Because nobody's made that case.
Making a case requires evidence. Not handwaving and appeals to movie plots.
> We already have stories of Canada asking Veterans to join "MAID" instead of getting a wheelchair...
As long as we're trading conspiracy theories, the person who reported that was paid off by the right wing to make MAID seem horrible, and therefore something that should be ended, and my conspiracy theory has a lot more going for it than yours does.
> Making a case requires evidence
Where's the evidence that (1) Californians specifically, (2) are experiencing extended suffering, and (3) what evidence exists that suffering specifically is unnecessary?
I'm just pointing out dropping a comment like the first answer and defending it with the second is doing exactly what is being claimed -making a case without providing real evidence.
Tons of people are making the case.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...
"Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000."
So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money?
"As long as we're trading conspiracy theories,"
Other than my "conspiracy" theory being main stream media reported and a simple statement backed by fact. Not your cockamamey bullshit:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-vete...
"According to the report, the veteran called VAC seeking support for PTSD when the employee brought up medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia, unprompted."
Oh wait... that's the wrong one. That's not the Wheelchair one... hard to find the right one in the mountain of evidence.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/canada-offered-to-help-euthani...
"A paraplegic former Canadian military member is ripping her government, which offered to euthanize her after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home."
If main stream, reliable news sources are 'conspiracy theories' then I'm not sure what you consider real news.
"my conspiracy theory has a lot more going for it than yours does."
Other than the fact that my "theory" has backing evidence... and yours is shit pulled out of your ass. You really need to learn what a conspiracy theory is and when real life evidence makes it not a theory.
Very few would argue with your underlying point that euthanasia should only be used in the right circumstances. But anecdotes which may be to the contrary shouldn’t justify removal of the concept altogether - just examination and adjustment.
A mature and reasonable societal attitude to end of life care —including euthanasia where appropriate— is a force for good, not evil.
I'd argue that it's like the death penalty. The right people should be killed but what happens if you execute an innocent person? It's better to err on the side of not killing so you don't accidentally kill an innocent person.
Likewise? I think the bar for euthanasia should be insanely high. I do think it should exist - there are people who deserve to die with dignity. Cancer or life ending conditions.
I think the problem is "where appropriate"... I seriously doubt that the 10k people in Canada killed this year are all appropriate. There are examples of people being given "the option" for being depressed or simply to poor to afford better options. Those aren't appropriate.
One person killed that shouldn't be is too many.
You relayed a handful of stories that, even assuming they're all broadly correct, still don't add up to thousands.
And my original question still stands: Why is the interpretation "California is letting people suffer needlessly" not "Why is Canada killing people to save money"? - since the original person I responded to is just as likely to be wrong that CA isn't killing enough people...
I don't think it's wrong to assume that Canada is killing people that don't need to die. 1 is too many... and it's easily 10's of people... and easily hundreds. It's not that hard to assume it's at least 10% of the 10k killed meaning "add up to thousands" is easy to assume.
You dig up some bizarre stories created by people with agendas, and refuse to acknowledge that the right to life includes the right to choose how life ends, and to deny that is to deny the basic rights of humanity. You absolutely refuse to see that the government has no place to mandate suffering.
Why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer? Why are you so pro-big-government?
"created by people with agendas" and "MAID" is defended by people with agendas. Everyone has an agenda - even people like you that presumably want to "end suffering".
"why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer" Because anyone who trusts the government with the right to end peoples lives and ignores OBVIOUS problems with such power (IE: the stories about people with "agendas" - aka those who shouldn't be getting killed) is ignorant of governments abusing powers.
"Why are you so pro-big-government?" I'm not pro big government... I'm anti-government killing people. I don't think they should have the right to cut costs by killing people who shouldn't be killed.
Don't try to spin this as pro-big government... it's actually ANTI big government because I don't trust the government. If you do? You're ignorant of history - past and present.
