More realistically chronically ill, mentally ill, and disabled people will be increasingly pressured into this "alternative" by the medical and welfare systems, as is already happening in canada. Exactly as predicted years ago by disabled people, exactly as dismissed then as a slippery slope. It's not a fallacy when there's prior art!
> Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
> In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
> "Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."
> Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.
Canada, where the healthcare is “free”, but if you cost too much they’ll encourage you to kill yourself.
I'm not going to link to specific articles or examples because people will meticulously comb the ones I choose to dismiss them individually, when the real issue is about systems and incentives on a broader scale.
The program is called "medical assistance in dying" commonly referred to as MAID. A lot has been written about it the last few years. As you look, I highly recommend prioritizing the words of disabled and chronically ill writers, over those of their families and other supporters of it. It's a complex issue but IMO the only correct way to approach it is focused on the people most likely to make use of it.
FWIW, I wasn't taunting you to get a reply I could poke holes into. What you describe seems like a plausible outcome to me; I was just curious about a write-up (even if anecdotal).
I know, I wasn't trying to accuse you of that but am cautious from experience on this specific issue on here. A lot of other people are reading and this is flamewar magnet for the "rationalist" crowd that is overrepresented both on HN and in supporting euthanasia. It's also something I've been following and involved in for years, but I don't have a concise primer or easy introduction to it. It's hard to know what is relevant or where to start.
Here is an example of the sort of thing we were worried about, and that was dismissed as a slippery slope. This person doesn't want to die per se, the support she needs is understood and achievable, but it will not be provided. Suicide is offered instead.
Here's a blog post written around the time when the "forseeable death" restriction was removed a couple years ago. It touches on and predicts specific cases that have since happened as described.
You linked to a page explaining the logical fallacy, did you even read the wiki article?
Regardless, if this somehow led to a significant percentage of the population committing suicide, wouldn't that mean we're not doing something right in society?