[giraffe_lady]

Well you're not going to get it, because the only institutions with the ability to create that data would not do it in that way.

What we do have is the words of people saying they do not wish to die, but are taking MAID due to necessary supports not being offered instead. What percentage would you consider too high for that?

[clipsy]

> What we do have is the words of people saying they do not wish to die, but are taking MAID due to necessary supports not being offered instead. What percentage would you consider too high for that?

What you do have is a handful of anecdotes, to put it in more honest terms.

What's fascinating to me is that the discussion of these anecdotes revolves around wanting to eliminate MAID rather than -- gosh, I don't know -- offering those necessary supports instead? The anecdote (in the article) about it being easier for "some people" to get MAID than to get a wheelchair makes for a great soundbite, but the people who quote it always seem more interested in eliminating MAID than in providing wheelchairs to those in need, for some odd reason.

[giraffe_lady]

Well see I've been part of this conversation longer than maid has been a thing. And it used to be "oh that won't happen, it'll only be for terminally ill people and with a high level of medical and psychological oversight." And so my position was that maid shouldn't become a thing until eg "providing wheelchairs" is fully accomplished.

And now here we are. Maid is a thing, and people are being encouraged to do it while not being provided the alternatives they are asking for. And the numbers for how many are totally illegible but also somehow too low for you to be concerned with.

My activism has long been more focused on getting people the care they need than opposing maid. But regardless people still don't always get the care they need and we have maid for them instead. We said it would be like this and it is like this.

[clipsy]

> And so my position was that maid shouldn't become a thing until eg "providing wheelchairs" is fully accomplished.

Without having actual data, this is nothing more than an excuse to eliminate MAID indefinitely pending an imaginary system in which no one slips through the cracks; in the meantime, you will force countless more to suffer months or years of needless agony on the off chance that one of them might be one of your anecdotes.

> And now here we are. Maid is a thing, and people are being encouraged to do it while not being provided the alternatives they are asking for. And the numbers for how many are totally illegible but also somehow too low for you to be concerned with.

The only "numbers" I get from anyone like you are a handful of anecdotes that add up to a tiny fraction of a percent of people who elect MAID, and a vanishingly small percent of people eligible for MAID. If you genuinely mean well, I want you to understand: you are being manipulated by people who will do nothing to help those in need, and on their behalf you are campaigning to immiserate thousands upon thousands every single year.

[johnnienaked]

Those handful of anecdotes are real human beings that experienced real things.

Can't make an omellette though, right?

[squigz]

> What we do have is the words of people saying they do not wish to die, but are taking MAID due to necessary supports not being offered instead. What percentage would you consider too high for that?

But these are separate issues, no?

I mean, if we don't have MAID, the existing failings of our healthcare system won't just go away; they won't just magically get the support they need. Instead, they'll die anyway, probably in a painful way.

Of course, for this discussion to be worth anything, we'd need more details. What does "support not being offered" mean, precisely? ..How many people is this actually happening to? And no, we can't just believe accounts posted on social media. And even if we did, are we going to get the other side of the story?