?

What I am getting at is that the length of the life has very little to do with its quality. And when it comes to medically assisted dying, almost nothing to do with it as people have to be over 18 with demonstrably low quality of life.

I’m scared that this will eventually de-stigmatize suicide.

Why is that a problem? Like, our first priority should be providing good healthcare (and that includes mental healthcare), but if someone doesn't want to live anymore, why is it anyone's business but their own? That sounds to me like the most important of human freedoms. Being kept alive against one's will seems like the most horrible, criminal, torture.

We call it “self-assisted euthanasia” but this is essentially legalizing companies to assist in suicides.

And what do companies have to do with it? Companies don't come into it at all in MAID.

If it is the standard of care for pets and other animals who cannot communicate their needs to us directly, shouldn't it also be the standard of care for people, who can communicate their desires and needs.

I appreciate that you're looking for discussion, however, I'm hung up on this is the part of your comment:

But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.

I also grew up Catholic, and agree that "human life is something sacred." However, I'd ask you to consider why you think human is sacred, and what about it is sacred? IMHO, our lives are a gift, and we should appreciate that gift by not squandering our lives, by enjoying life and by trying to share that joy with others. If someone is in extreme and unending pain, it would be extremely difficult for them to bring joy into the world and instead their lives often just introduce suffering for themselves, their loved ones, and their caretakers.

I know one of the arguments against this is that even terminally ill patients sometimes experience miracle recoveries. Similarly, when dealing with terminal illness, there's a concept know as the "Last Good Day". My Grandmother had one, where she was nearly comatose for months, had a medical emergency and nearly died, then perked up the next day, was lucid and talking, then died a week later. However, I don't think we should force people to suffer in the vague hopes that they might have another good day, or in the vaguer hope that they experience a miracle recovery.

I know this gets into a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I'd be curious what your opinion is on DNRs and other forms of with-holding care. I personally don't think those options are all that different than MAID, though I will acknowledge it's the difference of action vs inaction. Personally, I think both action and inaction are decisions, as the Canadian band, Rush says in Freewill, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

As a Canadian who has watched a loved one die very slowly and spent a fair amount of time in hospice I changed my mind about wanting to fight to the bitter end.

My mother in law was a lovely lady, but unable to really face her death. Seeing what others were going through she begged us to not let that be her but the rules are she and she alone needed to sign off on the paperwork while she was lucid. We couldn't set that up for her, she needed to do it herself... And she couldn't face it and she missed her window.

The last week of her life was hell. She was so weak from not eating due to her cancer that she fell and hurt her hip. Thing people don't really tell you about wasting away is your brain essentially becomes too energy expensive to run. She lost the ability to understand what was going on around her and had to be restrained in the bed so she wouldn't try to get up and she, unable to interpret what was happening, started making escape attempts throughout the day and night frequently crying in pain. She begged like a small child for us to help her and looked at us like monsters because we couldn't. She had been one of the most staunchly independent people I had known and she spent her last week in agony and all of us were powerless watching knowing it was the last thing she wanted.

I was so thankful for the Hospice care. I realized it could have been so much worse if her care was expensive or wasn't handled with such an incredible standard of compassion... But the experience left all of us close to my MIL more than a little traumatized.

It's important to realize that these decisions are intensely personal. I would not wish what happened to my MIL on my worst enemy. Depictions of death in media do not adequately prepare you for the potential realities of every situation. That perceived duty to live as long as you can isn't always a kindness.

Sometimes, you're tired of fighting and you just want it all to end. All this does is make it painless and quick. Which is merciful.

If someone in end stage cancer wants to press the fast forward button I will help them. That is a horrible way to go and forcing people to suffer through it as long as possible isn't what's best for them. It just makes the people around them feel better.

I'm much less of a fan of opening it up to mental illness, combined with pushes to reintroduce institutionalization I see a lot of potential for abuse.

I can sort of agree suicide is a permanent solution to what may be temporary problems. All for it for terminal illness but having been depressed before and had friends who were many would have taken this route and not lived to see happier days. I agree with personal choice philosophically but there are so many externalities that need to be solved first: poverty, mental health care etc before this can be implemented

What does everyone here think about it?

Very wrong for government to get involved with that part of life. I recall hearing a story about something similar from the UK, where two sons ended up "rescuing" their mother from an end-of-life home where she was not given the very basic care that would have actually solved her health problems, because dying was seen as a medically viable option. Eugenics was also very popular in the mid 1900s, but was abandoned not because it was a bad idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application.