[yawpitch]

I think the point they were making is that the care home and the doctor have a perverse financial incentive to maintain a life beyond the point there’s any quality to that life.

Obviously in a half-way decent society costs shouldn’t be a deciding factor in end of life care or euthanasia decisions for the elder or their family, but neither should rent + fees be a compelling interest in the decisions of those providing that care, yet it’s obvious that it can be.

[memen]

Yes, that was what I understood as their point. My point is that it isn't that big of an effect, and also partially discrediting the people involved by saying they only think about money.

[yawpitch]

I think you’re seriously underestimating how big that effect may be. Group care for terminal patients is a massive, and growing, economy in many countries, and doctors and other caregivers are no more immune to perverse incentives and rent seeking behavior as any of us.

[memen]

It may differ in your country, but here in the Netherlands there is just a shortage of supply, not a shortage of demand. All these services have massive waiting lists, so there will be ten others for each person 'leaving the system'.

I think it is just a risk calculation. How much does a lawsuit for 'wrongful termination of a life' cost vs how much does it cost to have a 'wrongful continuation of a life' and how often is it expected to occur within a given time period and given a set of safeguards. Then you choose the safeguards such that your expected cost is as low as possible. Doctors are only there to fill in the checklist.