Canada is already on the slippery slope to imposing assisted suicide on those who burden the government's health care (sic) system. But we would never allow that here... would we?
Link: https://pjmedia.com/trending/canadian-health-care-refused-to-pay-for-disabled-fathers-care-but-happily-paid-for-his-assisted-suicide/
The CBC article doesn’t express his feelings or predicament in the same light.
No doubt ALS is a terrible disease so why would you not compare Single Payer System with corporate Health Care of the US to make your argument? Would he have been kept on life support in US and so on?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Mr. Tagert had ALS for 6 years. After a heart attack he became completely incapacitated, able to communicate only with his eyes. He preferred to be at home, instead of at a medical facility where he would have had 24-hour care (he would have lost custody of his 11-year old son if he was moved permanently out of his home). The Canadian government offered to pay for in-home medical assistance for 20 hours per day, but Mr. Tagert arguably needed 24 hour care. If he in fact needed 24-hour care, he would have been responsible for paying for the remaining 4 hours, or, he could have agreed to be moved to a 24-hour care facility. Instead, he chose to commit suicide.
Under this scenario, I'm not sure a different outcome would have occurred in the United States. Private insurance would have covered some of the expense, but likely not all, of 24-hour in-home care, given that 24-hour care would have been available in a 24-hour care facility. Mr. Tagert would have had similar choices -- the difference is that if he made the same choice in the United States, he would hot have had the assistance of his insurance company or doctors.
I'm not for or against a single-payer system, I'm just pointing out that difficult facts make for difficult choices, and there isn't anything in this story to suggest that private health care would have offered better options. I don't think it's fair to say, as you imply, that the Canadian government agreed to pay to kill Mr. Tagert, but wouldn't pay to take care of him.
(no message)
It's like abortion. Morning after pills don't seem so terrible, but many see them as equivalent to late term abortions.
without the suicide option. At least be honest with the entire context. They didn’t pay to kill him to avoid caring for him.
My personal view is that competent adults should be able to make that decision. I also get that there are also decent arguments against allowing it from a religious and moral standard.
I don’t think it is going to lead to Soylent Green if allowed.
(no message)
(no message)
the bench make these kinds of decisions.
(no message)
How’s that for nuanced?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)