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.
Very wrong for government to get involved with that part of life. I recall hearing a story about something similar from the UK, where two sons ended up “rescuing” their mother from an end-of-life home where she was not given the very basic care that would have actually solved her health problems, because dying was seen as a medically viable option. Eugenics was also very popular in the mid 1900s, but was abandoned not because it was a bad idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application.
You do understand how your example is different though, right?
By “end-of-life” home I’m assuming you mean hospice, which is absolutely not the same as medical assistance in dying (MAiD). I don’t know the story, however, hospices exist in many countries. Hospices do not provide “very basic [medical] care” - they are there to manage pain, manage symptoms to an extent, and provide a comfortable space for that person to die. If the family did not agree that their family member should have been in hospice they needed to seek a second opinion. Hospices are not there to cure someone’s medical condition. If you go into one it is because you are imminently dying.
The mistake of the medical staff in putting this person in hospice is not the same as someone who is of sound mind, learns that they have a terminal disease, and chooses for themselves to go through the medical assistance in dying process.
MAiD is a process with multiple checks and balances with multiple levels of oversight. You are able to opt out at any time prior to the final event.
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.
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.
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.
… 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.