[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Sorry one last time - on the "in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off" idea...

From 1929 to 1972 Alberta sterilized thousands of people under the authority of the Alberta Eugenics Board.  This was seen as a deeply progressive and positive step for society, supported by all the right people.  50+ years later it's seen as a horror show.

I'm not some hard core pro-life person, and I see a positive for medically assisted death.  But I just think that what we're doing in Canada goes way, way, way beyond what most people would think is acceptable or appropriate.  It's not just people suffering from terminal illness who are going to pass soon anyways and just want to avoid that last bit of pain and suffering...

[viper37]

I didn't expect to go off on MAID tonight.  But there have also been a few news stories of people who have long-term and permanent disabilities who have received MAID - but who have stated that it's more because they're just poor and can't receive the financial help they need - that if they had more money they wouldn't otherwise ask for MAID.

Here's just the first story I could find on the Google machine:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/10/13/medical-assistance-death-maid-canada/

I was coaxed into a conference on this the other day.

Dad's gf told me there was a neuro surgeon coming to town to discuss chronic, terminal ilnessess.  That applies to my dad... ins a way.

So I went.  And the first part was all about euthanisa.  The forms we should sign for no reanimation, the level of care we we want and that stuff about who can be killed.

Very boring.  Not what I expected at all.

He broached this subject, people terminally ill who didn't want to be a weight on their family.  And those who felt they were too poor to live sickly for so long with so much pain.

Let's face it:  we are not equal in front of the disease.  It will come for all of us, but our days can be made much easier if we are richer.

[viper37]

It's not just people suffering from terminal illness who are going to pass soon anyways and just want to avoid that last bit of pain and suffering...

Actually, it's mostly them.
The criterias have been enlarged to include:
- unbearable suffering with no hope of cure
- severe uncurable psychiatric disorder

But people still have to voice consent.  What is coming is that people who have bem diagnozed with early Alzheimer will be able to say  "when i reach this point, i want to be euthanized".

I'd say peope who suffer a lot and a tire of it should have a right to leave on their own terms.

Imagine the pain of a broken clavicle.  But constant and forever,  you require tons of drufs to function daily but can't work at all.

I might prefer death, at this point.  In any case, it should be a personal choice.

[Zoupa]

You get worked up about the weirdest topics Beeb...

I think safe, legal and rare should apply to MAID, but that's about it. The analogy with eugenics in AB doesn't really work, as one of the criteria for MAID is patient's own agency.

[Grey Fox]

Sorry one last time - on the "in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off" idea...

From 1929 to 1972 Alberta sterilized thousands of people under the authority of the Alberta Eugenics Board.  This was seen as a deeply progressive and positive step for society, supported by all the right people.  50+ years later it's seen as a horror show.

I'm not some hard core pro-life person, and I see a positive for medically assisted death.  But I just think that what we're doing in Canada goes way, way, way beyond what most people would think is acceptable or appropriate.  It's not just people suffering from terminal illness who are going to pass soon anyways and just want to avoid that last bit of pain and suffering...

 

Compelling point.


Also, I'm sorry.

[crazy canuck]

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

I think the opposite.

Do any of you guys know what the criteria are in Canada?  Terminal illness like in the US, or ready to go like in Switzerland?

So here are the criteria, right from the government of Canada website:

-be 18 years of age or older and have decision-making capacity
-be eligible for publicly funded health care services
-make a voluntary request that is not the result of external pressure
-give informed consent to receive MAID, meaning that the person has consented to receiving MAID after they have received all information needed to make this decision
-have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2024)
-be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
-have enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable

Please note how completely subjective all of these are.  You have to have a "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability".  Tell me - who over the age of, I dunno, 50, doesn't have some kind of incurable disability or illness.  Similarly someone who has "enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering" - but it explicitly states that is 100% subjective.

And what's worse is next year it applies to purely mental suffering as well.

So let's take my mother.  She's in her 70s.  She has arthritis.  Our health care system has put her on a 2 year pls waiting list for possible surgery.  But because it is an incurable disability, if she said that her suffering is intolerable they'd gladly kill her in a few months.

Or if you're in your 20s and you suffer from depression.  It's not something that it is curable, but it can be treated.  But all you have to do is say the treatment is intolerable and again, come next year, they'll gladly kill you.

There is so much wrong with this post. The fact that you think doctors will gladly kill anybody is offensive.

Also, you are conflating chronic diseases with incurable diseases.

[crazy canuck]

Sorry one last time - on the "in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off" idea...

From 1929 to 1972 Alberta sterilized thousands of people under the authority of the Alberta Eugenics Board.  This was seen as a deeply progressive and positive step for society, supported by all the right people.  50+ years later it's seen as a horror show.

I'm not some hard core pro-life person, and I see a positive for medically assisted death.  But I just think that what we're doing in Canada goes way, way, way beyond what most people would think is acceptable or appropriate.  It's not just people suffering from terminal illness who are going to pass soon anyways and just want to avoid that last bit of pain and suffering...

 

Compelling point.

Wait, BB claims that eugenics was a progressive policy?  Please tell me you were being deeply sarcastic.

[crazy canuck]

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

I think you're right. It's made me far more sceptical for similar in the UK especially around some of the cases that have attracted international attention around people with disabilities or lacking social capital or unable to access services. Which has always been my fear in the UK - there's lots of people who are still very much doctor knows best/don't want to cause any trouble that I think would be quite vulnerable.

On the housing thing - that video is exactly why young centre-right types here are very jealous of Poilievre as the right here has basically gone all in on NIMBYism/the old.

Wait, young centre right people in the UK are unable to understand that the current bit of inflation did not cause the run up in housing prices over the 10 years, or at least are willing to ignore the illogical arguments in order to achieve an ideological goal?

[Grey Fox]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I do not know if eugenics were ever seen has progressive. In this case I don't think it does matters what the perception was since the point is that things can change a lot in 50 years. Maybe MAID won't be seen positively in 50 years after we've finally fixed all the damages that Reaganomic did to our societies.

[crazy canuck]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I do not know if eugenics were ever seen has progressive. In this case I don't think it does matters what the perception was since the point is that things can change a lot in 50 years. Maybe MAID won't be seen positively in 50 years after we've finally fixed all the damages that Reaganomic did to our societies.

Do a little reading about eugenics then. At its core was a deeply racist view of the world.

I

[Grey Fox]

You posit an interesting question here. Is racism  always anti-progress?

  

[crazy canuck]

You posit an interesting question here. Is racism  always anti-progress?

  

Is progressive equated with progress?

[Grey Fox]

Yes, atleast to this francophone.

[Sheilbh]

He broached this subject, people terminally ill who didn't want to be a weight on their family.  And those who felt they were too poor to live sickly for so long with so much pain.

Let's face it:  we are not equal in front of the disease.  It will come for all of us, but our days can be made much easier if we are richer.

These are the two that concern me most. Especially because not all people feel equally able to raise concerns in a healthcare setting for whatever reason - having someone who can advocate for you is really important. I have an incurable medical condition that can be quite difficult but I'm middle class and bolshy enough to complain if necessary - not everyone is, it doesn't mean the care or additional options aren't available.

Not wanting to be a burden on their family - or on the nurses etc - is something I've heard a lot in my own family from people who can and have lived for 20-30 years, seen other grand-kids and great nephews and nieces etc inn that time. For the rest of the family - and the nurses - they're not a burden (but it's difficult to convince people of that). There are lots of people who feel and repeatedly say they are a burden, but aren't to the people who are "burdened". Especially because, as in Canada from my understanding, there weren't necessarily terminal disease involved but long term health problems.

Also I think it's fundamentally a problem that someone's economic status should matter - and I'm not comfortable entirely framing this around an individual's choice and ability to consent because I think that is compromised by their social and economic conditions. To be honest it sounds like a libertarian nightmare of "personal autonomy" from someone who's got a serious health condition but as, or perhaps more important, is not able to access the social support they need. Their personal autonomy and consent is, at least significantly, constructed our social choices - over the worth of the elderly and disabled especially, but also over social policy choices. I think it needs really careful handling to avoid becoming a more fatal version of, say, the way some Americans talk about employment contracts/choices as being a meaningful expression of an individual's wishes.

You posit an interesting question here. Is racism  always anti-progress?

  

Eugenics wasn't always primarily about racism - for example it was also on understandings of mental illness at the time. But also forced sterilisation wasn't always about eugenics - for example, there's numerous examples of forced sterilisation policies for population control especially in the developing world (India, Peru, Bangladesh).

A number of those policies have been supported for what were understood at the time as progressive goals and by people who would have perceived themselves as progressive. I think seeing it purely as an issue of racism is probably wrong. It's more that any policy will bend towards playing into the existing cleavages within a society. In a racist society that will be on the basis of race, in an unequal society economics will be a factor - in a society with castes it will disproportionately impact lower caste people. 

But also we are all shaped by the society we live in, including in our perspective of what is or isn't progressive. There are so many policies from the 20th century or 19th century which werer understood as progressive and in the context of their time were, but are deeply objectionable now - often profoundly paternalistic, controlling etc. I think racism is wrong and always is, but I think in the context of time you may well have forms of racism that are believed by progressives or associated with "progress". I don't want to wade too far into the waters in the other thread - but I think you see this in Islamophobia today.

There is no such thing as progress. I think it's a very teleogically driven and quite Christian idea of the world. I think we maybe do need a bit of a grand narrative and purpose in what we can do as a society. But I think framing things as progress or not is always nonsense because it implies there is a path, there is a future which you're either working towards or opposing. Which I think can mean we just end up reinforcing existing trends, but also it can act as a comfort blanket as it means we are at risk of not spotting the risks or contingency of our position at any moment.

Wait, young centre right people in the UK are unable to understand that the current bit of inflation did not cause the run up in housing prices over the 10 years, or at least are willing to ignore the illogical arguments in order to achieve an ideological goal?

Young centre-right think tanky types are thrilled to see a leader of a right wing party talk about housing and want to build more - and that it can work given the Canadian Conservatives polling with young people.

[crazy canuck]

But the crucial point is that the Canadian conservative party doesn't want to build housing. They want to remove what they call gatekeepers to allow the private sector to build housing.

But the private sector is doing very well, and has made a lot of money doing exactly what they're doing. It's not for lack of profit incentive. That houses aren't being built.