[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> Are you claiming MAID does not save money and decrease usage by ending expensive care earlier than it would otherwise be ended?

No, I'm saying it reduces suffering and it also saves money and resources. It's the first part that is the most important and where the political pressure came from. You seem to missing that point. That it reduces suffering and that people want suffering reduced!

End of life care is expensive regardless of whether it is publicly or privately funded. And in either cases there will be people in situations where extending life via medical means just isn't worth it because the extra time would just be an extension of torment. If private insurance was an option, then it would be the private company that would incentivized to get people to end life early. The private/public part is irrelevant to the discussion if you only look at it through a financial lens. Both ways would have the same incentive monetarily.

> You trust the government to do the right

In this case the right thing is to allow people to choose for themselves, and that it what's happening. I don't even know what you want instead, do you want MAID eliminated?

[johnnienaked]

The part you seem to be missing is that suffering isn't reduced and may increase if proper care isn't administered. Hopefully you can now see the confluence of both factors leading to the question whether MAID is to some degree replacing proper care.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> suffering isn't reduced and may increase if proper care isn't administered

Of course this is true. And if care isn't administered because of a choice by the person, then that's the end of the discussion. But, if its a lack of resources by the gov, then 100% these should be increased and I've already said I fully support that.

Is MAID replacing proper care? This could be a harder question to answer because what would your control group be. It would have to be one for which health care resources were available to them, AND, they also had a MAID-like option that normalized (i.e. not scandalous or considered morally 'wrong'). And then compare current uptake in Canada to see if there is a difference that could be attributed solely to a lack of health care resources being a driver, rather than just the existence of MAID as an alternative.

[johnnienaked]

MAID is replacing proper care to a non-zero degree, and the incentive exists to increase that number. Neither situation is morally ok in my opinion.