I know that I might get downvoted for saying this, but I think the UN is right on this one. We should stop expanding this program.
The federal government has been considering expanding MAiD so that people with mental illness as their only underlying medical condition could qualify.
Am I the only one that thinks this is going too far? I thought it was generally considered a good thing that, if someone is suffering from suicide ideation, you talk them off the ledge. That’s why we have suicide prevention programs, suicide hotlines, etc. This seems like a reversal of this attitude. It’s saying, “oh, you’re depressed, and you want to kill yourself? Okay, let’s make that easier for you.” This is not healthcare.
We also need to consider how this impacts marginalized communities, like for example Inuit communities in Nunavut, where suicide is considered a crisis .
I watched a documentary about MAID in Canada and in a European country (where they allow MAID for depression) for a philosophy of law class. One of the people in the story was a young woman who was in the process of applying for MAID because she was suicidal. By the end of the documentary she had been approved but had chosen not to go through with it yet. She was keeping her approval in her back pocket while attending counselling as provided to her by the process.
She said having the approval made her feel a lot better, like she was back in control of her life.
I think it’s important to design a process like this where you can always back out, and you always retain control.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This thread has triggered a lot of emotions and devolved into nastiness in some parts so it was refreshing to read something well put together and measured like this
I do disagree with you a bit. MAID isn’t like a take-a-number system, I don’t think it would be aiding impulsive suicidal thoughts. There is a doctor involved who should be on the hook for how and why the call to permit MAID is handled. That’s not perfect though.
You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
By that logic I am deciding when an arbitrary number of people die by choosing not to kill them. I guess theres a sense in which thats technically correct, but it seems like its stretching the terminology a bit
My phrasing provides an accurate description of the situation. Perhaps you think it’s skimming over some nuance. But I’m phrasing it that way to draw attention to what kind of decision it is. I’m not sure if it’s a decision anyone should really be making outside of a wartime triage situation.
True, but enough do act upon it that it’s a big issue. When hope dies is when people die. The biggest problem is at provincial levels because they’re the ones who decide what mental healthcare is paid for … and right now it’s very little. Usually only psychiatrists, but not psychologists, social workers, or any other mental health specialists. Those are all out-of-pocket and it’s expensive. Nevermind remote regions who often don’t have any.
This is not on the feds because they don’t control healthcare. The provinces do, and when you’ve got provincial leaders who care more about giving away tax dollars to big business than caring for the people, dying by MAID becomes an easy solution to a provincial greed problem.
it seems to me that if were having trouble rolling out healthcare then we should focus on improving healthcare, not introducing MAiD. MAiD is not an alternative to proper mental healthcare, but I guess that’s what you’re saying?
Canada has always had a pathetic budget to fund biomedical research, because government assumed the US would pay the bills and we just buy the drugs.
Now, the US budget is zero, and we are paying hundreds of billions for drugs we should be making locally. This amplified under Trudeau and Carney, because CDN voters don’t care. Carbon tax was the priority.
If you were suicidal the day they go to do it then you’d be disqualified.
If someone is not suicidal the day they go to do it then they won’t go through with it. Why would you choose to die if you don’t want to die? I don’t understand this sentence.
I know that I might get downvoted for saying this, but I think the UN is right on this one. We should stop expanding this program.
Am I the only one that thinks this is going too far? I thought it was generally considered a good thing that, if someone is suffering from suicide ideation, you talk them off the ledge. That’s why we have suicide prevention programs, suicide hotlines, etc. This seems like a reversal of this attitude. It’s saying, “oh, you’re depressed, and you want to kill yourself? Okay, let’s make that easier for you.” This is not healthcare.
We also need to consider how this impacts marginalized communities, like for example Inuit communities in Nunavut, where suicide is considered a crisis .
I watched a documentary about MAID in Canada and in a European country (where they allow MAID for depression) for a philosophy of law class. One of the people in the story was a young woman who was in the process of applying for MAID because she was suicidal. By the end of the documentary she had been approved but had chosen not to go through with it yet. She was keeping her approval in her back pocket while attending counselling as provided to her by the process.
She said having the approval made her feel a lot better, like she was back in control of her life.
I think it’s important to design a process like this where you can always back out, and you always retain control.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This thread has triggered a lot of emotions and devolved into nastiness in some parts so it was refreshing to read something well put together and measured like this
I do disagree with you a bit. MAID isn’t like a take-a-number system, I don’t think it would be aiding impulsive suicidal thoughts. There is a doctor involved who should be on the hook for how and why the call to permit MAID is handled. That’s not perfect though.
It would be aiding with suicidal thoughts, even if those thoughts are not necessarily impulsive
That’s a good point, but I think it’s where I think you need someone with intimate knowledge of the situation to decide.
To decide if the person should live or die?
Denying someone MAID is also deciding if the person should live or die. You just don’t like the “or die” part of that decision.
You are correct. I don’t trust people to decide when other people should die.
You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
By that logic I am deciding when an arbitrary number of people die by choosing not to kill them. I guess theres a sense in which thats technically correct, but it seems like its stretching the terminology a bit
To decide whether their situation warrants MAID or not.
Yes, that is to decide who will live and who will die
Sure, go ahead and pretend there’s no nuance and phrase it that way.
My phrasing provides an accurate description of the situation. Perhaps you think it’s skimming over some nuance. But I’m phrasing it that way to draw attention to what kind of decision it is. I’m not sure if it’s a decision anyone should really be making outside of a wartime triage situation.
You talk them down as many times as you can but some people will still jump in front of that subway car and ruin a few people’s lives.
Some people will, yes, but not everyone with suicidal ideation necessarily acts on it.
True, but enough do act upon it that it’s a big issue. When hope dies is when people die. The biggest problem is at provincial levels because they’re the ones who decide what mental healthcare is paid for … and right now it’s very little. Usually only psychiatrists, but not psychologists, social workers, or any other mental health specialists. Those are all out-of-pocket and it’s expensive. Nevermind remote regions who often don’t have any.
This is not on the feds because they don’t control healthcare. The provinces do, and when you’ve got provincial leaders who care more about giving away tax dollars to big business than caring for the people, dying by MAID becomes an easy solution to a provincial greed problem.
it seems to me that if were having trouble rolling out healthcare then we should focus on improving healthcare, not introducing MAiD. MAiD is not an alternative to proper mental healthcare, but I guess that’s what you’re saying?
I didn’t justify the use of MAiD. I just explained why it’s being used by poor people.
Yeah. I actually think your comment was very insightful, thank you
Canada has always had a pathetic budget to fund biomedical research, because government assumed the US would pay the bills and we just buy the drugs.
Now, the US budget is zero, and we are paying hundreds of billions for drugs we should be making locally. This amplified under Trudeau and Carney, because CDN voters don’t care. Carbon tax was the priority.
More than likely depression isn’t the mental health condition this targets.
However you need the recommending and preforming doctor to sign off on it and be deemed able to consent the day of.
If you were suicidal the day they go to do it then you’d be disqualified.
It sucks for dementia patients because they can’t sign off “when my mind goes”. They have to do it before then.
If someone is not suicidal the day they go to do it then they won’t go through with it. Why would you choose to die if you don’t want to die? I don’t understand this sentence.
Dying on your own terms isn’t suicidal in the sense of mental illness/depression.
It is quite literally assisted suicide though
That is a massive over-simplification. MAID gives people the ability to die on their own terms.
It’s not an over-simplification that’s literally just what its called. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide