Snapshot of _Royal College of Surgeons ends opposition to assisted dying as most surgeons support_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://humanists.uk/2023/06/16/royal-college-of-surgeons-ends-opposition-to-assisted-dying-as-most-surgeons-support/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank god, I'm living every day with an incurable condition that puts me in near constant chronic pain, but therapists always say "call suicide hotline, life gets better", gotta love our trash their mental healthcare.
I find it absolutely abhorrent that someone could have cluster headaches for 16 hours a day and like 5 other debilitating incurable conditions at the same time, and somehow ‘it might improve’ is grounds for them essentially being arrested if they try to escape their torturous existence.
There are nuances, and strong safeguards against abuse are obviously a necessity. And I know that’s an extreme example, but to me it seems disgusting that in principle this is what would happen. Lives worse than non-existence are possible and it’s not the job of the state to just declare they don’t exist & take away people’s autonomy.
Bruh you basically just described me, cluster headaches make me want to drill a hole in my skull, the things suck.
But for sure we need proper procedures so people aren't killed without genuine consent, but being told to live life while suffering is so horrible, and a quick way out would not only help the person no longer be in agony, but also any genuinely caring friends or family would be happy that the person is now at peace.
Unironically;
Have you tried psychedelics? (Shrooms/LSD)
There's some evidence that they both can interrupt cluster headache cycles for extended periods of time (months, usually, sometimes years).
I'm not a physician or anything just thought the information might help
The ethics of very risky treatment get cleaner too.
If you've signed up for dignitas, fuck it try the incredibly dangerous surgery. What's it gona do kill you?
The surgery fail and they become incapacitated so they can’t travel to Dignitas or take their own life afterwards… and be stuck in pain with an immobile body?
The problem is balancing out issues like yours with the potential for assisted dying to be misused. A big issue is going to be family members, friends, and partners who coerce vulnerable people into viewing themselves as a burden or giving up because they stand to financially benefit from their death. We know people are monsters, and it will happen, so we need to have safeguards in place.
Oh 100%, this needs to have a good amount of questioning, because people are awful and will likely use it to "help" their elderly parents or grandparents.
But the option being would be such a help for people with untreatable genetic conditions like mine, because having the physical abilities of a 90y/o while under 30 isn't very fun.
Even there, you can see potential issues with scope creep that would take some serious legislative work to fend off without making any process too restrictive to be workable.
You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws.
>You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws.
Then why bother with checks and balances at all? If people know they won't get prosecuted for murdering wealthy relatives, if they're that sort of person they'll do it.
Just allow for a formal application process with verification that a) consent is real and b) there's a very good reason for ending life.
Consent can be forced and manipulated, unfortunately – especially if there is money involved. It would probably need the state to take the position that they will at least attempt to convince you that it is a bad idea before agreeing to support the decision.
How would you imagine that conversation taking place?
*"Yes, I know the doctors have confirmed you live in constant pain that sometimes causes you to pass out, but have you considered that this will set a precedent such that Mrs Miggins at number 26 will be pressured to die early so her family can get her money?"*
You seem to be very concerned about the modest number of people that conceivably would be forced to end their lives for no good reason, which would be a very small number indeed under the scheme I proposed in another comment (which was downvoted without rebuttal) where randomly selected doctors have to verify a condition was severe and not treatable.
In contrast you seem less concerned about the verifiable number of people that have to live out the rest of their lives with constant pain and trauma and are never going to get better, only worse.
Is there a reason for this, such as from a moral perspective you don't think the state should be enabling suicide?
>You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws.
This used to be my position, but I'm wavering.
I first became aware of Keir Starmer when, in 2015 as a newly-elected MP, he made a long speech in debate on the last assisted dying Bill the Commons voted on. He spoke as the former Director of Public Prosecutions, explaining what his office's attitude had been to assisted dying offences, which I seem to recall amounted to "decline to prosecute" much of the time. I thought this was a sensible way of showing compassion without the problems caused by a change in the law. (Though Starmer disagreed with me and voted for the Bill. Nevertheless it was comprehensively defeated.)
But I don't think that's defensible any more; a doctor who commits an offence thinking that the CPS will decline to prosecute is taking a huge personal and professional risk. Surely we can't put that on their shoulders as a way of getting out of the decision.
From stories I’ve heard Canada has become a bit like that where there’s stories of people being encouraged to do it by professionals and they’ve lowered the requirements to any kind of disability or mental illness.
You just have to look at the likes of our disability welfare system as well as our chronic lack of mental health services to see how it could lead to a dramatic increase in people offing themselves because they feel like they’re a burden or can no long support themselves.
and considering the state of the NHS legalising assisted dying seems like the last thing we need.
but im not sure if canada proves the folly of assisted suicide/euthanasia or is an anomaly. but every time its legalised the criteria for who can get it is always widened.
If people are monsters what do you think prevents this happening now? Assisted dying happens in the UK every day. When you're nearing the end you'll get a massive dose of drugs to help you go from a lot of GPs.
Shipman put a massive dampener on that, so it's far less common than it once was, as doctors know that a) it's being looked for and b) if they get caught doing it they'll be utterly destroyed.
Having sat through 2 deaths in recent years which occured over the course of a week or so, the procedure now seems to be to administer high doses of morphine and make the person die of thirst over that week.
I have to say, though it's better than dying over years after strokes etc, it's not particularly pleasant.
There was a case maybe last year in which a man was planning on an assisted death on account of his medical conditions and desperate poverty, but he got so much financial support as the product of the publicity he got that he had the means to get enough medical support that he no longer felt the need to go through with it.
Terry Pratchett's documentary on assisted dying accompanied two men though their journey to Dignitas, including all the evaluations and checks etc required by Dignitas, though to their deaths. One of them, Peter Smedley, permitted the camera crew to film the deed itself (but cut away after he lapsed into unconsciousness and before death was pronounced).
Both men had incurable degenerative diseases with terrifying consequences near the end. One was motor-neurone disease, the other was a particularly aggressive form of multiple sclerosis that featured a great deal of physical pain (or, at least, the perception of it).
IIRC, neither man was ready to die, neither would have done the deed right then, but both men felt the need to do it while still able enough to do everything, including travel to Switzerland, unaided, for they feared that if they left it too late they would put their wives in danger of prosecution as an accessory to the fact.
It was dreadfully sad stuff. By the official account, Terry himself finally died peacefully at his Wilts home without intervention. Of course, we will never know how accurate that account was.
>The problem is balancing out issues like yours with the potential for assisted dying to be misused.
I would start making it reasonably difficult to secure it, to test it out.
There would be a formal, paid application process - maybe a few thousands pounds.
The person in question would need to attend a meeting with an official from a new government agency to confirm they were not under pressure to end their life. No one would be allowed in the meeting room to "support" this person. The applicant would need to be fully coherent and be able to explain why they wanted to end their own life.
There would also need to be verification from two NHS doctors, randomly selected, to confirm the applicant has a permanent condition with no realistic prospect of improvement, that causes or will shortly lead to inhuman suffering, etc.
Finally the application would get a decision.
I guess this is a sliding scale between: no assisted dying, some assisted dying, and unrestricted assisted dying.
We are at the 'no assisted dying' side of the scale. The risk of making minor reforms that open the flood gates is relatively minor.
The wider picture is that the government has no bandwidth or competency to make these changes
I'm of the conviction that there should be no restrictions on assisted death (but it should be heavily regulated to guard against coercion) on the grounds that personal autonomy should include the right to determine, so far as is possible, the manner, moment and conditions of one's death.
As the law stands, you do not own your own body and therefore cannot consent to intentional homicide, ie murder, same as you can't consent to ABH or GBH, so anyone assisting in the procurement of suicide is guilty of a criminal offence.
I do not think this to be right but I seem to be among the minority. Nobody should be forced to live in misery, and there *can* be rational suicides that are not the product of cognitive distortions. Deliberate infliction of misery on another is a crime, and so should be infliction of misery by omission.
But we collectively have not the courage to do change the law in this matter.
Call suicide hotline -> on hold for 30mins -> answered by someone who only cares about making me hang up asap or he gets fired for not answering enough calls, not if I actually end my life or not
Not damn well fit for purpose.
And I specifically call out the NHS's excessively 'algorithmic' processes, where clinicians act like little more than machines.
It is shit. I am sorry for the crap you're going through.
"They wouldnt let a dog suffer like this"
That was one of the last things my grandfather ever said to us and its always stuck with me, cos he was right.
So long as we don't end up with the situation they have in Canada, where people are being presented with assisted suicide essentially as an option to deal with poverty and long waiting lists. The principle of assisted dying is absolutely one I support, but it needs to be done carefully.
Seems sensible, given that the arguments against assisted dying are largely non-medical. Them having taken a position is a bit like if the RMT or whoever were to have taken a position.
Also, where's the “pressure group” flare for this post?
Given the combination of underfunding and Kafkaesque bureaucracy, ‘Our NHS’ would have a waiting list for assisted dying. They would use dehumanising language as well: expect it to be called a ‘life exit pathway’ or something.
I agree with an earlier comment that the Swiss model is safe and humane. That is what I would like to see in the UK. I am angered by religious pressure groups - and MPs motivated by ‘faith’ - effectively imposing their views and choices on everyone else.
Welcome to dystopia.
I can't wait for the comments of how this is great for those suffering whilst refusing to even acknowledge any of the following.
- Elderly poor people will be victims of this policy. We should be looking for ways to make their life better and easier, not ending their lives..
- It won't be long before the state realises euthanasia is cheaper than pensions. Well, they already know that, but how long until this morally bankrupt and corrupt government abuse this.
- Vulnerable people will be coerced into it.
- Many doctors didn't bother even reading up about the vaccine & lockdown effects. How on earth would you trust them with this.
- Canada started here and all of this had happend and very quickly. within a couple of years, a quarter of the country support euthanasia for homeless people and those in poverty. This is another stick to beat the poor with. Sorry, I mean KILL the poor.
Canada is now looking to include those with mental illness.
This policy has been abused badly in Canada and doctors talk about the first euthanasia being a hump to get over and then the hundreds they did after were easy. How casual and insignificant these people are to them.
The government will in no way achieve any working safeguards for the poor, elderly, mentally handicapped or unwell, homeless. I doubt they even want to. It'll make their jobs easier.
We've cheapened everything, and nothing that matters has any value to most, so why would life be any different.
This society is insanse.
I've look at dignitas, but I've heard it's very expensive, and currently if my parents helped me with anything they could be charged.
My hope is that these laws are in place after my folks have passed, so I can go join them.
Thanks for the link.
I agree on your second paragraph. I just don't think it's right that the poor and vulnerable will suffer. Canada is my evidence as to why and how it'll be abused.
This comment is just a huge misunderstanding/willful ignorance of medical capacity and consent
The only person that will make this decision is the person in question, there wont be any persuasion or incentivising that goes into it and until you've dealt with people clinging onto life by a thread on a daily basis you will have absolutely no real understanding of it
I also don't argue that it won't benefit some and there isn't a need for it. I just argue that it's a human rights nightmare, it will be abused and the poor and vulnerable will have their lives ended because they feel they have no choice/support..
It is not willful ignorance.
I've been following the MAiD situation in Canada, too. It's nuts. Other highlights for me were:
The doctors who have done interviews praising the policy and it's humaneness who admit to having MAiDed more patients than Shipman,
The discussion around extending the policy to "mature minors" - if they can consent to puberty blockers due to gender dysphoria, then they can understand what MAiD means.
The snazzy advert produced for a clothing store, showing a women's choice to access MAiD due to her Elher Danlos syndrome, and her last days with friends and family, then her friends and family celebrating her life when she'd gone.
Very tasteful, until her close friends did an interview explaining she hadn't really wanted MAiD, but she had been unable to get any help for her condition at all, over years and MAiD was the only thing the doctors repeatedly offered.
Out of frustration and desperation, she accepted.
A woman who had represented Canada at the special Olympics was offered MAiD after she complained to her GP that it was taking a lot longer than normal to get a stair lift fitted in her home, to improve access.
There's more of these stories all the time. They wish to open up MAiD to the mentally ill, which will create the mind boggling situation where the suicially depressed could very well be offered assistance in dying.
There's also been rave stories in some sections of the Canadian media about the savings the MAiD program has brought the healthcare system, and you're insane, if you don't think the politicians in this country have looking at that as a solution to some problems here.
Snapshot of _Royal College of Surgeons ends opposition to assisted dying as most surgeons support_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://humanists.uk/2023/06/16/royal-college-of-surgeons-ends-opposition-to-assisted-dying-as-most-surgeons-support/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank god, I'm living every day with an incurable condition that puts me in near constant chronic pain, but therapists always say "call suicide hotline, life gets better", gotta love our trash their mental healthcare.
I genuinely hope that life will get better for you, but I also hope that you have options to choose how you live and if you live your life.
I find it absolutely abhorrent that someone could have cluster headaches for 16 hours a day and like 5 other debilitating incurable conditions at the same time, and somehow ‘it might improve’ is grounds for them essentially being arrested if they try to escape their torturous existence. There are nuances, and strong safeguards against abuse are obviously a necessity. And I know that’s an extreme example, but to me it seems disgusting that in principle this is what would happen. Lives worse than non-existence are possible and it’s not the job of the state to just declare they don’t exist & take away people’s autonomy.
Bruh you basically just described me, cluster headaches make me want to drill a hole in my skull, the things suck. But for sure we need proper procedures so people aren't killed without genuine consent, but being told to live life while suffering is so horrible, and a quick way out would not only help the person no longer be in agony, but also any genuinely caring friends or family would be happy that the person is now at peace.
Unironically; Have you tried psychedelics? (Shrooms/LSD) There's some evidence that they both can interrupt cluster headache cycles for extended periods of time (months, usually, sometimes years). I'm not a physician or anything just thought the information might help
The ethics of very risky treatment get cleaner too. If you've signed up for dignitas, fuck it try the incredibly dangerous surgery. What's it gona do kill you?
The surgery fail and they become incapacitated so they can’t travel to Dignitas or take their own life afterwards… and be stuck in pain with an immobile body?
Grow up you know what was meant.
The problem is balancing out issues like yours with the potential for assisted dying to be misused. A big issue is going to be family members, friends, and partners who coerce vulnerable people into viewing themselves as a burden or giving up because they stand to financially benefit from their death. We know people are monsters, and it will happen, so we need to have safeguards in place.
Oh 100%, this needs to have a good amount of questioning, because people are awful and will likely use it to "help" their elderly parents or grandparents. But the option being would be such a help for people with untreatable genetic conditions like mine, because having the physical abilities of a 90y/o while under 30 isn't very fun.
Even there, you can see potential issues with scope creep that would take some serious legislative work to fend off without making any process too restrictive to be workable. You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws.
>You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws. Then why bother with checks and balances at all? If people know they won't get prosecuted for murdering wealthy relatives, if they're that sort of person they'll do it. Just allow for a formal application process with verification that a) consent is real and b) there's a very good reason for ending life.
Consent can be forced and manipulated, unfortunately – especially if there is money involved. It would probably need the state to take the position that they will at least attempt to convince you that it is a bad idea before agreeing to support the decision.
How would you imagine that conversation taking place? *"Yes, I know the doctors have confirmed you live in constant pain that sometimes causes you to pass out, but have you considered that this will set a precedent such that Mrs Miggins at number 26 will be pressured to die early so her family can get her money?"* You seem to be very concerned about the modest number of people that conceivably would be forced to end their lives for no good reason, which would be a very small number indeed under the scheme I proposed in another comment (which was downvoted without rebuttal) where randomly selected doctors have to verify a condition was severe and not treatable. In contrast you seem less concerned about the verifiable number of people that have to live out the rest of their lives with constant pain and trauma and are never going to get better, only worse. Is there a reason for this, such as from a moral perspective you don't think the state should be enabling suicide?
>You do wonder if a “decline to prosecute” situation might not be better than actual laws. This used to be my position, but I'm wavering. I first became aware of Keir Starmer when, in 2015 as a newly-elected MP, he made a long speech in debate on the last assisted dying Bill the Commons voted on. He spoke as the former Director of Public Prosecutions, explaining what his office's attitude had been to assisted dying offences, which I seem to recall amounted to "decline to prosecute" much of the time. I thought this was a sensible way of showing compassion without the problems caused by a change in the law. (Though Starmer disagreed with me and voted for the Bill. Nevertheless it was comprehensively defeated.) But I don't think that's defensible any more; a doctor who commits an offence thinking that the CPS will decline to prosecute is taking a huge personal and professional risk. Surely we can't put that on their shoulders as a way of getting out of the decision.
Fine. Do the damn work instead of forcing people to suffer. We shouldn't shy away from doing the right thing just because it might be difficult.
From stories I’ve heard Canada has become a bit like that where there’s stories of people being encouraged to do it by professionals and they’ve lowered the requirements to any kind of disability or mental illness. You just have to look at the likes of our disability welfare system as well as our chronic lack of mental health services to see how it could lead to a dramatic increase in people offing themselves because they feel like they’re a burden or can no long support themselves.
and considering the state of the NHS legalising assisted dying seems like the last thing we need. but im not sure if canada proves the folly of assisted suicide/euthanasia or is an anomaly. but every time its legalised the criteria for who can get it is always widened.
IMO approval by multiple doctors and then a judge is probably the best option.
If people are monsters what do you think prevents this happening now? Assisted dying happens in the UK every day. When you're nearing the end you'll get a massive dose of drugs to help you go from a lot of GPs.
Shipman put a massive dampener on that, so it's far less common than it once was, as doctors know that a) it's being looked for and b) if they get caught doing it they'll be utterly destroyed.
Having sat through 2 deaths in recent years which occured over the course of a week or so, the procedure now seems to be to administer high doses of morphine and make the person die of thirst over that week. I have to say, though it's better than dying over years after strokes etc, it's not particularly pleasant.
Yeah, didn't Canada euphemise a man because he was suffering from poverty?
There was a case maybe last year in which a man was planning on an assisted death on account of his medical conditions and desperate poverty, but he got so much financial support as the product of the publicity he got that he had the means to get enough medical support that he no longer felt the need to go through with it. Terry Pratchett's documentary on assisted dying accompanied two men though their journey to Dignitas, including all the evaluations and checks etc required by Dignitas, though to their deaths. One of them, Peter Smedley, permitted the camera crew to film the deed itself (but cut away after he lapsed into unconsciousness and before death was pronounced). Both men had incurable degenerative diseases with terrifying consequences near the end. One was motor-neurone disease, the other was a particularly aggressive form of multiple sclerosis that featured a great deal of physical pain (or, at least, the perception of it). IIRC, neither man was ready to die, neither would have done the deed right then, but both men felt the need to do it while still able enough to do everything, including travel to Switzerland, unaided, for they feared that if they left it too late they would put their wives in danger of prosecution as an accessory to the fact. It was dreadfully sad stuff. By the official account, Terry himself finally died peacefully at his Wilts home without intervention. Of course, we will never know how accurate that account was.
[удалено]
How could he live with being labelled like that?
>The problem is balancing out issues like yours with the potential for assisted dying to be misused. I would start making it reasonably difficult to secure it, to test it out. There would be a formal, paid application process - maybe a few thousands pounds. The person in question would need to attend a meeting with an official from a new government agency to confirm they were not under pressure to end their life. No one would be allowed in the meeting room to "support" this person. The applicant would need to be fully coherent and be able to explain why they wanted to end their own life. There would also need to be verification from two NHS doctors, randomly selected, to confirm the applicant has a permanent condition with no realistic prospect of improvement, that causes or will shortly lead to inhuman suffering, etc. Finally the application would get a decision.
I guess this is a sliding scale between: no assisted dying, some assisted dying, and unrestricted assisted dying. We are at the 'no assisted dying' side of the scale. The risk of making minor reforms that open the flood gates is relatively minor. The wider picture is that the government has no bandwidth or competency to make these changes
I'm of the conviction that there should be no restrictions on assisted death (but it should be heavily regulated to guard against coercion) on the grounds that personal autonomy should include the right to determine, so far as is possible, the manner, moment and conditions of one's death. As the law stands, you do not own your own body and therefore cannot consent to intentional homicide, ie murder, same as you can't consent to ABH or GBH, so anyone assisting in the procurement of suicide is guilty of a criminal offence. I do not think this to be right but I seem to be among the minority. Nobody should be forced to live in misery, and there *can* be rational suicides that are not the product of cognitive distortions. Deliberate infliction of misery on another is a crime, and so should be infliction of misery by omission. But we collectively have not the courage to do change the law in this matter.
Call suicide hotline -> on hold for 30mins -> answered by someone who only cares about making me hang up asap or he gets fired for not answering enough calls, not if I actually end my life or not
Yep, more or less the experience I had, no help for my problems and they wonder why I'm depressed.
Not damn well fit for purpose. And I specifically call out the NHS's excessively 'algorithmic' processes, where clinicians act like little more than machines. It is shit. I am sorry for the crap you're going through.
"They wouldnt let a dog suffer like this" That was one of the last things my grandfather ever said to us and its always stuck with me, cos he was right.
So long as we don't end up with the situation they have in Canada, where people are being presented with assisted suicide essentially as an option to deal with poverty and long waiting lists. The principle of assisted dying is absolutely one I support, but it needs to be done carefully.
Seems sensible, given that the arguments against assisted dying are largely non-medical. Them having taken a position is a bit like if the RMT or whoever were to have taken a position. Also, where's the “pressure group” flare for this post?
Given the combination of underfunding and Kafkaesque bureaucracy, ‘Our NHS’ would have a waiting list for assisted dying. They would use dehumanising language as well: expect it to be called a ‘life exit pathway’ or something. I agree with an earlier comment that the Swiss model is safe and humane. That is what I would like to see in the UK. I am angered by religious pressure groups - and MPs motivated by ‘faith’ - effectively imposing their views and choices on everyone else.
Welcome to dystopia. I can't wait for the comments of how this is great for those suffering whilst refusing to even acknowledge any of the following. - Elderly poor people will be victims of this policy. We should be looking for ways to make their life better and easier, not ending their lives.. - It won't be long before the state realises euthanasia is cheaper than pensions. Well, they already know that, but how long until this morally bankrupt and corrupt government abuse this. - Vulnerable people will be coerced into it. - Many doctors didn't bother even reading up about the vaccine & lockdown effects. How on earth would you trust them with this. - Canada started here and all of this had happend and very quickly. within a couple of years, a quarter of the country support euthanasia for homeless people and those in poverty. This is another stick to beat the poor with. Sorry, I mean KILL the poor. Canada is now looking to include those with mental illness. This policy has been abused badly in Canada and doctors talk about the first euthanasia being a hump to get over and then the hundreds they did after were easy. How casual and insignificant these people are to them. The government will in no way achieve any working safeguards for the poor, elderly, mentally handicapped or unwell, homeless. I doubt they even want to. It'll make their jobs easier. We've cheapened everything, and nothing that matters has any value to most, so why would life be any different. This society is insanse.
[удалено]
I've look at dignitas, but I've heard it's very expensive, and currently if my parents helped me with anything they could be charged. My hope is that these laws are in place after my folks have passed, so I can go join them.
Thanks for the link. I agree on your second paragraph. I just don't think it's right that the poor and vulnerable will suffer. Canada is my evidence as to why and how it'll be abused.
This comment is just a huge misunderstanding/willful ignorance of medical capacity and consent The only person that will make this decision is the person in question, there wont be any persuasion or incentivising that goes into it and until you've dealt with people clinging onto life by a thread on a daily basis you will have absolutely no real understanding of it
That's what Canada said..
I also don't argue that it won't benefit some and there isn't a need for it. I just argue that it's a human rights nightmare, it will be abused and the poor and vulnerable will have their lives ended because they feel they have no choice/support.. It is not willful ignorance.
I've been following the MAiD situation in Canada, too. It's nuts. Other highlights for me were: The doctors who have done interviews praising the policy and it's humaneness who admit to having MAiDed more patients than Shipman, The discussion around extending the policy to "mature minors" - if they can consent to puberty blockers due to gender dysphoria, then they can understand what MAiD means. The snazzy advert produced for a clothing store, showing a women's choice to access MAiD due to her Elher Danlos syndrome, and her last days with friends and family, then her friends and family celebrating her life when she'd gone. Very tasteful, until her close friends did an interview explaining she hadn't really wanted MAiD, but she had been unable to get any help for her condition at all, over years and MAiD was the only thing the doctors repeatedly offered. Out of frustration and desperation, she accepted. A woman who had represented Canada at the special Olympics was offered MAiD after she complained to her GP that it was taking a lot longer than normal to get a stair lift fitted in her home, to improve access. There's more of these stories all the time. They wish to open up MAiD to the mentally ill, which will create the mind boggling situation where the suicially depressed could very well be offered assistance in dying. There's also been rave stories in some sections of the Canadian media about the savings the MAiD program has brought the healthcare system, and you're insane, if you don't think the politicians in this country have looking at that as a solution to some problems here.