this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026

79 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

11530 readers

360 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Canada sidesteps UN scrutiny over assisted dying (breachmedia.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've known two people who used MAID to end their lives. Both had terminal illnesses that were heading towards protracted, painful, debilitating ends. They used MAID ro end their lives on their terms and because they didn't want to live through that or to put their families through it.

To me, their access to MAID absolutely provided more humane, dignified, caring treatment than they would have had in being forced to live through what they were facing.

Their cases were pretty clear cut imo, but I understand there are much less clear cut circumstances and situations where concerns over mental health and necessity of MAID vs alternatives requires much more challenging judgment. It's not straightforward and clear cut in all circumstances. You never want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on either side of this issue, be it needlessly enforcing suffering or needlessly ending a life.

What that indicates to me is MAID is a good thing to have, but we just really need to invest in quality research and policy development, and that includes research and investment into ensuring the system of administration is well-designed and well-maintained in accordance with the research and humane ethics. As long as we keep doing that, we're taking the right approach to do the best we can.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We put our animals to sleep to save them from suffering. Gramma tho? She gotta be a vegetable for a few years before she can get some relief.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think it's fair to draw this comparison on either end as this concerns relationships that are extremely contextualized and subject to change (human to nonhuman animal and human to human.) What constitutes suffering is highly debatable, we're not dealing with faulty RAM sticks that make the execution of operations unreliable.

The impossibility of creating clear and objective frameworks/rationality based decision-making has been a tool time and time again for repression. It starts with putting grandma out of what we or anyone who is not grandma considers to be her misery, then we go on to NICU children in dire or uncertain circumstances or individuals who can't communicate or contribute to society, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

cmd+f "Gnadentod"

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get what you are saying here. What is dignity, can it be quantified and codified in law? We are talking extreme cases here, and the process is vast and comprehensive. We needn't be afraid of our mortality, and if someone "chooses" to go, or if it's time for our loved ones to pass on because continuing is no longer worth it? How does that impact us?

Yes, it could lead to more acceptance for assisted dying, but only in cases where it is merited, and why is that a bad thing. I feel your opinion comes from a place like America, where a panel of insurance adjusters makes your medical decisions for you. In the actual free world where we have healthcare the mandates for treatment come from the physicians and the advice from medical professionals. It is far from perfect, but it is the best recommended care.

And to most of us, animals are not lesser creatures and the bonds can be just as strong. We hold onto these people for ourselves, not for them. And heck, if they are adamant about continuing the fight, maid won't be an option for them. I wouldn't put my cat or dog down until the fight was out of them or the pain and discomfort was too great.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong, I am not against people choosing on their own accord to go. Even if I think there are caveats with that because I don't consider people to ever be able to completely grasp their decisions and make decisions autonomously. We're after all limited creatures. I suppose in cases of extreme disease assisted suicide non the less represents a rational personal choice.

What keeps me from supporting an institution such as MAiD is how economic pressures can greatly affect the question of who dies and who dies when. If a person has the resources to pass in a comfortable environment, like a nice home in a calm part of town, they will consider assisted suicide much later in their trajectory than the person who has hardly any next of kin and no financial resources to install, say, the necessary aids at home. The former individual does not spend their last days in a stressful hospital environment. Of all examples I could give this is probably in the category of least extreme. As long as this contradictory aspect exists MAiD and everything like it will fail to live up to promises. Off the top of my dome I'm not able to name any regions where this would not be the case, even Sweden or Switzerland have dirt-poor strata that would be negatively affected.

In the actual free world where we have healthcare the mandates for treatment come from the physicians and the advice from medical professionals. It is far from perfect, but it is the best recommended care.

I would carefully disagree here. Would freedom not mean that the recipient of medical care gets to ultimately decide? Considering the state of the world, free world is a contradiction in adjectives. Especially here. I know this is a pedantic ask with it's scope, but I'm trying to nudge you away from a certain centrisms.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Well, until you solve affluenza, they are already getting better care at their leisure while those who have less resources and support are already languishing. This is always going to be the case. If you can convince people to actually fund and support the necessary care measures and support networks, I'm all for it.

I try to avoid isms, they are not good for you.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that's putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn't compute.