[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Yeah, my understanding is that there was a progressive strand of the eugenics movement. I don't know if it was the only one - and obviously stuff like eugenics focused at "race purity" were not progressive. But there absolutely was a progressive movement to better society by attempting to remove bad and regressive traits in the population by scientific methods.

I'll also agree with BB that 1 in 15 deaths seem a bit high, though much depends on how many of those are "this person is in or will soon be in a vegatative state and/ or in massive untreatable pain with no hope for improvement, and they want to be eased along" versus what Beeb describes as:

... 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.

Though if there is a high proportion of MAID recipients who are at their wits end due to poverty and lack of financial aid to make their lives comfortable, the obvious answer would be to alleviate their poverty and provide the required financial aid to make death seem less appealing.

So the problem is we've just flung open the doors to MAID and we aren't really keeping stats.

The law though is clear - you do not need to "is in or will soon be in a vegatative state", nor do you have to be in "massive untreatable pain with no hope for improvement".  You do not need to be dieing.  You just need to have:

-a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability
-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

You can come up with all kinds of situations or illnesses that would therefore qualify - in particular when you open it up to mental illness.  I've already mentioned arthritis, or spinal injury, or serious depression.

But what about - someone missing a limb?  That's incurable and is an irreversible decline in capability.  Or a traumatic brain injury?  Kidney disease?  COPD?  Down syndrome?

Really, just about anyone with a permanent disability is eligible for MAID.

Or hell - I don't think it would qualify right now, but could it be extended to gender dysphoria or homosexuality?  What about inefertility?  If a woman was unable to have children - it's untreatable.  It's a decline in capability.  If the woman said her inability to have children caused her tremendous suffering, and options like adoption or surrogacy were not "conditions the person considers acceptable"...

[Jacob]

In principle I'm fine with the idea that anyone who wishes to die should have the right to end their own life.

My main concerns are people who are acting due to some form of depression or otherwise temporarily motivated, and situations where people are being pushed into it by third parties.

Both of those types of scenarios are complex and nuanced and will have significant context from individual cases, so I'm okay with approaching it cautiously.

[Barrister]

In principle I'm fine with the idea that anyone who wishes to die should have the right to end their own life.

So I mean that's a rational position one can take.  I strongly disagree, but I respect the opinion.

The real problem though is we have excellent literature that thoughts of suicide are very temporary, even if deeply felt in the moment.  90% of people who attempt suicide and survive will not die by suicide later on.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

It's one thing to allow MAID for someone with a terminal illness in inescapable pain.  But we allow MAID in many many more circumstances then that.

[Sheilbh]

In the Canadian context, I would answer with the laconic "if" and leave it at that. But you are not in Canada and so you will not be familiar with all of the efforts made in many provinces to remove zoning restrictions, and bylaw restrictions, which might inhibit the development of multifamily units to create more density, especially around transportation hubs.

The conservatives are counting on the fact that nobody in Canada actually understands that the whole gatekeeper theory doesn't make much sense at least in our context. But the conservatives have been using this as their slogan since PP was elected as leader, and so it'll be difficult for them to find something else that actually conform with reality.

If you would like to find out more about what is happening on the provincial level, you might want to do some research around what the BC government has been doing for the last two years.

Jacob and I have been talking about it fairly often in this thread and so if you don't want to Google you could simply review what has already been said in this thread multiple times.

That's fair, I'm not Canadian - but I do read what you and Jake say. Honestly

But I'm not really sure how it can be both that Poilievre's comments on supply side/gatekeepers is mad and also it is a real issue that provincial governments are already fixing.

From your article on British Columbia, all of these are supply side reforms/reforms that address gatekeeping:

The province's NDP government has set housing targets, and moved to require municipal governments to meet them. It has put in place measures to ensure major transit nodes become dense neighbourhoods, and created a series of preapproved home designs that builders can use to construct four-unit multiplexes with relative ease. And it has done away with time-consuming public hearings on building projects that conform with cities' official community plans.

I also feel like in the first thing I ever posted about Poilievre it was about British young centre-right think tanky types getting excited about him because of housing (a love affair that shows no sign of diminishing). It was about a number of policies that sound remarkably similar to that list. But, obviously, given his position leveraging Federal funding to encourage/coerce provincial and municipal governments to move on them.

From the outside, while I've no doubt there's specific Canadian issues, there is something in English speaking countries that means we've had a particular shortage of supply and a particular housing crisis. It's observable in Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, the UK and parts of America. And it seems like New Zealand government (I think under Ardern), British Labour Party, BC NDP and Federal Canadian Conservatives (and their young, disheartened British Tory fanbois) are all converging on the same diagnosis: that supply side/gatekeeping is a major part of the problem. Obviously the solutions will look a little different because of different ideologies and structures of government - but the analysis and solutions seem pretty similar to me.

In principle I'm fine with the idea that anyone who wishes to die should have the right to end their own life.

I basically agree in certain circumstances. But it's also the only issue where from everything I've read of other countries' experiences I think there is a real risk of a slippery slope. And in the UK given the feelings people have for the NHS I can see a real, real risk around people feeling like a burden.

I do also think if it isn't for the terminally ill there needs to be an awful lot of debate and consideration across society of how that interacts with disability and the rights of people with disabilities. I think there is a particular issue there.

[Barrister]

I basically agree in certain circumstances. But it's also the only issue where from everything I've read of other countries' experiences I think there is a real risk of a slippery slope. And in the UK given the feelings people have for the NHS I can see a real, real risk around people feeling like a burden.

I do also think if it isn't for the terminally ill there needs to be an awful lot of debate and consideration across society of how that interacts with disability and the rights of people with disabilities. I think there is a particular issue there.

Nobody is being killed in Canada against there will.

But there is a huge risk of "normalizing" euthanasia.  That doctors tell grandma "I'm sorry but you have early onset alzheimers.  So should we schedule you a MAID assessment?" kind of thing where people feel gently pressured that MAID is the expected thing to do.

I mean we already see that on the other end.  My sister-in-law was told her unborn twins had Down Syndrome, and the doctors immediately started talking about terminating the pregnancy.  Now, they certainly didn't try to force or coerce her to do so, but that was perhaps the first topic that came up.

There's a reason 80-90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.

[Barrister]

So on a different topic...

The CBC announced layoffs of some 600 jobs.  Now obviously I'm not a huge fan of the CBC, but I take no glee in people losing their jobs - in particular right before Christmas.

The CBC, to their credit, had their own President being interviewed on The National last night, and Adrienne Arsenault asked Catherine Tait if the layoffs meant that no bonus to be paid to senior executives.  Apparently $16 million in bonuses were paid last year.

Tait said "It's too early to say".

Responses on social media and by politicians has been harsh to say the least.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/cbc-prez-not-ruling-out-bonuses-after-announcing-layoffs-program-cuts

[viper37]

The revenue drop is almost entirely on the CBC side.
But the cuts affect SRC and CBC equally.
Go figure.

[Jacob]

So I mean that's a rational position one can take.  I strongly disagree, but I respect the opinion.

The real problem though is we have excellent literature that thoughts of suicide are very temporary, even if deeply felt in the moment.  90% of people who attempt suicide and survive will not die by suicide later on.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

It's one thing to allow MAID for someone with a terminal illness in inescapable pain.  But we allow MAID in many many more circumstances then that.

Yeah, absolutely - which is what I meant when I said "people who are acting due to some form of depression or otherwise temporarily motivated". If someone is suicidal, the first, second, or third responses is to work to help them through whatever crisis - long or short term - that's making them suicidal.

Not sure exactly how I'd draw the line and feel good about it.

[Grey Fox]

Sourcing my 6.8% figure.

https://csfv.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/docs/rapports_annuels/rapport_annuel_dactivites_2022-2023_resume.pdf

In French only.

5 211 personnes ont reçu l'AMM entre le 1er avril 2022 et le 31 mars 2023 (6,8 % des décès). C'est
une augmentation de 1 548 AMM (42 %) comparativement à l'année précédente.

[Grey Fox]

So on a different topic...

The CBC announced layoffs of some 600 jobs.  Now obviously I'm not a huge fan of the CBC, but I take no glee in people losing their jobs - in particular right before Christmas.

The CBC, to their credit, had their own President being interviewed on The National last night, and Adrienne Arsenault asked Catherine Tait if the layoffs meant that no bonus to be paid to senior executives.  Apparently $16 million in bonuses were paid last year.

Tait said "It's too early to say".

Responses on social media and by politicians has been harsh to say the least.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/cbc-prez-not-ruling-out-bonuses-after-announcing-layoffs-program-cuts

Why? In it's quest to be fair and equal it has given voice to right topics to its own detriment.

Also, almost no jobs will be lost before the spring.

[viper37]

My main concerns are people who are acting due to some form of depression or otherwise temporarily motivated, and situations where people are being pushed into it by third parties.

They wouldn't be legally allowed to do so.
It really requires a chronic disease.

So, yeah, theoritically, you could go to your doctor and say "I don't want to live anymore, please sign my form so I can receive medically assisted suicide".  The probability of that happening is very low.

Here are the Quebec requirements

These are the 3 core tenets that won't change:
-Suffer from a serious, incurable illness
-Be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
-Experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.

Depression is not incurable. Some other mental illnesses, yes, but then we enter the territory of "able consent".

[viper37]

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.

The way the law is framed, it's not that you can decide right now, because you have chronic asthma, that you can be legally euthanized at 40 years old.

These are the requirements for Quebec.

[Barrister]

The way the law is framed, it's not that you can decide right now, because you have chronic asthma, that you can be legally euthanized at 40 years old.

These are the requirements for Quebec.

OK so first of all the Quebec requirements are the same as the Canadian requirements.  That's because ordinarily killing someone would run afoul of the laws against murder, which is the criminal law, which is under federal jurisdiction.

So lets take your example - chronic asthma.

Requirement number one is you have to suffer from an incurable illness.  Asthma can not be cured, only treated.  And note that the "incurable illness" does not need to be fatal.

Requirement two is an "advanced state of irreversible decline in capability".  Well, asthma does come in various degrees.  But if you're someone who can not engage in any strenuous physical activity because of your asthma I think you would qualify.

Requirement three is "constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable".  Problem here is it's entirely subjective.  Someone who says "My inability to do any strenuous physical activity is unbearable to me.  There are medications available, but I don't like the side-effects".

I don't see how someone with serious chronic asthma, if they wanted it and said the right things, wouldn't qualify for MAID.

[crazy canuck]

And if any physician interpreted the requirements in such a silly way, they would certainly lose their licensure

[Barrister]

And if any physician interpreted the requirements in such a silly way, they would certainly lose their licensure

What makes you think physicians aren't already approving such requests?

Here's an example for you from AP: https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867

61 year old Alan Nichols was suffering from depression.  He wasn't granted MAID because of his depression (that's coming in 2024), but for hearing loss.  His family says Nichols wasn't taking medication and wasn't using his cochlear implant which would treat his hearing loss, but he was approved for MAID anyways.