[Article] Why the comparison of MAID and disability funding is disingenuous!

[TAW122]

This was a topic that I wanted to explore a bit for a while, and while last year, I had a thread about a similar topic and also constructed a truth table analysis of a society having the right to die and having tolerable options, this one is slightly different. The comment reply by the user u/Nimelennar summarizes what this truth table means:

"I think that's orthogonal to the question, though. Obviously, a world where people have the resources they need to survive is better, but let's look at this as a problem with four quadrants.

If funding to disabled people is cut, and there's no MAID, then they have to endure homelessness and suffering because they can't support themselves. [Scenario A]

If funding to disabled people is cut, and MAID exists, then they can end that struggle on their own terms.
[Scenario B]

If funding to disabled people is expanded, so that they can live comfortably (or, at least, without unendurable suffering) with their disabilities, and there's no MAID, then they wouldn't cost to use it if it were there, but the people who have unendurable suffering that can't be relieved with financial and medical support are forced to continue living through that suffering. [Scenario C]

If funding to disabled people is expanded, and MAID exists, then the situation is the same for disabled people who can ensure their suffering as if it didn't exist, but the people for whom MAID is intended can use it.
[Scenario D]

In both scenarios, with disability funding and without, the one where MAID exists is the preferable one; people who can't endure their suffering have a way out. Having MAID only looks worse when you compare MAID without disability funding to no-MAID with such funding. And that's not a fair comparison."

Anyways, just as a visual representation of what the user said, I've constructed a truth table showing what the user meant by this:

	Allowing MAID​	More disability funding​	Result​
Scenario A​	Yes​	Yes​	Best Case Scenario​
Scenario B​	Yes​	No​	Allows escape​
Scenario C​	No​	Yes​	No escape​
Scenario D​	No​	No​	Very Unacceptable​

Truth table illustrating the four scenarios presented by u/nimelennar.​

Anyways, so back onto the point that I'm making is that either way, the comparison of MAID with disability funding is at best, disingenuous because they both can coexist and ideally, having MAID as well as adequate funding and support for the disabled is the best case scenario. Even in the event that it is not possible, just simply allowing MAID provides those who find their situation intolerable to have a way out.

"A prison becomes a home if you have the key." -George Sterling

Also as EG (existentialgoof) said in one of his comments, is that taking away the right to die for those who have been failed by the system/State/government, just simply traps them into sentience without having a way out and forces one to endure whatever sentience or failings of the government has. Which is essentially keeping people hostage to life itself and with no (reasonable, peaceful) way out.

"What about denying people those basic necessities AND denying them the right to end their lives as well? Why is that morally superior to at least giving them the right to opt out of that? Taking away the option of death just takes away the option of death. It doesn't change what the alternatives to death are, just ensures that there's no way out, and that they will be obligated to stay around and endure it, no matter how bad it gets." -existentialgoof

Therefore, when people don't have this option means that people are forced to endure whatever sentience has to throw at them and are not given a choice in whether to leave or not, be it several months, years, or their entire lifetime. Even assuming (which is unlikely given how things are in the world) that there is adequate funding for the disabled and disadvantaged, it is still presumptuous to presume that simply allowing the best supports would mean that everyone will like it or that the vast majority will (in fact, such a claim would be considered "confirmation bias" because most experts don't really count those who disagree or still find sentience intolerable despite having all the support and such). Furthermore, the stigmatizing, dehumanizing, and patronizing label (clinically depressed) that "mental health professionals" like to put onto those that don't enjoy sentience despite one's circumstances is not doing any favors either and is nothing more than a way to silence and handwave away one's plight with one's circumstances! It is insidious such that it insinuates that one who doesn't enjoy life due to their circumstances (physical, neurological, and/or psychological impairments) is because their mind is defective and that they are the problem. The gaslighting is what is tyrannical about these so called "professionals" (and by extension, an appeal to authority as their claims oftenly cannot be challenged, falsifiable, or even be questioned, other than by their own – which we know are rather subjective values that are reflective of societal norms rather than objective scientific facts!)

A good quote by C.S. Lewis summarizes such tyranny up very well:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.
This very kindness stings with intolerable insult.
To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

In many countries and jurisdictions around the world (barring a few), there is no MAID nor sufficient disability funding, and thus many people who are unfortunate citizens living in such societies and countries are forced to endure suffering without relief, without reprieve, and some of them resort to risky, barbaric means to CTB. The consequence of not having MAID and also not having life to be tolerable enough leads some to go DIY, which of course, comes with many grave risks and collateral damage, and thus is unacceptable. Many pro-lifers can complain and vent all about the collateral damage, trauma, and inconvenience that those who are desperate end up doing especially via DIY risky means, but they fail to acknowledge the cause of these risky DIY CTBs by various people are due to the draconian, paternalistic, tyrannical CTB prevention efforts that the State and the people impose onto all beings while failing to provide MAID to everyone. They can't have it both ways, they cannot forbid a program that allows people to exit suffering that one deems intolerable, yet limit the ways that one can achieve a reliable, peaceful, and dignified exit, then be upset at the impact when desperate people take matters into their own hands to alleviate one's own suffering (with various results)! Though that is another topic for another thread.

In conclusion, the most ideal situation would be to have MAID available for all (including expanded criteria), and also adequate support for those who wish to or would otherwise continue living to have, that would be the winning scenario, but of course we know in reality that is unlikely to (ever) happen! Then, the next best thing would be to have MAID because at least one would have a way out (even with a waiting period and finalizing everything to ensure that are 100% sure) if they ever find life intolerable, that is the least society, the State, and one's peers can do, respecting one's ultimate bodily autonomy and having a way out. The worst case scenarios would be not having enough funding and support for all people who wish to live, yet life itself not made tolerable enough for those who hate, and forced to endure whatever hardship that comes their way, and the absolute worst would be having neither of them. Of course though, regardless of whether there is more funding and/or support for disability and social services, MAID should ALWAYS be available as a way out for all people who find life intolerable. There would be checks and balances, safeguards (including waiting periods and careful evaluation such that people won't be pressured or inappropriately be offered MAID under duress or through bad actors) to ensure that people who do want it will get it and to minimize any foul play or bad actors misusing the system to get rid of people unwilling to die.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Disabled opponents think they're going to be carted off to the gas chamber if one disabled person makes a decision for themselves that is solely a reflection of their life.

 

[TAW122]

Disabled opponents think they're going to be carted off to the gas chamber if one disabled person makes a decision for themselves that is solely a reflection of their life.

And yes, this is why many DRAs (Disability Rights Advocates/Activists) keep railing against any reasonable policy that will respect the bodily autonomy of those who truly wish to exit (preferably peacefully and with dignity) and instead stir up fear by claiming that it may be abused and that all disabled people are incapable of rational choices (which is an blasphemous insinuation of their decision making capacity!).

Anyways, bumping this topic since I think it has reached a narrow audience and maybe some people can chime in here. @Forever Sleep @FuneralCry @pthnrdnojvsc

 

[FuneralCry]

That view that people cannot think rationally really is so insensitive and disgusting, there really is no valid reason to deny people the option of MAID, in fact having that option would be comforting and relieving. I hate how people like that think that just because they want to delay their inevitable fate that means everyone else should have to, the right to die is a human right and it's none of their business if others wish to make the personal decision to die on their own terms.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's a tricky subect really. Sadly- I don't think the world where both schemes are funded exists. ie. assisted suicide and adequate social support. So- yes, I think it's possible people will choose suicide over a life in poverty- it's already happening in fact...

Man's euthanasia allowed despite citing POVERTY as key in his decision

A Canadian pensioner seeking euthanasia because he fears homelessness has approval from a doctor despite admitting poverty is a factor in the decision to end his own life.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

It's not to say you're wrong. People live's aren't going to be happy if they have to live in poverty and there will always be the argument- well- it was their choice.

I just have a very cynical world view I suppose. I think- allowing assisted suicide for all won't exactly inspire governments to then sink lots of money into no doubt costly welfare schemes. Don't you think they'd rather the sick, homeless and criminal just kill themselves? What incentive will there be if there's a cheaper alternative?

That's not to say I disagree with assisted suicide being available to all. It's just- I can understand the arguments against it considering how callous this world actually is.

So- to play devil's advocate- how should we as a society respond to the following: A person who claims they want to live but they will use the service to avoid becoming homeless. What then? Do we kill them off or, pander to their needs? What if there isn't the money? Is it ok to kill someone because they aren't 'useful' to society?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Man's euthanasia allowed despite citing POVERTY as key in his decision

A Canadian pensioner seeking euthanasia because he fears homelessness has approval from a doctor despite admitting poverty is a factor in the decision to end his own life.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Slightly unrelated, but it turns out he's an alleged kidnapper. Also, his application to MAID was denied.

Medicine Hat Senior MAID Application Denied - Bridge City News - November 1, 2024

A Medicine Hat senior who applied for MAID, also known as medical assistance in dying has had his application denied. Sixty-five year old Les Landry who

bridgecitynews.ca

That man is something...

I also tried to go through some of the sources in that article, which just led to other dailymail articles that also happen to source other dailymail articles. A lot said "sources" were also incredibly biased didn't offer much nuance when it came to the discussion of MAID.

While I do agree that more safeguards should be put in place in order to protect disabled people and that nobody should be running to MAID because of poverty, it's very important to note that a lot of news outlets are very pro-life and are generally very biased against MAID. There is a lot of sensationalism surrounding the idea that "the Canadian government is committing genocide against disabled people" despite that not being the case. I feel like too much of the discussion on MAID is either about how scary and horrifying it is or about it being great, albeit to a lesser extent. I rarely ever hear others actually discuss it in a proper manner. It's really starting to become annoying.

Anyway, I mostly just made this post because I thought the whole kidnapping thing was wild and very unexpected.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Slightly unrelated, but it turns out he's an alleged kidnapper. Also, his application to MAID was denied.

Medicine Hat Senior MAID Application Denied - Bridge City News - November 1, 2024

A Medicine Hat senior who applied for MAID, also known as medical assistance in dying has had his application denied. Sixty-five year old Les Landry who

bridgecitynews.ca

That man is something...

I also tried to go through some of the sources in that article, which just led to other dailymail articles that also happen to source other dailymail articles. A lot said "sources" were also incredibly biased didn't offer much nuance when it came to the discussion of MAID.

While I do agree that more safeguards should be put in place in order to protect disabled people and that nobody should be running to MAID because of poverty, it's very important to note that a lot of news outlets are very pro-life and are generally very biased against MAID. There is a lot of sensationalism surrounding the idea that "the Canadian government is committing genocide against disabled people" despite that not being the case. I feel like too much of the discussion on MAID is either about how scary and horrifying it is or about it being great, albeit to a lesser extent. I rarely ever hear others actually discuss it in a proper manner. It's really starting to become annoying.

Anyway, I mostly just made this post because I thought the whole kidnapping thing was wild and very unexpected.

Hmm, interesting. To be honest, I was very slap dash about this and did a quick Google search without properly looking into it. I do recall someone posting the other day about someone being accepted (or maybe considered) for MAID despite making it clear that they wanted to live- just not as poor and homeless. Who knows? May have been the same guy!

You're right though- the kidnapping charge was a surprise. Plus- very fair point. The Daily Mail is quite right wing I believe- who are probably against assisted suicide in general. So yeah- I expect they are going to sensationalise.

I suppose just in general terms, I just don't trust our governments not to take the cheapest option. Or, the one that best benefits them and their mates. Still, you don't exactly have to introduce assisted suicide in order to cut back on services. You can just do it and watch people go homeless.

 

[TAW122]

That view that people cannot think rationally really is so insensitive and disgusting, there really is no valid reason to deny people the option of MAID, in fact having that option would be comforting and relieving. I hate how people like that think that just because they want to delay their inevitable fate that means everyone else should have to, the right to die is a human right and it's none of their business if others wish to make the personal decision to die on their own terms.

Yeah exactly, and many DRAs are so deluded and stubborn that they refuse to consider any alternative perspective that isn't anti-MAID or anti-choice. It too, frustrates and infuriates me such that DRAs and many pro-lifers won't respect bodily autonomy and rather hide behind euphemisms such as safety and benevolent paternalism for one's own good. I view our current struggle with regards to the right to die as a conflict rather than even an open dialogue (because we couldn't even have open dialogues without moral busybodies trying to censor, misrepresent, or even bully us into silence!).

I think it's a tricky subect really. Sadly- I don't think the world where both schemes are funded exists. ie. assisted suicide and adequate social support. So- yes, I think it's possible people will choose suicide over a life in poverty- it's already happening in fact...

Man's euthanasia allowed despite citing POVERTY as key in his decision

A Canadian pensioner seeking euthanasia because he fears homelessness has approval from a doctor despite admitting poverty is a factor in the decision to end his own life.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

It's not to say you're wrong. People live's aren't going to be happy if they have to live in poverty and there will always be the argument- well- it was their choice.

I just have a very cynical world view I suppose. I think- allowing assisted suicide for all won't exactly inspire governments to then sink lots of money into no doubt costly welfare schemes. Don't you think they'd rather the sick, homeless and criminal just kill themselves? What incentive will there be if there's a cheaper alternative?

That's not to say I disagree with assisted suicide being available to all. It's just- I can understand the arguments against it considering how callous this world actually is.

So- to play devil's advocate- how should we as a society respond to the following: A person who claims they want to live but they will use the service to avoid becoming homeless. What then? Do we kill them off or, pander to their needs? What if there isn't the money? Is it ok to kill someone because they aren't 'useful' to society?

Yes in our current world, we unfortunately don't have both things, where funding is available and unfettered access to MAID being available. I agree with you that poverty will lead to suffering and misery, there is no contest on that claim. I think to address your point about the gov't not having incentive to provide the support (due to the hassle and cost) to keep the sick, homeless, and criminal (actual convicts) lives a bit more tolerable, I would say that even in the current situation, we aren't doing a good job of providing the support for those who want to live, but at least having MAID available means that those who don't want to live through it won't be trapped in an existence that they don't want until the bitter end (natural causes or other non-voluntary cause of death). Though that could be in another topic altogether (or in an older thread where I addressed the argument in detail). Finally, to address the last part of your post, I would still opt for pandering to their needs since that would respect their right to live while not infringing on others' right to die (or to live). If there isn't money to be had, maybe the "pro-lifers" could start their own volunteer efforts to organize some other welfare for the homeless and/or build their supports that way. Also, in a cynical sense, I would say that the efforts that pro-lifers spend to harass, attack, infringe, and/or otherwise make our (us pro-choicers') lives difficult or intolerable, could be better spent helping those who want to live but don't have the resources and money to do so! Instead of spending all the copious amounts of money of CTB prevention, forced treatment, incarceration of those who are a danger ONLY to themselves, that could easily be spent helping the "would be" homeless to better their lives and help them to live instead! Ethically, I wouldn't agree with the gov't to just euthanize people who aren't 'useful' to society because that gets into the territory of pro-mortalism and also it's involuntary euthanasia, which is just wrong and antithetical towards the pro-choice values.

Slightly unrelated, but it turns out he's an alleged kidnapper. Also, his application to MAID was denied.

Medicine Hat Senior MAID Application Denied - Bridge City News - November 1, 2024

A Medicine Hat senior who applied for MAID, also known as medical assistance in dying has had his application denied. Sixty-five year old Les Landry who

bridgecitynews.ca

That man is something...

I also tried to go through some of the sources in that article, which just led to other dailymail articles that also happen to source other dailymail articles. A lot said "sources" were also incredibly biased didn't offer much nuance when it came to the discussion of MAID.

While I do agree that more safeguards should be put in place in order to protect disabled people and that nobody should be running to MAID because of poverty, it's very important to note that a lot of news outlets are very pro-life and are generally very biased against MAID. There is a lot of sensationalism surrounding the idea that "the Canadian government is committing genocide against disabled people" despite that not being the case. I feel like too much of the discussion on MAID is either about how scary and horrifying it is or about it being great, albeit to a lesser extent. I rarely ever hear others actually discuss it in a proper manner. It's really starting to become annoying.

Anyway, I mostly just made this post because I thought the whole kidnapping thing was wild and very unexpected.

It's surprising to hear about how the convict's MAID application is denied (I guess there are limitations) and perhaps we don't know all the details, but I recall that MAID has many, many criterion to be met before a candidate is even given a green light. It is also oftenly an arduous and lengthy process, contrary to how people (and the media) otherwise claim. I also do think that just offering MAID to the homeless as the ONLY solution is wrong for sure, and I do believe that pro-lifers should spend more of their efforts helping the people who WANT TO BE HELPED, rather than just blanket ban on MAID, anti-choice, and forced suffering onto everyone (including those who don't enjoy life for their own reasons - not related to poverty or illness). I agree that many of the news articles tend to be more prejudiced towards pro-life values and agenda rather than trying to report on the topic from an non-biased, objective view. Furthermore, many other anti-MAID, anti-choice, and pro-lifers are also approaching things in an bad faith manner, either dismissing and/or oversimplifying the problem, or just outright denial of any other perspective that opposes or would otherwise challenge their view.

I suppose just in general terms, I just don't trust our governments not to take the cheapest option. Or, the one that best benefits them and their mates. Still, you don't exactly have to introduce assisted suicide in order to cut back on services. You can just do it and watch people go homeless.

This is a valid concern, yes. However, I do believe that once again, having a society that doesn't have MAID and also doesn't provide a tolerable life for all, is just a disaster that we are experiencing (in present day even). At least with a society that has MAID, it would allow people who don't want to live to exit peacefully and without risky DIY means that not only result in a brutal death, mess for others, and/or failure with permanent damage and suffering. So if the government isn't willing to support or increase funding for those in poverty, but allows MAID (in the scenario I described), then at least pro-lifers should focus their efforts on those who want to live (the would be homeless, sick, and disabled) and support them instead of blanket forcing ALL people into continued sentience.