This doesn't seem to be seriously misleading, in my opinion. It's quite common to use the country's name to refer to something the population is doing and not the government.
No but in many cases you could rewrite it as "why does Canada let rich people live long, drawn out, painful deaths of suffering?"
Given that everyone is going to die, defaulting to euthanasia in the majority of cases is probably better for the eithanized without taking into account class (let's suppose that life-continuation was permitted by lottery).
Of course people have emotional hangups, or religious beliefs around death that make the net human condition worse.
'No but in many cases you could rewrite it as "why does Canada let rich people live long, drawn out, painful deaths of suffering?"'
From the article, your proposed rewrite does not make sense. There's nothing to say that these people would have drawn out and painful deaths if they're doing it simply because they don't have money to support themselves. There are also medications to alleviate pain.
"Given that everyone is going to die, defaulting to euthanasia in the majority of cases is probably better for the eithanized without taking into account class"
Maybe. The real question at the heart of the story isn't whether to allow euthanasia, but whether the change to more permissive regulations is leading to abuses.
As a counter argument to this, you could produce some numbers on how many of your majority of cases would not be allowed under the old wording.
Given that everyone is going to die, defaulting to euthanasia in the majority of cases is probably better for the eithanized without taking into account class (let's suppose that life-continuation was permitted by lottery).
Of course people have emotional hangups, or religious beliefs around death that make the net human condition worse.