Here's the real depressing part of Assisted Suicide; It is being approved for patients that cannot afford to live because Government Disability payments are too low.
Most media outlets have policies on not publicizing suicides, so there are countless suicides that were committed for economic reasons that we'll never know about.
I knew of someone through someone else that ended up committing suicide in a public place. Couldn't afford to live in a dignified way, and left countless notes explaining why they did what they did. All of them were scrubbed from the internet, and if you didn't know of them you would have never known it happened at all.
The women linked to has a disorder, and couldn't get the money to live in a place without "chemicals" that would resolve her symptoms. One of the problems with getting the government to pay for you to live in a nicer place due to this disorder is that there is very little evidence this disorder is caused by the chemicals and a good amount of evidence the disorder is a psychiatric one.
I never said it made the symptoms or suffering less real. But it does explain why insurance (governmental or private) might be reluctant to pay for non-psychiatric interventions.
For instance if you believed that some people could read your thoughts unless you wore a lead helmet you might expect insurance to pay for anti-psychotics, but not necessarily a lead helmet.
Is this the right approach the right one I'm not sure, but I understand why large organizations are reluctant to treat psychiatric diseases that way.
For a counter example search for hair dryer incident on this blog post.
The inevitable bonus in treating people badly to save money is they are now pushed to suicide so the government gets to save even more money. Plus there is no-one left to complain about it once they are gone.
I worry that it’ll become an easy solution to many difficult problems. Take the psychologizing of ME/CFS and Long Covid for example, how many of those people are going to be corralled into this.
>What a piece of work. She was using threatening of death as a blackmail. I don't feel bad that someone who blackmailed others in this way had their card called.
Wait, are you saying your glad someone with a mental illness who wasn't getting the help they needed (to the point they felt that they needed to end their life) is somehow a good and just thing..... it wasn't like she threatened a spouse or individual, the government of an industrialized western nation wasn't providing proper care.....
>>What a piece of work. She was using threatening of death as a blackmail. I don't feel bad that someone who blackmailed others in this way had their card called.
>Wait, are you saying your glad someone with a mental illness who wasn't getting the help they needed (to the point they felt that they needed to end their life) is somehow a good and just thing..... it wasn't like she threatened a spouse or individual, the government of an industrialized western nation wasn't providing proper care.....
No but saying "do what I say or else I lay the emotional burden of my death upon you" is absolutely despicable and should not be encouraged.
That's a narrow view, using suicide as a mechanism of political change has a pretty substantial history. It turns out extremely marginalized people don't have any leverage except the media coverage that comes as a result of their deaths.
It's rich comparing a Canadian woman who is handed literally everything except some extremely individualized demands on disability with apparently no need to work at all to "extremely marginalized" Chinese slave labor working 72+ hours a week in smog-filled cities where living labor-free in your own apartment next to someone smoking a cigarette sounds like a clean-room paradise. I would say being able to not work, have physician services, housing, and food provided to you in a first world nation all on the back of the public puts you squarely on one of the most privileged people on earth, one of the last place recipients in the oppression/marginalized Olympics if you will. And to go further and say "Give me more free shit or I off myself" puts it almost into the drop-dead-laughing realm of absurdity.
And I might add blackmailing someone is a bit different than killing yourself purely in response to something. For instance, I consider the immolation of the monks to be different in the regard that they usually aren't sending letters "do what I say or I kill myself" but rather "I am killing myself in response to this injustice." One is blackmail, the other is not.
Heh, anything but allowing them to help themselves.
But Canada is way ahead here compared to most countries. Simply on account of cannabis laws. It ain't much though, still better than half of Europe (likely not the half you're thinking of lol).
If you have mental problems and are desperate (and/or have nothing to lose), do yourself a favour and look into illegal drugs.
I hope people don’t downvote your comment.
I seriously contemplated suicide in the past multiple times, following an ocd diagnosis and a severe depression episode, and the one time I was closer to it I decided that I might as well try self medication with drugs. Better escaping reality with drugs than be dead, right?
Of course, it is a dangerous strategy and a recipe for addiction, but as you said, if you have nothing else to loose, it might be an option.
Fast forward 6 months, I don’t have any suicidal thoughts anymore, I got a job that I’m capable of keeping, and I recently started therapy since now I have a job to pay for it. I’m pretty cautious about my drug supplier, I’ve got two very close friends that monitor me to look for (physical) addiction red flags, and I try to be as safe as possible during consumption. Yes, I psychologically need drugs to function, but at least I function, and I’m not dead, and I consider that an achievement.
If anyone reading is contemplating the same solution, please do your own research and ALWAYS test your drugs.
P.s.: as a general rule, I suggest avoiding opioids.
Yes, I've started using illegal, what many consider "heavy" drugs just this year and it is changing the absolute trainwreck of a life I've had.
I only regret putting it off for so long because y'know, drugs are bad mmmkay.
I'll say that managing addiction is pretty hard, I seem to be able to do it even after falling into binges a couple of times (which is really dangerous).
I cannot stress enough that you need to have personal responsibility and really understand it.
But, when your only other option seems to be suicide (which I failed at, too), why not.
You are equating two very different groups here. The guidelines around assisted suicide are extremely strict, this is not futurama "suicide booth".
Being overly holistic about life is disrespecting the right of these people to dignity. We are talking about people with a progressing disease that cannot be cured and that would be forced to spend several months in extreme suffering just because "suicide is bad".
This woman was in her fifties, and took her life with governmental involvement because her housing wouldn't restrict the use of strong cleaners and prevent her neighbors from smoking cigarettes. This is a massively different thing, and some of the professionals involved in the assisted suicide took great issue with the circumstances here.
There is certainly a discussion that ought to be had around the circumstances of this (tragic) case.
I agree this isn't directly equivalent to someone jumping from a bridge.
You also said "The guidelines around assisted suicide are extremely strict", and the specifics of this case are contentious enough that we're having some serious discussion around it.
I think continued debate here is healthy in a compassionate society that wants assisted suicide policies that are appropriate and not overly applied. I can't say if that's the case here (I just don't know enough), but this comes very close to ringing some alarm bells.
The concurrent medical situation where teens in the US/UK/CA have been prescribed puberty blockers and hormones with almost 0 oversight or evaluation makes me pretty unable to trust "strict medical guidelines" on irreversible procedures.
A difference that is worth considering here is that assisted suicide has requirements (meetings with clinicians, approvals, waiting periods, etc.) whereas non-medically-assisted suicide attempts do not have such requirements.
It's reasonable to assume that, at least in some cases, those that would regret their decision would not be approved for assisted suicide or would otherwise be dissuaded.
I hate to say "survivorship bias" in such a context, but I do think it applies. Those who are committed to the success of their attempt are likely more sure of their decision.
These two things are different, most suicide is impulsive - this has a waiting period. So to the people who want to kill themselves because their partner broke up with them, etc, have some time to cool off - though this isnt really for those cases and they are still likely to jump and/or take their family down with them.
And is it always regret or maybe shame that is hard to tell the difference or say aloud? I dont regret my attempt 20+ years ago, but it made me feel so much worse about myself for a long time because I could not handle the shame of not even being able to do that one thing right.
I am now an advocate for a humane way to end one’s life, I was lucky in that I did not maim or disable myself like other people who fail in their attempt. This should be open to anyone, because there are people who are just done or just dont want to be here.
I still dont want to be here and I have done the self love/growth introspective work, have friends, hobbies and live comfortably by western standards. Each year has just strengthen my resolve to be able to end my life on my terms and in a humane way and in the country I love. The thought of failure a second time w/ possible disability/disfigurement is not something I want, or cant, add on to being here - as strange as it sounds, it would destroy me like the first failure almost did. I strongly hope to be able to do it in my own country but I have a timeline and, if I am still around at that time, I have not ruled out being a “suicide tourist” even though I would really prefer to go out in a world that wasn’t obsessed with controlling other peoples bodily autonomy
Yeah, but I'd still stack our politics over the politics of most other countries any day of the week. Every country has some weird stuff. Canada is relatively boring on this front, in my opinion.
Example: One of our biggest controversies of the past few years involved our PM going on a vacation to an island[1]. That's about it. His family was invited to be guests on a private island, and we haven't stopped complaining about it ever since, because surely there's no explanation other than absolute and total corruption. I'm only being slightly cheeky about this. Like I said... boring.
Huh, you forgot the time when the PM decided to call on the emergency act to get rid of the trucker protest in the capital. Which was annoying for the residents I concede, but was 99.99999% peaceful.
The prime minister has been caught many times giving out federal money to entities close to him and his family.
That story above resulted in 50 million being given out to island friends.
Just recently they gave out 1 billion for a student job program that didn't create those jobs. This foundation wecharity was paying 300,000 in speaking fees to Trudeau's wife, mother.. finance minister and other party friends.
Not to mention the conflict of interest with his family own family owning vaccine companies and his anti-science approach to pushing vaccines.
Nevermind the multiple times he proudly wore blackface, brownface when he was younger.
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of that. But if you're going to say Canadian politics are weird (which is the actual point I was addressing), you need to look at it in context of the other nations.
I stand by my contention that we're boring and not-weird compared to what I see every day in the U.S., the U.K., most of Europe, Russia and the former soviet states, China (!), most of Asia, the middle East, South America... I mean I struggle to think of too many countries with politics less weird and more boring than Canada. The closest that comes to mind might be Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands... the nordic countries I suppose. I'd joke that it must be the cold that does it, but then we would have all of Russian history (and present news) to contend with.
The thing that my wife finds most confusing (she is from the USA), we don't elect(directly) our Prime Minister. We elect the party, and the party chooses the leader.
'Vote of no Confidence' is also a fun thing to look up.
The person with the most power in the country is the Governor General. (appointed not elected)
Commonwealth countries aside, every country with a constitution newer than 1790 looked at the US system and said "mmmmmm patch this, patch that, let's not do that"
The presence of a President has nothing to do with its similarity to the US system or any other country's Prime Minister. Whether in title or as head of state.
There are many more nuances.
What choices does that title or office have when presented with a bill from the legislative body? Pass or veto? All or nothing? Can they have it immediately reviewed by the constitutional court or does it require passage and subsequent enforcement against a citizen who needs resources and luck for the constitutional court to look at it while being masqueraded as an adequate check and balance? Is the constitutional court simultaneously an appellate court? Should it be?
All important differences that most constitutions have iterated upon and evolved on.
I feel that is strictly true, but not necessarily practically true.
It is exactly in the same vein that the Queen Elizabeth may hold the most power (over Canada as well, in fact), but things have to go sideways 7 ways to Sunday for that to be relevant, and my feeling is it's largely a one-shot gun: if they were to exercise their vested power in a relevant way, it'd likely be the last time they got the opportunity.
>"The person with the most power in the country is the Governor General. (appointed not elected) "
I believe that the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II is the one with the most power, and that the Governor General represents her majesty, and acts on Her behalf. This has been a matter of some contention, with a previous Governor General making a big fuss about protocols.
Just to be clear: Elizabeth is (to us) Queen of Canada, and other (lesser) possessions where she also holds titles :)
Since the patriation of our constitution in 1982, the PM’s office has been the central power officially, deriving the office’s power from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Queen and her apparatus are figureheads without real power.
From Wikipedia (which seems to be concise and accurate): "executive authority remains vested in the Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to the government on behalf of the people."
Well, yes and no: it would be an extraordinary event indeed were the crown or its representative, the GG, to defy the “advice” of the government.
For example, the last time that happened ([1]), the laws of ALL commonwealth countries were effectively changed to grant them greater autonomy and sovereignty through the Balfour Declaration and The Statutes of Westminster, which more clearly articulated that the government’s “advice” to the Crown is to be acted upon, not merely taken into consideration.
Were the GG or The Crown to attempt to wield executive power contrary to or outside that advice, the result would in all likelihood be an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, which would, in all likelihood, side with the government, and not with the GG/Crown.
As it is, having executive power rest with the GG/Crown means that there is continuity in executive power, even during elections (the current PM and other ministers remain in their posts until they resign; they resign just before their replacements are sworn in).
Effectively, the USA does not either. Parties are free to choose who to run any way they want if I recall correctly, and then when it comes down to voting, you are really only directing the electoral college who to pick. It's sorta halfway.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...
The profound shame of this isn't shared by elected officials.