TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,527
Before I start with this thread and article, I just want to put a brief disclaimer so that people understand where I am going with this thread.
Disclaimer: I support the current right to die policies as they are, and they are indeed a good benefit to those who do qualify for and can choose when to go (on their own terms). This pertains mainly to those who are terminally ill (especially with many death with dignity, assisted suicide policies and programs around the world, not just limited to DWD (Death With Dignity) programs and policies in the US).
Now with that disclaimer and established point, here is the main thread and gripe about it. While I am glad that such laws exist and also that there are more states, jurisdictions, or countries and places that are slowly implementing such regulations, the main problem is that it is only available for people who fit a narrow scope or set of criteria to be eligible for such services. That is really problematic because while it is nice and helpful for those who are on their way out (terminally ill, a prognosis of six months or less to live, of soundness of mind, getting green-light from the physicians, etc.) and would just have hastened their death (instead of dying weeks or months later (less than 6 months), they would go a bit sooner) instead of being available to those who would benefit from it more.
In Canada's MAID program, which has been available since 2015 due to a Supreme Court of Canada's decision (Carter v. Canada), it has been limited in scope, meaning only for the terminally ill (death within the foreseeable future), but later in March 2021, the foreseeable future requirement was changed to "those who are suffering from an grievous and irremediable medical condition (meaning those with chronic illnesses, severe illnesses that are lifelong, generally physically debilitating and severely impacting daily life and activities - ALS, quadriplegia, and other similar conditions)", which is a big improvement. However, the exclusion of those whose primary condition is "mental suffering (aka mental illnesses)" which was slated to be lifted and expanded to those who are solely suffering from mental conditions (treatment resistant depression and/or other conditions) has been continuously extended and put off year after year, twice already, in 2023 it was pushed to 2025, then in 2025, pushed to 2027. It wouldn't surprise me that it would be pushed off a third time coming 2027, or even indefinitely, which is de facto another restriction and gatekeeping . Overall, while Canada's MAID program is much more inclusive and broader in scope (not just for the terminally ill), many other right to die organizations, especially in the US (Death With Dignity) and in some countries are still way to narrow in scope.
The main gripe I have with existing DWD laws, and although I am glad that there is some more progress being made in more states legalizing DWD or having similar laws enacted (Illinois and New York), there is still so much more that should be done. First off, it is still very narrow in scope and by that, I mean the eligibility and practicality (feasibility) of patients and people who would seek out such services. They would of course have to be 'terminally ill' and with six months or less to live, be able to have physicians sign off and greenlight them to receive the prescription to end their own suffering, and various other criterion. Again, while it is helpful to relieve unnecessary suffering, especially for those who are suffering immensely by curtailing their suffering (if they are prognosed to die within 4-5 months, within the 6 months or less criteria), the people who can benefit the most from the right to die do not qualify or meet the eligibility criteria!
In conclusion, while I am glad that there are more places over time that are slowly introducing legislation and provisions for those who are suffering to be able to end their own suffering with dignity and respect on their own terms (or as peacefully as possible, minimizing the harms of DIY or even undignified and brutal exits), there is still so much left to be desired. The scope (eligibility criteria) for such policies must be expanded and while some countries are doing better, such as Canada's MAID, the people who would benefit the most don't really get the most out of the program and policies while those who seek to benefit the least get them, which is something that seriously needs to be improved upon.
Disclaimer: I support the current right to die policies as they are, and they are indeed a good benefit to those who do qualify for and can choose when to go (on their own terms). This pertains mainly to those who are terminally ill (especially with many death with dignity, assisted suicide policies and programs around the world, not just limited to DWD (Death With Dignity) programs and policies in the US).
Now with that disclaimer and established point, here is the main thread and gripe about it. While I am glad that such laws exist and also that there are more states, jurisdictions, or countries and places that are slowly implementing such regulations, the main problem is that it is only available for people who fit a narrow scope or set of criteria to be eligible for such services. That is really problematic because while it is nice and helpful for those who are on their way out (terminally ill, a prognosis of six months or less to live, of soundness of mind, getting green-light from the physicians, etc.) and would just have hastened their death (instead of dying weeks or months later (less than 6 months), they would go a bit sooner) instead of being available to those who would benefit from it more.
In Canada's MAID program, which has been available since 2015 due to a Supreme Court of Canada's decision (Carter v. Canada), it has been limited in scope, meaning only for the terminally ill (death within the foreseeable future), but later in March 2021, the foreseeable future requirement was changed to "those who are suffering from an grievous and irremediable medical condition (meaning those with chronic illnesses, severe illnesses that are lifelong, generally physically debilitating and severely impacting daily life and activities - ALS, quadriplegia, and other similar conditions)", which is a big improvement. However, the exclusion of those whose primary condition is "mental suffering (aka mental illnesses)" which was slated to be lifted and expanded to those who are solely suffering from mental conditions (treatment resistant depression and/or other conditions) has been continuously extended and put off year after year, twice already, in 2023 it was pushed to 2025, then in 2025, pushed to 2027. It wouldn't surprise me that it would be pushed off a third time coming 2027, or even indefinitely, which is de facto another restriction and gatekeeping . Overall, while Canada's MAID program is much more inclusive and broader in scope (not just for the terminally ill), many other right to die organizations, especially in the US (Death With Dignity) and in some countries are still way to narrow in scope.
The main gripe I have with existing DWD laws, and although I am glad that there is some more progress being made in more states legalizing DWD or having similar laws enacted (Illinois and New York), there is still so much more that should be done. First off, it is still very narrow in scope and by that, I mean the eligibility and practicality (feasibility) of patients and people who would seek out such services. They would of course have to be 'terminally ill' and with six months or less to live, be able to have physicians sign off and greenlight them to receive the prescription to end their own suffering, and various other criterion. Again, while it is helpful to relieve unnecessary suffering, especially for those who are suffering immensely by curtailing their suffering (if they are prognosed to die within 4-5 months, within the 6 months or less criteria), the people who can benefit the most from the right to die do not qualify or meet the eligibility criteria!
In conclusion, while I am glad that there are more places over time that are slowly introducing legislation and provisions for those who are suffering to be able to end their own suffering with dignity and respect on their own terms (or as peacefully as possible, minimizing the harms of DIY or even undignified and brutal exits), there is still so much left to be desired. The scope (eligibility criteria) for such policies must be expanded and while some countries are doing better, such as Canada's MAID, the people who would benefit the most don't really get the most out of the program and policies while those who seek to benefit the least get them, which is something that seriously needs to be improved upon.
