It's the Spectator, but .. this is still a real risk of assisted-suicide schemes. It's very difficult to make sure that the person isn't being coerced, or that nobody else stands to benefit from their suicide. Which, if someone is a particularly difficult patient, there usually <i>is</i> several people or organizations that stand to benefit from it.<p>This was the argument that moved me from "in favour" to "don't know" on the subject.
euthanasia in Italy is currently illegal, but you can work around it by killing yourself. Federico Carboni (previously known with the code name "Mario") "technically" killed himself using a drug and a special machine that costed 5k eu. A ruling of the constitutional court allowed this procedure to be supervised by a doctor and the money for the drug to be collected by an association helping the pro-euthanasia choice.<p>Now; with this loophole, is euthanasia to be considered legal?<p>The cost of the drug/machine, which albeit not impossibly high, is still perceived to be a high barrier to entry, in a country where healthcare is a right.<p>But if the cost issue is solved; would that mean that now the state is "euthanising the poor"?
The article reads like it is written by someone who does not agree with euthanasia to begin with, and who is trying to use classism as a tactic to quash it.<p>While it is interesting to think about how intractible problems for the poor can be minor issues to the rich, and how that affects one's decision to be euthanized, ultimately, it isn't the right to choose to die that should be taken away.<p>There are real cases where euthanasia is a compassionate choice. Outlawing it just forces people to suffer needlessly.<p>The authors appeal that the government is a uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor misses (or misrepresents) the point. The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it?
Let me point out specifically what's wrong.<p>>Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies.<p>They use the word FORCED here.<p>Actual article:<p>Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death after failed bid to get better housing<p>She CHOSE.<p>Here's the thing. Reading the article.<p>She's the first person in the world to be diagnosed with a disease, so this is almost certainly completely untrue. She's not a fan of cigarette smoke, who is? She's in government housing and smells cigarette smoke. She really wanted to get away from that cigarette smell.<p>So the article is written with a rather hyperbole originally and then the spectator comes along and go much further which makes them fake news.
The article is confused. Is it advocating against laws allowing medically-assisted suicide, or is it just pandering for sympathy to gain eyeballs for ad conversions? It jumbles together federal legislation with provincial budgeting as if they're the same thing, and uses terminology like 'exchequer' familiar only to colonizers .<p>It's sad that some poors have chosen to off themselves for reasons that speakers of RP look down their nose at. I guess we all have a burden to make sure their kind is free from choice. Thank goodness the green and pleasant land has no council flats.
The tyranny of the local maxima. Maybe society should expend more energy to help you get off your local maxima and onto a new higher local maxima rather than facilitating your demise.
The nazis used to call this "Gnadentod"<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4</a>
The stories within this are awful, but why does anyone imagine things are better when euthanasia isn't an option? People in other countries also get left in care homes, sitting in faeces for days. Some wait weeks or months for suitable pain relief and other palliative care.<p>We should absolutely be looking to fix the underlying issues, but euthanasia isn't working against them, it's another treatment to minimise suffering. When your choices are inappropriate suffering or inappropriate death, why is one better than the other?<p>That's well before you consider —and I mean really consider, working with— what it is to rot away with a neurodegenerative disease. Giving people an out at an appropriate time by an appropriate mechanism <i>has to</i> be better than losing yourself.<p>But no, that doesn't sell the Spectator. "SOCIALISM KILLS THE POOR" seems much more their tone.
This is the fourth time this article with a poor, inflammatory headline has been submitted within the last five months:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31227925" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31227925</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31216770" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31216770</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31453449" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31453449</a><p>I'm not familiar with The Spectator but other than the title, this article contains the text "A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia" linking to an article with the title "Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death".<p>That seems not only misleading to me, but pure lie.
Yeah but my feelings.<p>My feelings override everything in this article.<p>My feelings.<p>Could you imagine being in this position? Could you?<p>It's all about the goal here - peace and no pain.<p>Nope, not about the system. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.<p>/s