Canada euthanasia now accounts for nearly one in 20 deaths - eviltoast
Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths
www.bbc.com
For the first time, the annual report delved into race and ethnic data of those who underwent assisted dying.

Summary

Euthanasia accounted for 4.7% of deaths in Canada in 2023, with 15,300 people opting for assisted dying—a 16% increase, though slower than prior years.

Most recipients had terminal illnesses, primarily cancer, and 96% were white, sparking questions about disparities.

Quebec, at 37% of cases, remains Canada’s euthanasia hotspot.

Since legalizing assisted dying in 2016, Canada has expanded access, now covering chronic conditions and planning to include mental illnesses by 2027.

Critics, citing rapid growth and controversial cases, warn of insufficient safeguards, while proponents highlight strict eligibility criteria. Debate continues globally.

  • n2burns@lemmy.ca
    8·
    10 days ago
    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.

    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.”

    Second, as of right now, MAID for mental illness on it’s own is not available in Canada.

    The big thing you said, but kind of glossed over is, “doctors clear them”. 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.

    Obviously, this system isn’t perfect, but no system is perfect. Doctors do mess up and individuals can be influenced by their families/finances. I think these are all good reasons to be skeptical, but I also don’t think they’re reasons to completely prevent access.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      11·
      10 days 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.