If the value of patient autonomy is backed up by the value of democratic decision-making, where does that leave the value of preserving life at all costs?

Strange question to ask after exploring what MAID seeks to grant.

As always, Christians fail to understand the focus of autonomy of self is the point, not your control over others' behaviour.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because it's a humane thing to do.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You know what is also humane? Not putting people in a situation where they need to be euthanized.

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago

Yeah alright I'll just go nip out and cure cancer

Great idea

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Definitely. Let’s invest in healthcare so that fewer people have reasons to choose euthanasia

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The dislikes tell me all I need to know. They just want people to die (=

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think the dislikes are more likely related to your comment implying a false dichotomy between two ideas that can easily coexist: that we need better healthcare for better health outcomes, and that we need assisted death as a humane approach to end of life care when palliative options are insufficient for a dignified and worthwhile existence.

Might not have been your intention but it does come across a bit disingenuous.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Preserving life at all costs isn't an admirable goal. Demanding a life spent miserable and in pain be lived to it's natural end is not ethical, it's selfish.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They are killing people for not being able to afford basic healthcare, using money they could have spent treating them instead.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago

This statement is all sorts of wrong.

Nobody is being euthanized due to a lack of "basic" health care. There are a small subset of people with significant health challenges that are choosing to die instead of wait for the advanced care they require which can often take years depending on how specialized it is and complicating factors. The vast majority of people who opt for this have terminal or untreatable conditions, only a small number of people choose it when care is actually possible but just delayed.

In the US, those people could get care if they were wealthy. Unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans they aren't wealthy enough to pay for advanced specialized care, and the US poor don't even have the option to wait for it, they just get to suffer or die directly.

At least our system gives everyone a chance.

Also the costs involved in medical assistance in dying are orders of magnitude smaller than the cost of the care these people need. It's a handful of doctors visits and a pill/injection to die, versus needing multiple visits with specialists, followed by surgery (or sometimes multiple surgeries), massive drug regimens, all followed with physio and other rehabilitation.

Would I like these people to always have the care they need right away? Sure.

Am I willing to significantly increase my taxes just to provide a stupid amount of medical care to everyone? No

There have to be reasonable limits to healthcare spending or we could spend every single tax dollar on more healthcare and still not be able to provide every single procedure to everyone with no wait. There are wealthy people who spend millions of dollars a year on their healthcare, and that's just not realistic to give to provide to everyone.