Canada euthanasia now accounts for nearly one in 20 deaths
kava @ kava @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 1,114Joined 2 yr. ago
kava @ kava @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
1,114
Joined
2 yr. ago
First off, using the word “execution” is pretty loaded. I just wanted to put that out there, especially because you’re, “not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong.”
well that's one of the things i take issue with. the ideological approach we take to this. we start using nice sound names and acronyms - euphemisms- and it can sort of hide what we are doing. the words we use matter. unrelated tangent- they've done a study in the US. you ask people whether or not they support a "death tax" and a majority will say of course not. you ask them whether they support an "inheritance tax" and all of a sudden support is flipped. do you see what I mean? the language matters.
and the fact that everyone that we are coming up with these acronyms like "MAID" (which is new to me, by the way. I've only ever heard doctor assisted suicide up until this point) i think shows that as a society we are trying to avoid some of the conversation about this. euphemisms disguise what we are really doing and they disguise what we really feel. this may be for good intentions (empathy or what have you) but road to hell is paved with good intentions
It’s not just on the individual who is making this decision, but health care professionals who use their professional opinion on the mental state of the individual. If a person is suicidal, generally a mental health care professional is involved.
and doctors in the past have cleared the compulsory sterilization of individuals in Canada (and many other places). i have immediate family members who are doctors. some of the beliefs they hold would offend many in this thread. just because they went through medical school and trained and have above average intelligence- does not mean they will necessarily be on the right side of history.
I think these are all good reasons to be skeptical, but I also don’t think they’re reasons to completely prevent access.
i understand this. someone is suffering in pain in a way that life is unlivable. they are terminal so they are going to die anyway. I would not be able to deny them death if they is what they wanted. I wouldn't. So I'm not even saying we shouldn't have this policy. I just think if we do implement it, it needs to be limited to those types of cases specifically. Once we start moving into people who aren't terminal and people who are suffering from mental health exclusively, I think we would have opened a box we can't close.
especially because you’re, “not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong.”
i'm honest to God just trying to look into this at a deeper level. I try to be civil, I try to be empathetic with those who have suffering loved ones (I have also had suffering loved ones, in fact I have some going through something right now). I'm amazed at the level of response I've gotten to my off-hand comment. I've never gotten a fraction of the response on any lemmy comment I've written before.
I fear we are not ready as a society for this. that this may open the door for horrific consequences further down the road.
my tip is just to greet people loudly with a smile. say good morning, talk about weather, whatever
i've found that most people will do as you say. just try and look away and go about their day. some people can even look mean with a face that is not inviting at all.
but if you say hi in a friendly way one day, they look at you surprised a mutter something back.
the next time you see them, they have a smile on their face and they greet you more warmly.
really this is the thing about human connection. someone has to bridge that gap. and it's not hard to do
It’s not like these perverse incentives don’t exist without MAID
sure but it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with some dystopian futures where human life is not treated with the sanctity that we are used to
i think maybe that's my key objection here. it uncorks this wine bottle that cannot be resealed. we are forever fundamentally changing our relationship with death and destigmatizing the act of snuffing out a life.
i think it's something most people have not really put much thought into the long term implications of this ideological shift
… 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.
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.
And what do companies have to do with it?
We live in capitalist countries. Anything and everything will have money involved. Even public healthcare involves money changing hands with private contractors and such. There is no way to get around this fact. And wherever money changes hands it creates the potential for perverse incentives that we are possibly opening the door wide open for.
What I am getting at is that the length of the life has very little to do with its quality.
I see what you're saying. I think if somebody cannot sustain life by themselves in a practical sense, then it's a different scenario. For example someone being born in the scenario you outlined would not live without intervention. However, we are talking about the inverse. A body that would otherwise survive (at least for the near future) and we are artificially ending it.
It feels wrong to me in both scenarios. A sort of symmetry in a way.
but if someone doesn’t want to live anymore, why is it anyone’s business but their own?
I think here I need to separate two groups of people. 1) somebody who has a terminal illness and is in pain. I think in these scenarios, I am more open to the idea. 2) people who are depressed or in some sort of chronic pain who otherwise could live a full life
In the 2nd scenario, I think that suicidal thoughts is a mental illness. It's not something healthy adjusted people think, even when they are in pain. By indulging in their desire, we are doing them a disservice. Like I brought up before, I made the analogy to addiction.
When someone is addicted, they make the conscious decision to use a drug. It's their body, it's their choice. They have the autonomy to do whatever they like- even if that choice is going to kill them. For example with fentanyl leading to an eventual overdose.
I think we, as a society, need to take care of these people. We need to provide them treatment and get them off the drugs. The solution isn't just to put them in a box and give them a ton of drugs so they can use until they die. To me, it feels like we're throwing away their human dignity in the name of individualism. We should take care of each other, not indulge each other's worst thoughts and actions.
This is what makes me feel wrong about this.
same as the logic behind thinking abortions are wrong
I don't consider a fetus a human life so I don't see it as wrong. I'm not even religious, I'd say I'm "culturally Christian" sort of like most Jews I've met are "culturally Jewish"
The way I view it- you're gonna be dead for the rest of eternity. Any amount of suffering you are going through now is temporary. You will eventually die.
Of course, I know it's easy to say that when you're not suffering in pain like your grandfather may be. So like I said, I'm not judging and I'm holding reservations on this until I've thought more about it.
Really, to be frank, I think people already have the option to kill themselves. They have always had that option. What I really disagree with is giving our institutions the ability to kill people. I don't trust our healthcare systems, I don't trust our government, and I don't trust all the middlemen in between. They could pressure people who don't need to do or they could rush judgements.
Typically, not friends. I'll greet them and make small talk.
I walk my dog multiple times a day at similar hours and other neighbors do as well. So I'll run into the same people regularly. We'll talk a little bit. Sometimes I'll talk a few minutes, sometimes it's just a greeting.
I have asked on two occasions in 3 years for a neighbor to take out the dog. So generally no, but it has happened
As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning
So let's imagine an individual. They go through a period of 1 or 2 years where they are in pain and suicidal. They go through all the checks and procedures that we put in place and doctors clear them for execution. They end up dead.
What if that individual were going through a slump of 2 years and afterwards they would have passed through that life phase and could have been happy and had a positive experience with life again.
How could we know? This is the issue I have. It's sort of like selling fentanyl to addicts. Yeah, it's their body their choice. Yeah, they know the risks of overdose. But they're addicted. They aren't necessarily acting rationally.
I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong. To be honest, I don't really know how I feel about this in general, I'm just laying out my thoughts.
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.
What does everyone here think about it? I know it's typically seen as progressive, although so was eugenics in the early 1900s.
My gut feeling tells me this is wrong. I can't judge someone for wanting to die while in pain and maybe I would think differently if it were me or my family member. But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.
Maybe it's just some built-in religious indoctrination from growing up Catholic, but I'm scared that this will eventually de-stigmatize suicide.
We call it "self-assisted euthanasia" but this is essentially legalizing companies to assist in suicides.
are you saying that those construction projects won’t get done
No, but it would both
a) slow down significantly
b) costs would rise significantly
The issue is it's hard to find laborers. Americans simply don't work as hard as immigrants. I've been doing this for about a decade now and that's one thing I've learned. You don't hire Americans to dig holes. They will work half as hard, complain 5 times as much, and leave as soon as they find something better.
But Pablo and Juan will work with a smile on their face, don't care about being nomads working from state to state without complaints, and they'll work Saturdays and even Sundays if you let them. You gotta basically force them to take days off.
Low-skill Americans prefer easy jobs like working at a cashier where they can stand around all day. That's what they're good for. Skilled Americans do office jobs, management, supervision, etc.
So let's say we get rid of all illegals. During a time where we already have a labor shortage, we would eliminate 10~15 million people from the economy that basically fuel key parts of our economy.
What would happen? An exacerbation of the labor shortage and inflation. Large construction companies would see their costs jump up. Productivity would lower. Which would mean less demand for construction materials. Which would lead to price instability - aka more inflation. Small businesses would be most effected.
That's just construction. We would see effects in many industries such as landscaping or agriculture as well.
I mean, this is they way the left makes it sound… as if, we DON’T support illegal immigration, our country is doomed… and it’s ridiculous.
First, I want you to remember being pro-illegal immigration is a right-wing capitalist policy. Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to all illegals. His economic advisor, Milton Friedman, advocated for open borders.
The reason being because immigration is essentially an extension of economic policy. The labor market is a market like any other. The more regulations you put, the worse it gets for business. Regulations include, for example, restricting the importing of labor or artificially removing labor from the population (aka mass deportations)
Second, I would like to remind you that Obama deported more people than Trump did.
This entire conversation has nothing to do with left versus right. Both parties are more or less in agreement on the general trends. There has been no significant immigration reform for decades, even though there have been multiple instances of GOP majorities and DNC majorities. Why?
Because of the reasons I outlined above. It's actually really beneficial to the economy for us to have an underclass of cheap labor that has less rights than everyone else. It's essentially a mini and voluntary slavery. Sort of like how Dubai imports Indians. Lots of pros, very little cons.
Thirdly and lastly, it's only been since 2016 or so that we have seen the anti-illegal and anti-immigrant rhetoric in general start increasing. You want to know why?
Because our society has been taken over by populists. Our country is in its death throes and vultures are already picking at the corpse.
This once free market economy that produced the strongest country in the world is being destroyed bit by bit. They want to restrict the market as much as possible. First, you put in tariffs restricting the free flow of goods. Then you artificially freeze the labor market.
The end goal? An economy designed for only the largest corporations who are allied with those in power. That is what we are becoming and they are accomplishing that by pulling the wool over your eyes.
I understand this phenomenon and it goes all the way back to Socrates. There's that famous quote.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
And he even used to complain about the new invention of writing. Said it would weaken people's memory because they wouldn't have to remember everything.
So I get it. I understand what you mean.
But I think this is different. Because let me posit this.
Cigarettes existed for a very long time, but it wasn't until the late 1800s that they started being produced en masse. Very quickly, the majority of the country was smoking and smoking a lot. Much more than before.
That eventually caused a dramatic increase in lung diseases because a lot more people were smoking. You could say "Tobacco has been around forever. Every generation has fads"
But in reality, it was different. It was a new thing. Cigarettes were hand-rolled before. Now you could buy a pack and smoke your 20 a day much more easily.
I think this is more similar to what we are seeing with social media today. I consciously make an effort not to judge the youth. And I'm not judging the youth. The social media "epidemic" does not only concern the youth, but all generations. Smartphones in general but modern social media specifically operate in manners we don't fully understand.
Look at the brains of gambling addicts. Your brain literally gets rewired when you play slots all day. Social media operates in a similar manner as slots. We are all rewiring our brains in a way that has never happened in human history.
It could cause permanent damage for all we know. We just haven't had the time or studies to confirm this. And if we look at research that exists right now, social media does increase rate of anxiety, depression, etc. It's not so simple.
There’s also obviously plenty of, for lack of a better word, entrepreneurs
Yeah, it's interesting.
Over the course of the last two decades or so, the government has slowly been enforcing the I9 verification process. Where employers have to get some information from you when they hire you. Social security number, driver's license, etc. This makes it so illegals shouldn't be able to work most jobs.
Of course, there are ways around it. I've worked for smaller sized publicly traded companies that simply look the other way. I knew a middle manager who was illegal and the company knew about it- but didn't really care. So they just cooked the books, so to speak, so the employee could continue working. I remember when he got deported. His wife wanted her niece from their home country to come visit and stay with them for a couple weeks. Girl was 16. Customs officer thought it was suspicious, started asking girl some questions. Officer did not like the responses.
So they waited at the airport with the girl until employee went to go pick up his wife's niece. Officer then questions employee, he doesn't have appropriate documents. 8 months later, after the standard deportation procedures (which involves going in front of an immigration judge, etc), he was deported.
Moral of the story? If you have to pick up someone from the airport and you're illegal.. find a friend with documents and send them instead. Safer
One way to get around as an illegal that seems to be very popular is just to start a company and work as a 1099 subcontractor.
So for example, you don't need documents to start a business. You start a business, apply for an EIN number with the IRS under that business. Then when you go work for some construction company, you don't work as an employee. You sign up as a 1099 contractor.
That way the company hiring you is not legally liable for anything - they are simply hiring a company to provide a service. They aren't hiring illegals to do work- whoever the contractor chooses to hire or not is not a concern of the host company. Uncle Sam gets his taxes and everybody is happy.
Vast swathes of the construction industry work using that system. I don't want to name names, but some very big-name companies would suffer quite a bit should we actually deport even a small % of illegals.
My main point is that the system is designed to keep undocumented immigrants in the “informal economy” by paying under the table
I understand the point you're making and I agree with you. It's designed to keep them in the shadows. Although keep in mind, it's not always under the table. Like I outlined above, a lot of it ends up being taxed and documented properly. I know illegals that get paid $2000 weekly salary, have a work truck assigned to them, and have their rent paid for. They do their yearly taxes and Uncle Sam doesn't care because he's making his cut.
There's a high demand for people that speak both English and Spanish and have both a) technical skills (aka can work spreadsheets, emails) and b) have construction experience. It's really hard to find these people and many of them tend to be illegals.
You want to really hurt illegals? Get rid of the ability to do what I just outlined. But then Uncle Sam would lose $$$. So that's what I'm curious what Trump is actually gonna do.
There absolutely are illegals being put in similar situations as Dubai does with the Indians. For example, the Chinese love doing this. They'll start a Chinese restaurant and then import Chinese to live and work there for pennies on the dollar. Other examples are Mexicans working in agricultural in the SW of the country.
But that certainly isn't the only way and in my experience isn't that common.
I've worked all over the rust belt / bible belt in a little over a dozen states doing large construction projects. At least for my industry, the vast majority of the laborers are illegals. They don't disappear after getting paid. I've worked with some regularly for over 5 years.
From what I've heard from people in California, your experience is not typical
Undocumented immigrants don’t “do the work legal citizens aren’t willing to do” or “work harder than legal citizens”. Those are both racist liberal talking points
majority of my life was spent as an illegal immigrant. i've been embedded in illegal immigrant communities my whole life. i've worked with many and have known many more
it's my experience that both of those statements are true.
a) they do work citizens aren't willing to do and b) they work harder
i can elaborate on why I believe those things are true, but absolutely if I'm looking for a laborer for specific types of work.. I will always avoid the native-born citizen.
whole ecosystem of fear is designed to keep immigrants working jobs below minimum wage and/or in appalling working conditions
believe it or not there are many illegals that make wages higher than what most americans make.
there's many types of illegal immigrants. there's not one size fits all to make generalizations. but the majority of them are similar to oil drill workers.
a working class male goes far away to a labor-intensive job that nobody wants to do. they do this because they can make a relatively large salary and then use that money to do something back at home.
so for example Mexicans will come and work in construction. They can make upwards of $300+ a day of work with experience. this is many times more than what they could reasonably expect in Mexico. but not only that, they're making more than many native born American citizens.
it's just lower skilled Americans tend to flock to low salary and low effort jobs like retail or food service.
We have never had machine learning algorithms that exploit human psychology to give precisely timed hits of dopamine. Algorithms that know you better than your family members do.
I think in the near future we're gonna be looking at the modern social medias similar to how we see smoking cigarettes today. Addictive and bad for you.
I wonder if he's gonna actually do it. An actual real concentrated effort to remove illegals would cause serious problems.
Inflation would spike, lots of industries would slow to a crawl, certain commercial areas would be essentially destroyed.
For example, in many different fields of construction the majority of the hard labor comes from illegals. Big companies hire contractors who then hire contractors who use illegals because they are much more productive than Americans and you can pay them less.
If we get rid of them, they would have to both dramatically increase their labor cost and the projects would slow down.
That would raise the price of doing business which is inevitably always passed down to the consumer. Then you have certain areas with ethnic markets and ethnic restaurants and such. Many of those would lose half or more of their business overnight.
This would be so disruptive it's hard to understate. And I know Trump knows this.
That's my burning curiousity right now. Is this whole thing similar to the Wall™ ? A symbol that isn't meant to accomplish anything meaningful beyond giving the droolers something to point to? Or is he serious?
If he's serious, we're about to begin a radical shift. He would not be doing this if he wasn't ready to radically change things.
now trump will use the killing to push a hardcore agenda of police and constant surveillance to make sure it won’t happen again
see, I think if Trump did it he's gonna go a different route
he's gonna harness the populist support for this killer and he's gonna go "we need universal healthcare because Americans are suffering"
and he will be seen as a hero and cement his dictatorship
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