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.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    5·
    2 days ago

    Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.

    Then why bring it up? Why don’t we discuss your favourite chicken soup recipe while we’re at it?

    it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink

    “Groupthink” is to presume we’d have the right to deny them agency over their person. MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.

    That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits.

    Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky. What you have talked about at length is eugenics, despite your claim that eugenics are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?

    • kava@lemmy.world
      1·
      24 hours ago

      MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy

      shooting yourself in the head is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.

      an institutionalized system of euthanasia is something else entirely. you are requesting that the government/healthcare institution kill you.

      Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky

      i’ve written near a dozen comments about this at this point. i haven’t mentioned eugenics once except to make the comparison of the progressive appearance in the 1900s. you write yet don’t read

      Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?

      read any of my dozen comments where i discuss this with people who actually address the conversation instead of nitpick on some imaginary offense. my primary concerns are two fold

      1. a system of institutionalized killing is necessarily bound to our institutions. it does not take much imagination to come up with scenarios where there are perverse incentives for the people involved to encourage or coerce people into agreeing to being euthanized. ever heard “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”? it’s because everything is bound up in profit-seeking and exploitation. whatever we bring into our society will be infected by this. are you prepared for there to be private healthcare practices (aka private businesses) encouraging people to kill themselves for financial gain?

      2. this is an ideological shift from “treating life as sacred” to “treating life as expendable” and that will come with consequences down the road. i believe when we as a society stop viewing life as sacred this will inevitably have knock-off effects down the road that result in a lack of human dignity. everything we do this decade determines what we will do in the next decade. you destigmatize something now and you shift the bounds of acceptable conversation in the future. we are playing with fire here so I think it’s wise to tread carefully

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        2·
        23 hours ago

        All I’m hearing here are a whole bunch of reasons that you feel your opinion should override the will of other people. You should really take a step back and re-examine your biases.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          1·
          22 hours ago

          ok please enlighten me Freud. can you show me where I implied that my opinion should be law and what my biases are? besides the potential ones I mentioned such as potential religious indoctrination from growing up catholic and the fact that i may think differently should i be in that position. what other ones are impacting my thinking?

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            2·
            21 hours ago

            In a nutshell, you’re making it about you. Would you do the same for a woman who wants an abortion, pestering her with your unsolicited opinion? It’s none of your business, or mine, or anyone other than the person concerned.

            • kava@lemmy.world
              1·
              21 hours ago

              am i mistaken? are we on a website for discussion in a thread about the topic of conversation or are we in a hospice ward for terminal cancer patients?

              i haven’t made a single reply to someone unsolicited in this thread. again, you have nothing meaningful to say so you default to vague pearl clutching.

              i will absolutely speak about abortion to someone if the topic of conversation is abortion. i will tell someone how i feel- if it is solicited. i support abortion, personally. i spent a good hour arguing with some religious people at an anti-abortion booth on my campus when i was in college.