The United States has the highest healthcare administrative costs per capita compared with every other country in the world. Nobody can touch our hospital administrators when it comes to overcharging people. Nobody! But at least our system doesn't call assisted suicide for depressed people "health care"
P.S. "Every tariff requires an act of Congress" would be a good solution to our current, as well as any future, Trump problem
I believe tarrifs already do ^^ but you make up a BS emergency and not have to go thru congress
We went from discussing medical debt to a sanctimonious false equivalency involving MAID.
From a citizen of a country that still holds state sanctioned executions of the odd innocent person. And has removed the reproductive rights from women. Alrighty then.
Yeah, close the loopholeQuote:
Originally Posted by XXXer
Not a false equivalency because both involve perverse incentives. Advising people to choose death is not a good way to save taxpayer moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by BCMtnHound
Death is not incentivized under MAID. There is no discussion around the cost to the system or individual when the option of MAID is evaluated. It is a young program and there are still learnings and adjustments to be made, but it is vastly better than the alternative for the vast majority of those who elect the service.
My wife deals with this on the palliative long-term care and home health depts in our small community. I take offence that you would suggest she participates in a system that promotes the option of death to a client. For any reason, especially financial ones.
Generally speaking, palliative care is for terminally ill people. Like Canada, several U.S. states, permit assisted suicide for terminally ill people. Where Canada differs is allowing and also advising people who are not terminally ill to choose death. Since Canada broadened the category beyond terminally ill people the number deaths by euthanasia is increasing by about 15-to-30-percent annually and accounts for about one in tenty Canadian deaths.
So the claim is not that it is common, but instead that MAID is offered even for non-terminally ill patients who don’t ask about it on their own, even for patients suffering from mental illness and nothing else.
With universal HC there was no cost to my neighbor but he chose MAID cuz with stage 4 cancer he was in SO much pain and he knew he was gona die
Post above should read "one in twenty." And yeah restricting MAID only to terminally ill patients not, for example, offering and authorizing it to people with ADHD
Peter Navarro, who's always wrong about everything, wants to kick Canada out of the five eyes intelligence group.
I guess this means Canada doesn't have to participate in NORAD or the North Warning System anymore.
https://www.ft.com/content/2dfa3c11-...f-939b8d1cfb8e
Myths around the approval for MAID, the conditions that permit its consideration, and the financial implications of the program are well presented here:
https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advo...ths-and-facts/
The data on the MAID program looks pretty reasonable overall. Most are elderly, most have/had cancer. The ethical line gets a little blurry with mental health as the only comorbidity.
When I had cancer and was doing chemo, I literally fantasized quite explicitly about suicide on an almost daily basis. If I was in Canada, and didn't have a family to stay alive for, I kinda wonder if I wouldn't have just said fuck it an signed up.
Anyway, dying with dignity, for a lot of even not immediately fatal diagnoses, isn't unreasonable. Think degenerative progressive neurologic disease.
FWIW, an otherwise young healthy patient was presented with the option for assisted death which she chose to.take. Her parents sued. She did not present any medical grounds for why she wanted MAID and refused to rebut the medical evidence from her parents that her only medical condition was Autism and ADHD. The judge decided in the patient's favor on the grounds that two MD's had granted authorization:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/do...24abkb174.html
Canadian Courts decided "physicians acting in the regular course of providing medical care are not government agents" and that "their decision-making is not reviewable." In other words, there is no prohibition on providers raising the option of euthanasia even to include the cost of treatment:
"Astonishingly, a doctor has given one of the two signatures required for Landry to end his own life, despite knowing that financial hardship – not illness – is a leading reason for the profound decision."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...in-factor.html
So a doctor sees someone who's suicidal and is 100% convinced that they're gonna do it themselves. A second doctor confirms this. So they do it in a humane manner.
Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but that gets a bit of a shrug.
That's where you get into perverse incentives. When a person’s illness makes them a burden on society doctors or insurers might unconsciously offer financially or mentally vulnerable the option of suicide. These are human beings after all. They can rationalize the decision on humane grounds which risks it becoming a norm:
"During her hospital stay, a doctor said Lewis was a candidate for euthanasia and that if her mother chose not to pursue it, that would be “selfish,” Elson told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...lson-1.4218669
My uncle was one of the first in Canada to die under the program in 2016. He was terminal with lung cancer and probably waited longer than he should have. We supported his decision.
Isn’t the freedom to choose how or if we live our lives fundamental? Why should the state have a roll in that?
The question is not whether people should be forced to live a life of suffering. No one is being forced to live. The question is whether doctors should recommend death to people who aren't qualified to decide whether death is a good idea or for that matter automatically advising death as a recommendation even when other treatments are available
Tilting at windmills
"Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”
Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue."
https://apnews.com/article/covid-sci...d2b5cfd360a867
I mean, yeah. Of course they mentioned the possibility of assisted suicide to a guy with a degenerative brain disorder. Given that it's legal, why wouldn't they?
It's also noteworthy that all of these stories you're posting are, inherently, one sided. You've got a very sick patient who is faced with difficult choices, and unsurprisingly their reactions to some of these choices may be very negative. Similarly their reactions to the people telling them these choices may also be negative. And on the other side, you have a bunch of doctors who aren't going to talk through the decisions and their recommendations with the Daily Mail because of patient privacy laws. So the newspapers get a nice, one sided sensational story for people to fret about on the internet.
The initial source was a Canadian court ruling, not a media source. Simply repeating the basic moral case for euthanasia, which I already agree with, doesn't address any of the issues revolving around perverse incentives. In the post above, for example, the staffer was recorded specifically arguing hospital cost as reason for the patient choosing euthanasia
Your posts are akin to someone reacting to clickbait headlines and right wing pro healthcare business talking points and pretending that’s a substitute for the actual level of knowledge necessary to make these declarative statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Not true. Whereas your posts always involve personal attacks, and never address the actual issue. I would self-examine your response here for wagon-circling. Not every discussion has to take on a political component. If I were simply trolling or repeating headlines then I wouldn't have written a carefully sourced response
LOL. You guys are really going to get derailed with this?
I, for one, am content to not armchair quarterback doctors in a country that I don't even live in. Hell, I won't even armchair quarterback them if we annex said country.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk