[msla]

> Why isn't it "Thousands of Canadians are being killed too soon in an effort to save the government money"?

Because nobody's made that case.

Making a case requires evidence. Not handwaving and appeals to movie plots.

> We already have stories of Canada asking Veterans to join "MAID" instead of getting a wheelchair...

As long as we're trading conspiracy theories, the person who reported that was paid off by the right wing to make MAID seem horrible, and therefore something that should be ended, and my conspiracy theory has a lot more going for it than yours does.

[ThunderSizzle]

> thousands of Californians are experiencing unnecessary and extended end of life suffering.

> Making a case requires evidence

Where's the evidence that (1) Californians specifically, (2) are experiencing extended suffering, and (3) what evidence exists that suffering specifically is unnecessary?

I'm just pointing out dropping a comment like the first answer and defending it with the second is doing exactly what is being claimed -making a case without providing real evidence.

[wernercd]

"Nobody's made the case"

Tons of people are making the case.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...

"Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000."

So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money?

"As long as we're trading conspiracy theories,"

Other than my "conspiracy" theory being main stream media reported and a simple statement backed by fact. Not your cockamamey bullshit:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-vete...

"According to the report, the veteran called VAC seeking support for PTSD when the employee brought up medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia, unprompted."

Oh wait... that's the wrong one. That's not the Wheelchair one... hard to find the right one in the mountain of evidence.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/canada-offered-to-help-euthani...

"A paraplegic former Canadian military member is ripping her government, which offered to euthanize her after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home."

If main stream, reliable news sources are 'conspiracy theories' then I'm not sure what you consider real news.

"my conspiracy theory has a lot more going for it than yours does."

Other than the fact that my "theory" has backing evidence... and yours is shit pulled out of your ass. You really need to learn what a conspiracy theory is and when real life evidence makes it not a theory.

[mft_]

I don’t think those are all examples against euthanasia being available - they’re arguments for needing better support to be available for vulnerable people.

Very few would argue with your underlying point that euthanasia should only be used in the right circumstances. But anecdotes which may be to the contrary shouldn’t justify removal of the concept altogether - just examination and adjustment.

A mature and reasonable societal attitude to end of life care —including euthanasia where appropriate— is a force for good, not evil.

[wernercd]

I don't disagree conceptually.

I'd argue that it's like the death penalty. The right people should be killed but what happens if you execute an innocent person? It's better to err on the side of not killing so you don't accidentally kill an innocent person.

Likewise? I think the bar for euthanasia should be insanely high. I do think it should exist - there are people who deserve to die with dignity. Cancer or life ending conditions.

I think the problem is "where appropriate"... I seriously doubt that the 10k people in Canada killed this year are all appropriate. There are examples of people being given "the option" for being depressed or simply to poor to afford better options. Those aren't appropriate.

One person killed that shouldn't be is too many.

[msla]

> So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money?

You relayed a handful of stories that, even assuming they're all broadly correct, still don't add up to thousands.

[wernercd]

I've replayed a handful of stories that point to the fact that there are 10 thousand assisted suicides in Canada. Out of those thousands, if "assuming they're broadly correct" add up to a system that is not well thought out and is already having problems with "oh, you're poor and having a bad day? we can fix that!"

And my original question still stands: Why is the interpretation "California is letting people suffer needlessly" not "Why is Canada killing people to save money"? - since the original person I responded to is just as likely to be wrong that CA isn't killing enough people...

I don't think it's wrong to assume that Canada is killing people that don't need to die. 1 is too many... and it's easily 10's of people... and easily hundreds. It's not that hard to assume it's at least 10% of the 10k killed meaning "add up to thousands" is easy to assume.

[ImHereToVote]

I think you simply missed the point that neo-liberals can't believe the idea that professional neo-liberal politicians might have I'll intent.

[msla]

Your thinking I'm a neoliberal invalidates your point.

You, however, are a statist who wants the government to mandate suffering.

[msla]

Why are you so absurdly adamant about people not being able to end suffering?

You dig up some bizarre stories created by people with agendas, and refuse to acknowledge that the right to life includes the right to choose how life ends, and to deny that is to deny the basic rights of humanity. You absolutely refuse to see that the government has no place to mandate suffering.

Why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer? Why are you so pro-big-government?

[wernercd]

The problem isn't people not being able to end suffering... the problem is people being ended before time and people being ended because they are poor and the government is simply cost cutting.

"created by people with agendas" and "MAID" is defended by people with agendas. Everyone has an agenda - even people like you that presumably want to "end suffering".

"why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer" Because anyone who trusts the government with the right to end peoples lives and ignores OBVIOUS problems with such power (IE: the stories about people with "agendas" - aka those who shouldn't be getting killed) is ignorant of governments abusing powers.

"Why are you so pro-big-government?" I'm not pro big government... I'm anti-government killing people. I don't think they should have the right to cut costs by killing people who shouldn't be killed.

Don't try to spin this as pro-big government... it's actually ANTI big government because I don't trust the government. If you do? You're ignorant of history - past and present.

[msla]

You're so pro-big-government you don't want people to decide for themselves when to end their lives.

I can't hardly believe it.

[wernercd]

"I can't hardly believe it."

That's because you're not talking about anything I believe in. You believe in a fairy tale. Something that doesn't exist.

Nothing about my stance is "pro-big-government"... my stance is actually pro-limited government.

Again: If you trust the government to decide when people die? You're not that smart.

Then again... you think I'm pro-big-government so... not that smart.

Canada has government run healthcare and that government run healthcare is pushing people to kill themselves to save money.

That's not you deciding to die. That's you getting pushed to die to save bean counters in the government money.

YOU are so pro-big-government that you want to give government run healthcare the right to kill you because it's better for tax payers.

See how that works? I can make non-sense statements too.

[emodendroket]

Not an especially convincing argument for those who do not see it as axiomatic that “big government” is in itself bad.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

The case is already out there. I read an article on cbc that was reporting some insane stuff around MAID, to the point of being scary: yes the government is trying to save money.