this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
240 points (98.8% liked)

News

23627 readers
2503 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kava@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application

What I find interesting is that nowadays we see eugenics in a bad light. Back then most progressive liberals endorsed it. But the Catholic church- condemned the idea of eugenics. It was seen as an affront to God's creation. Us artificially manipulating something that should not be manipulated.

I agree with your statement above. I don't trust our institutions. I believe people will fall through the cracks and will get killed unnecessarily. Suicide is a permanent thing that you can not undo. It's a similar reason I have misgivings about capital punishment.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Eugenics is completely different — in fact, it's the polar opposite of MAID. Conflating the two is like arguing that rape and sex are the same thing.

[–] kava@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not comparing eugenics with euthanasia. I'm comparing the perception of what "progressive" meant back then to right now.

The point I'm trying to make is that just because something is considered progressive today does not mean it won't be considered barbaric tomorrow. This is why I don't immediately support something just because it appears to have a veneer of idealism. I think it through carefully.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I’m not comparing eugenics with euthanasia. I’m comparing the perception of what “progressive” meant back then to right now.

... 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?

[–] kava@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

… by comparing eugenics and 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.

Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?

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.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

Then why bring it up? Why don't we discuss your favourite chicken soup recipe while we're at it?

it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink

"Groupthink" is to presume we'd have the right to deny them agency over their person. MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.

That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits.

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?

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy

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.

Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky

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

Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?

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

  1. 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?

  2. 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

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.