Any and all individuals within the medical industry that profit from this coming horror show deserve the wood chipper. Also I love how capitalism gave us fucking death panels, give it twenty years and we will have Futurama esque suicide booths.
Prior to MAID, I guess I agreed with the concept of a "right to die" in the abstract, but this implementation has been horrifying.
Hmm, surely these will be equally distributed and used, regardless of income or oppressed status. This definitely isn't eugenics with a smiley face sticker, nosireebob.
Making excuses for the lack of terror, etc, etx
I'm OK with this if we add the following stipulation: Every time a person with mental illness completes MAID, for the next 48 hours, it is legal for members of the public to physically assault current or former MPPs who have voted against expanded mental health care funding.
and against income assistance/disability rates and against fixing the housing crisis in any way, and...
If there is such an ideological emphasis on autonomy and freedom to choose etc etc then I dont really see an argument for why this should not eventually be pushed to suicide booth style freedom, aside from a societal pitying and looking down upon certain groups of people as inherently more suffering than others to a degree that their life does not have to be preserved.
Already there are multiple cases where the person seeking death has explicitly cited that is not their condition, but their condition in combination with abject poverty and state neglect leaving them with no access to simple relief, as the reason for death being preferable. Should someone who is homeless and therefore not in the same position to receive regular and sustained doctors visits, and therefore diagnosis, not have that right to autonomy to have their life ended by a physician? If you're facing losing your job and the prospect of ending up homeless seems realistic enough, should you be forced to endure the suffering and humiliation of being thrown out on the street first before you are given the "dignity" of dying?
I wrote this up as a modest proposal kind of thing but given how much propaganda there is that accuses the homeless of suffering from some sort of disease or condition that makes them truly "unable" to live a normal life or that they actually "want" to be homeless, it feels like maybe that part is a bit too close to probable.
I guess it makes sense to theoretically support MAID. Everyone should have a choice, and there are some conditions that just won’t get better. But it also seems abjectly wrong to support it in a capitalist country. How much of one’s pain could be lessened if there was a state set up to actually support its citizens? Would it be enough to be below the threshold of using MAID?
That's pretty much it, MAID is more or less allowing people suffering from capitalism and not being given resources that would allow them to continue living (literally just basic as housing and food). There are people in extreme pain due to medical conditions that are not treatable and even with palliative care does not promote true quality of life and the usage of Maid should be available, but this is sadly just allowing the state to perform eugenics without taking direct blame.
We had a "debate" in a nursing class about MAID, most of the people were on the side of pro-assisted suicide and cited stuff like "well, the only reason you would be against it is religious reasons so you should put that to the side when you go into work."
I and a few others have secular reasons to be skeptical of MAID. The reason it was brought in was because the old system of keeping bodies alive forever regardless of what the person inside it may have wanted was morally wrong and unconstitutional (it was previously illegal until 2016 to assist someone in suicide). There are definitely a few conditions that I would want MAID prior to becoming so weak or in pain that I would be stuck in bed until I died from aspiration or something horrible like that.
But it's current implementation is bad, there's been too many people who have taken MAID because they were poor and couldn't get supports from the government like adequate housing that meets their needs. And giving people with mental health illnesses MAID is giving my the same vibe - rather than providing support and funding they'd simply rather let you kill yourself in a totally abstracted and rationalized way (like foucaults transition from public torture to prison). I don't agree with it, but I also know why someone suffering from some permanenent illnesses may not choose to live while being unable to actually carry out the act.
I feel pretty bad about the whole thing. Meanwhile, I've had and seen patients who essentially chose MAID by just refusing everything until they died and that shit can be unjustifiable painful if they're really set on dieing.
It's honestly sad when you have sources like the fucking Epoch Times being the only one's to ask the question of "wait this is kinda fucked up right?" and everyone thinks it's a conspiracy theory. I'll have to look it up but if I remember correctly there's already been issues of MAID used in cases where people are legit just committing suicide because of poverty. You should call this out to your class that this is how medical professionals, the industry, and the state attempt to shirk their duties to patient quality of life and does not address socioeconomic determinants of health (or more accurately preys upon them).
We've already cleared at least two cases for MAID, not because the health issues made life unbearable for the individuals, but the poverty induced from the ongoing health issues. This shouldn't be surprising but I know damn well it's still going to gob smack me when someone sitting across the dinner table at a family function tries to rationalize it.
Stare them down and call it social murder, ask them if they would feel safe being a pensioner and having the choice of rotting or getting a lethal injection like some poor bastard on death row (tbh don't have to do it but at this moment I don't care about ripping into people trying to consent to murder by capital and the state and making dinner awkward).
That's where the gob smack sets in, because the ones that I'm picturing that are most likely to rationalize it are pensioners.
Honestly don't think we will ever get to that point before things go to shit due to climate change and diminishing energy returns. It'll be more children of men with state subsidized suicide kits for the poor so they don't riot or make a mess of things.
Mass human cloning won't happen on a planet with 8 billion people. There is no economic incentive and a human still has to carry the clone to term.
Canada isn't killing people. It's just aggressively creating situations where poor and sick people feel they have no choice except to submit to the government poor and sick people euthanasia program.
During my residence in England, at least twenty or thirty persons have died of simple starvation under the most revolting circumstances, and a jury has rarely been found possessed of the courage to speak the plain truth in the matter. Let the testimony of the witnesses be never so clear and unequivocal, the bourgeoisie, from which the jury is selected, always finds some backdoor through which to escape the frightful verdict, death from starvation. The bourgeoisie dare not speak the truth in these cases, for it would speak its own condemnation. But indirectly, far more than directly, many have died of starvation, where long-continued want of proper nourishment has called forth fatal illness, when it has produced such debility that causes which might otherwise have remained inoperative brought on severe illness and death. The English working-men call this ‘social murder’, and accuse our whole society of perpetrating this crime perpetually. Are they wrong?
True, it is only individuals who starve, but what security has the working-man that it may not be his turn tomorrow? Who assures him employment, who vouches for it that, if for any reason or no reason his lord and master discharges him tomorrow, he can struggle along with those dependent upon him, until he may find some one else ‘to give him bread’? Who guarantees that willingness to work shall suffice to obtain work, that uprightness, industry, thrift, and the rest of the virtues recommended by the bourgeoisie, are really his road to happiness?
No one. He knows that he has something today and that it does not depend upon himself whether he shall have something tomorrow. He knows that every breeze that blows, every whim of his employer, every bad turn of trade may hurl him back into the fierce whirlpool from which he has temporarily saved himself, and in which it is hard and often impossible to keep his head above water. He knows that, though he may have the means of living today, it is very uncertain whether he shall tomorrow
Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England
