- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Summary
Euthanasia accounted for 4.7% of deaths in Canada in 2023, with 15,300 people opting for assisted dying—a 16% increase, though slower than prior years.
Most recipients had terminal illnesses, primarily cancer, and 96% were white, sparking questions about disparities.
Quebec, at 37% of cases, remains Canada’s euthanasia hotspot.
Since legalizing assisted dying in 2016, Canada has expanded access, now covering chronic conditions and planning to include mental illnesses by 2027.
Critics, citing rapid growth and controversial cases, warn of insufficient safeguards, while proponents highlight strict eligibility criteria. Debate continues globally.
… by comparing eugenics and MAID. There are lots of things that were considered progressive back then (e.g. workers’ rights) that are still considered progressive today. Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?
Definition of compare: To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.
Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.
What we are comparing is the societal perception of eugenics in the early 1900s and the perception of euthanasia now.
To make the point that just because something seems progressive on its face doesn’t necessarily mean it will stand the test of time. It is an example. I think it’s a good example because of how relatively horrible eugenics seems today relative to how positively it was seen in the past. Perhaps you could find other examples, I’d be happy to hear them.
All I’m saying about euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever acronym you wanna give it- is that it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink. That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits. I think that’s what you actually have an issue with, not the feigned pearl clutching about some comparison.
Then why bring it up? Why don’t we discuss your favourite chicken soup recipe while we’re at it?
“Groupthink” is to presume we’d have the right to deny them agency over their person. MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.
Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky. What you have talked about at length is eugenics, despite your claim that eugenics are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?
shooting yourself in the head is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.
an institutionalized system of euthanasia is something else entirely. you are requesting that the government/healthcare institution kill you.
i’ve written near a dozen comments about this at this point. i haven’t mentioned eugenics once except to make the comparison of the progressive appearance in the 1900s. you write yet don’t read
read any of my dozen comments where i discuss this with people who actually address the conversation instead of nitpick on some imaginary offense. my primary concerns are two fold
a system of institutionalized killing is necessarily bound to our institutions. it does not take much imagination to come up with scenarios where there are perverse incentives for the people involved to encourage or coerce people into agreeing to being euthanized. ever heard “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”? it’s because everything is bound up in profit-seeking and exploitation. whatever we bring into our society will be infected by this. are you prepared for there to be private healthcare practices (aka private businesses) encouraging people to kill themselves for financial gain?
this is an ideological shift from “treating life as sacred” to “treating life as expendable” and that will come with consequences down the road. i believe when we as a society stop viewing life as sacred this will inevitably have knock-off effects down the road that result in a lack of human dignity. everything we do this decade determines what we will do in the next decade. you destigmatize something now and you shift the bounds of acceptable conversation in the future. we are playing with fire here so I think it’s wise to tread carefully
All I’m hearing here are a whole bunch of reasons that you feel your opinion should override the will of other people. You should really take a step back and re-examine your biases.
ok please enlighten me Freud. can you show me where I implied that my opinion should be law and what my biases are? besides the potential ones I mentioned such as potential religious indoctrination from growing up catholic and the fact that i may think differently should i be in that position. what other ones are impacting my thinking?
In a nutshell, you’re making it about you. Would you do the same for a woman who wants an abortion, pestering her with your unsolicited opinion? It’s none of your business, or mine, or anyone other than the person concerned.
am i mistaken? are we on a website for discussion in a thread about the topic of conversation or are we in a hospice ward for terminal cancer patients?
i haven’t made a single reply to someone unsolicited in this thread. again, you have nothing meaningful to say so you default to vague pearl clutching.
i will absolutely speak about abortion to someone if the topic of conversation is abortion. i will tell someone how i feel- if it is solicited. i support abortion, personally. i spent a good hour arguing with some religious people at an anti-abortion booth on my campus when i was in college.