Some Canadian Health Care Patients Say They're Being Encouraged To Just Die Already
When the government runs the system, the right of citizens to end their own suffering can be twisted to serve the state.

In 2015 Canada's Supreme Court struck down bans on medically assisted suicide as a violation of citizens' liberty, writing that "An individual's response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty. And by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person."
Those quotes, in a nutshell, explain why the ability to end one's life is an important freedom. Our bodies belong to us, not the government. We should have the power to decide whether we wish to continue living, particularly if we are in constant pain or suffering debilitating or fatal illnesses. In the Supreme Court's ruling, the judges note that a ban on physician-assisted suicide "is rationally connected to the goal of protecting the vulnerable from taking their life in times of weakness" but that such protections don't justify a full blanket prohibition on the practice. And so, the court ordered Canada to draft new legislation permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law was implemented in 2016.
Unfortunately, the philosophical argument for the right to die can also end up colliding with troubling decisions in a country where the government funds and controls access to healthcare. That is reportedly happening in Canada, where some citizens say health officials are actively encouraging people with disabilities and other chronic medical issues to consider suicide.
According to the Associated Press, hospitals are raising the possibility of assisted suicide with patients who hadn't asked about it. These conversations are not motivated by quality of life but health care costs.
The A.P. notes that Belgium and the Australian state of Victoria, which allow physician-assisted suicide, tell medical professionals not to bring up euthanasia so that it's not seen as medical advice. In other words, make sure it's the patient's idea.
This is not the case in Canada, where health care workers are trained to inform patients that they can choose euthanasia if they have a qualifying condition. This has led to some patients, particularly those with disabilities but not necessarily fatal illnesses, having some unpleasant conversations. One provided a recording to the Associated Press:
Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
"Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."
Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.
That Canada's health care system is primarily publicly funded and also has very long wait times for certain types of medical care has naturally raised questions about whether health officials are looking out for patients or what's best for the service providers and government. Over the weekend, this 2017 report on CBC about "potential savings" from assisted suicide was making the rounds on Twitter.
The above-linked report by the Canadian Medical Association Journal was intended to analyze the costs of implementing MAID regulations before the program was rolled out across the country. The report calculated that implementing assisted suicide programs would cost $1.5 million to $14.8 million but could reduce annual healthcare spending by between $34 million to $136.8 million. The report itself wasn't suggesting physicians encourage suicide. It calculated that less than 4 percent of Canadians would use it and that most would likely be dying when they chose to do so and would see their lives shortened by a month or less.
But looking back at that report five years later and looking at the behavior of Canadian health officials now, it's easy to sympathize and agree with concerns that the country is using assisted suicide as a way of trying to "handle" those with chronic, expensive medical issues that require extensive treatment. Tristin Hopper at the National Post notes that there are already several horror stories suggesting people are being pressured to die and that there are questions about whether health officials are making sure patients are of sound mind:
Last June, the Medical Assistance in Dying Committee heard from Trish Nichols, whose suicidal and severely mentally ill brother Alan was given assisted death at a Chilliwack, B.C., hospital in 2019, at a time when MAID was still limited only to Canadians with a terminal illness.
Alan had been taken by his family to the hospital only days before to recover from a psychiatric episode, and in the minutes before he received a lethal injection, Trish described Alan screaming uncontrollably, despite the hospital's assurances that he had opted for a medically assisted death while "of sound mind."
It should be uncontroversial to note that a person voluntarily agreeing to assisted suicide should not be screaming when it happens.
The lesson here should not be that assisted suicide is bad, but heavy government involvement in health care decisions has an inescapable distorting influence. At the very least, how Canada manages health care access is a massive contributing factor. A survey from 2016 found that Canadians wait longer to access health care services than citizens in 11 other countries. The United States is one of the countries of comparison, but the survey also looks at other countries with government-managed health care systems like the United Kingdom and France. A 2020 study from the Canadian Family Physician journal notes that the country simply provides less freedom and opportunity for people seeking medical care than other countries, even when healthcare is centrally planned:
What these countries do differently than Canada is they allow the private sector to provide core health care insurance and services, require patients to share in the cost of treatment, and fund hospitals based on activity (rather than the global budgets that are the norm in Canada).
In absence of significant "freedom" to pursue individualized health care options, Canada is now potentially violating citizens' rights in the exact opposite direction than it was before. People have the right to die but also the right to continue living in the face of medical adversity. That Canada's publicly-operated health care system is unable to efficiently meet the needs of citizens makes all these health worker interactions about euthanasia inherently suspect.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The extended version of Wear seatbelts and helmets Don't smoke Don't eat that Don't do that.
Predicted, foreseen, laughed at, now implemented. No surprise.
"Medical Ethics" is hilariously corrupt.
But "Death Panels" is fear mongering.
The science has re-settled. UK no longer recommends vaxxing under 12s. While sort-of-kind-of admitting negative side effects in young people.
Somebody finally took a calculator to these 'free' vaccines.
Diane,
Denmark now prohibits vaccination of those under 15.
BTW, the "science" did not change. The risk-benefit rationale was never present in the first place
The A.P. notes that Belgium and the Australian state of Victoria, which allow physician-assisted suicide, tell medical professionals not to bring up euthanasia so that it's not seen as medical advice. In other words, make sure it's the patient's idea.
Yeah, but I have some experience in this area. There are ways of making people think that an idea you came up with was theirs.
Beyond parody future, 2028: Healthcare costs in Belgium and Victoria skyrocket as professionals are in short supply during the doctor-euthenasia crisis.
Especially medically where a person could play up the worst case of the worst side effects as a guarantee while playing off the pain and debt you'd be putting on your poor family if you don't off yourself. Now if only there was a way to apply this to those "suffering" from misgendering and microaggressions.
Me too; we call it "having the conversation."
And always understand when female patients say 'no' they really mean yes.
Eh. Whatever.
As a Koch / Reason left-libertarian the only medical issues I care about are legal abortion until birth and free hormones and gender confirmation surgery for transgender children.
#AbortionAboveAll
I guess they're too old or decrepit to work then, eh?
Is neutered drone a gender?
MAID is going to be the norm once they've starved us in the cold and the dark, you'd have to be crazy to want to go on living.
This is how we get suicide booths.
While a video of pretty nature scenes plays.
lol at the idea that everybody is going to choose to go out alone in such cases.
FYI, I remembered when I got taken to task by "real" libertarians when I indicated I was deeply uncomfortable with physician assisted suicide. What a difference a decade makes.
"FYI, I remembered when I got taken to task by "real" libertarians when I indicated I was deeply uncomfortable with physician assisted suicide."
Even since being a libertarian, I've had plenty of problems with physician assisted suicide because we all have commitments to others. Do you have crushing debt? Family who depends on you? Violating those contracts and commitments is aggression, just as much as not paying your tab at a restaurant or abandoning your kids at the bus station.
Now I am not saying that is always the case, but it is a point that is often overlooked. You cannot suicide your way out of contracts.
Second, as we are seeing here, many of the most vulnerable people are the ones making this decision. And they are so vulnerable that often they are being influenced by people who do not have their best interests at heart. I have no problem with the concept that a person is free to off themselves. But we also should be more careful about untethering the social taboos against suicide because of this.
We have seen this with changing views of marriage and relationships. Societies where one male is allowed to marry many women have almost always ended up as harem or jim jeffords style environments where women are trained to be subservient, and young males are marginalized as potential competitors. And in the few cases where we see one female with many men normalized, it becomes even worse, where the woman is even further marginalized and degraded, treated like chattel to be passed around between men.
The arrival of strict harem/woman-swapping hierarchies are not libertarian, but one needs to take care that in pushing for libertarian solutions on the question of marriage you might encourage those hierarchies. Likewise, as we see in Canada, allowing a "libertarian" solution to suicide in a State that controls your healthcare may also result in worse harm than good.
You are aware that, until more recent times, suicide was seen as the ultimate egotistical act?
But, in our "new" world, it is said to not be selfish or egotistical at all. In fact, I've seen it said on health websites that it isn't even a choice.
WTF?
You cannot suicide your way out of contracts.
Didn't it used to be the "honorable" way of getting out of contracts?
Depends on which culture you were in. In Britain, debts could be passed on to your kids, which meant that offing yourself was not honorably at all- unless it was your intent to leave your troubles to your first born.
Why shouldn't physicians and patients be allowed to decide to administer euthanasia if the patient is consenting and lucid or has a DNR on file?
It's my body and if I want to die, I should be allowed to do so in a dignified manner where I can be surrounded by family, rather than squatting in a garage with a pistol in my mouth, hoping that my blood and feces won't decay into a rancid black jelly for someone else to clean up. And the fucking government shouldn't have any goddamn say in it one way or the other.
I don't give two fucks if some guy was afraid because someone mentioned euthanasia around him and it freaked him out. I don't give a fuck if some doctors said some insensitive shit. If he was so afraid and wanted to drag his miserable life on and on, he could request to be sent to a different facility.
No one is advocating unwilling people be euthanized. That's as alarmist as thinking every mom who leaves her kid at the park while she shops should be arrested for child neglect.
"I don't give two fucks if some guy was afraid because someone mentioned euthanasia around him and it freaked him out. I don't give a fuck if some doctors said some insensitive shit. If he was so afraid and wanted to drag his miserable life on and on, he could request to be sent to a different facility."
That's because you don't actually care to give two fucks about what is actually going on here. This guy doesn't have choices. He is at the whim of the government, and the government is coming to him and badgering him to stop costing them money that they taxed from him all his life. This is deeply creepy as fuck, and that you just say "Grow a spine" demonstrates that folk like you see this as a feature not a bug.
1. You're pretending that there's a choice when the government healthcare system says you should let them kill you.
2. "Kanty Satanist" - so you're an Episcopalian?
Episcopal churches will all be art galleries within the next 20 years. That is why I will not purchase a space in a columbarium; I don't want to be covered with some retard's execrable idea of their craft on my niche.
You have apparently never been in that situation yourself. Your body is fucked up, you're lying in a bed, and surrounded by "experts" with all the resources while your bag of tricks is as empty as a an Englishman's humor.
I believe the point of this is when a government has all the power, your are much more likely to be on the short end of the stick in any given situation.
Give a try, and then get back to us when you know that the fuck you are talking about.
Well, it depends on which end of the spectrum your "test case" comes from. The spectrum being from "suffering an agonizing, unbearable condition which no treatment can relieve" to "suffering a non-fatal but expensive-to-treat malady".
At one end, we see physician assisted suicide as an ethical act of mercy, at the other a cynical, budget-driven murder. And it can be either, or somewhere in between.
A wide spectrum of things described by the same label. Such etymological inadequacy is at the root of a lot of intractable "arguments", since the sides are actually arguing different things.
This is of course a problem but almost inevitable because people with significant long term health problems general require some type of government assistance. In this country almost a quarter of the dementia patients are on Medicaid (note not Medicare). When assisted suicide is allowed you will almost always see the tension between the individual and the government funding the care.
The dementia patients being on Medicaid is as much a result of our system as it is anything else. Dementia care is so expensive and not covered by medical insurance that, the only way for people to receive care is to spend down - or manipulate - their assets so that they qualify for Medicaid.
Not that I have any answers for this.
I see that every day.
Governments can abuse any medical intervention.
Look at China and its abortion policy. Most libertarians hold a pro-choice position. However, they don't support China forcing abortions on people who try to have more children.
Most libertarians also support pot legalization. However, they wouldn't want the government forcing people to ingest THC gummies in order to keep them calm and quiet. If we get full federal legalization of pot, how long do you think it will take for THC to be prescribed for ADHD kids? Then how long before schools require those students to take their prescription or get expelled?
In theory, sure. In practice, left leaning libertarians will put up with a lot of statism as long as they can get their soma.
"long do you think it will take for THC to be prescribed for ADHD kids"
I would not expect it at all because THC has depressing/relaxing properties and ADHD is typically treated with stimulants. Your morning coffee is a stimulant that helps you to focus. Most people would not start their day with a joint.
See my shocked face. There are some powers that can't be trusted in the hands of others. The right to kill other people for their own "good" is one of them.
Suicide needs to remain in the hands of the person doing it. If someone isn't certain enough in their choice to swallow enough pills to overdose themselves, then you have no business sticking a needle in their veins to kill them.
The issue of physician-assisted suicide is not (or at least, is not supposed to be) that the person "isn't certain enough in their choice" but that 'they are certain of their choice but unable or uncertain of how to carry it out'.
To your specific example, consider the person with terminal esophageal cancer who can't swallow a pill of any kind. Or consider the people who can swallow a pill but want competent advice about which pill and what dosage to minimize pain and inconvenience. The law should create no added incentives for someone to end their life but the law should remove any disincentives from making that choice as humane as possible.
The law should create no added incentives for someone to end their life but the law should remove any disincentives from making that choice as humane as possible.
There is always a reason to murder someone, especially if they are sick and costing you money. We need disincentives to keep doctors from murdering their patients. We need a lot of them.
re: "We need disincentives to keep doctors from murdering their patients."
No, we actually don't. Or more precisely, we already have lots of disincentive for actual crimes - we don't need more for hypothetical crimes. Consider that it's already illegal to murder someone - that is, to kill them without their consent. There are exceptions for soldiers in combat and police ... well, too often. There is no such exception for doctors. Second, the assisted suicide laws include strong protections to ensure that the choice is informed and entirely voluntary (except apparently in Canada). Third, ethics matter. Ethical codes are not always enforceable in law but they are still a vital part of the social controls that keep things working. Doctors self-select for and are continuously reinforced in the principle that they must keep the patient's best interests at heart.
Laws against assisted suicide undermine the principle by incenting the doctor to put her own interests (in not going to jail) ahead the the patient's interests. That is neither just nor ethical.
Wait? We already have laws making suicide illegal. So.....
The whole concept always seemed like something out of Alice in Wonderland. What are we going to do if someone commits suicide? Arrest them? Throw them in jail?
No. When you endorse doctors killing their patients, doctors will start killing their patients. That is true regardless of whether the government is involved. You don't think insurance companies and hospitals wont' do the same thing if it will save them money?
Even when given a softball topic like "the Canadian government is trying to murder people", Shackforf manages to fuck it up.
They leaned on my Dad to off my 92 year old grandmother when she was in for a broken hip.
Both my parents have given us notarized letters saying that they absolutely do not consent to euthanasia and asking us to pursue litigation if it happens.
They probably won't actually stand, but if we wave them about we might give some administrator pause.
I'd say that definitely crosses a line. No ethical physician should even be bringing that up as a possibility.
You don't make euthanasia the sixth largest cause of death in Canada without crossing all sorts of ethical lines.
Hospital administrators are no longer having budget issues anymore.
Wow, hypocritical Perfect Bitch... Ain't it a BITCH when certain arrogant and EVIL people take it upon themselves, to decide for OTHER people, WHO should live, and WHO should die?!?!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
“You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"
So Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death... WHEN are You going to STOP stealing the IDs of Your victims, and then posting kiddie porn in THEIR names, and then blaming THEM?
Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
ᛋᛋqrlsy seems to think that there's some sort of conflict here.
I'm recommending YOU kill yourself, ᛋᛋqrlsy. Not the government.
Suicide and euthanasia aren't the same thing.
Also, I love my parents. I don't love you. You're an evil, child-maiming, baby-killing freak.
Evil is ass evil does, suicide-luster and ID thief! "Expert Christian Theologian", my ass!!! The voices in your head are the Evil One, NOT Jesus!!! Jesus, Thor, and Buddha Almighty!!! Do You know ANYTHING other than infinite Self-Worshit?!?!?
Loans run?
Soylent Green
Logan's Run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
I hate that we live in a universe indistinguishable from a joke.
When will it be available over the counter or mail order?
"the hospital's director of ethics"
Really? The director of ethics is the suicide salesman?
I don't think that word means what they think it means.
always wanted to see Running Man implemented.
I am waiting for self-righteous HYPOCRITE "Mother's Lament" to show up here, and BITCH like the self-righteous BEE-YOTCH that She demonstrably is!!!!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
“You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"
So Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death... WHEN are You going to STOP stealing the IDs of Your victims, and then posting kiddie porn in THEIR names, and then blaming THEM?
Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
What the fuck are you ranting about now, you disgusting piece-of-shit Nazi.
Can you READ, hypocritical self-righteous BITCH? Do you know what it is to be a self-righteous servant of the Evil One? ... Go look in a mirror, self-satisfied EVIL Perfect Bitch!!!
I can read, you just can't write, spastic.
Euthanasia and suicide aren't the same thing, ᛋᛋhillsy. I'm recommending the latter to you. Why waste tax dollars?
Evil is ass evil does, suicide-luster and ID thief! "Expert Christian Theologian", my ass!!! The voices in your head are the Evil One, NOT Jesus!!! Jesus, Thor, and Buddha Almighty!!! Do You know ANYTHING other than infinite Self-Worshit?!?!?
STOP taking therapy from Your Perfect Head Voices and vices!!! Talk, instead, to a REAL human, who has an iota of decency! Finding one who has MORE decency than YOU do, should be an utter cake-walk! They are EVERYWHERE where humans can be found!
Careful, you’ll summon his fellow goose-stepper Misek.
"Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue."
Just like no prohibition on banks raising the issue of your account access. Oh, Canada!
I wish I could die painlessly.
The lesson here should not be that assisted suicide is bad,
No.
This is the exact lesson that should be learned. Assisted suicide IS bad.
Clearly.
What better proof that the state murdering people because they don't want to fulfill the commitment they made to the citizenry?
Wanna see how the U.S. federal government would run health care? Just look at the V.A.
LITERALLY what we warned people decades ago about. But it was all just a stupid "sippy soap" argument I thought!
Just wait till this moves a step or two further and insurance/gov starts offering this to people as the only covered "treatment" for some people a/o conditions. Living in a single payer hell will take on a whole new meaning for those poor SOBs. Imagine being told they will only pay for you to kill yourself and it's illegal for you to pay for anything else yourself.
">Alan had been taken by his family to the hospital only days before to recover from a psychiatric episode, and in the minutes before he received a lethal injection, Trish described Alan screaming uncontrollably, despite the hospital's assurances that he had opted for a medically assisted death while "of sound mind."
>It should be uncontroversial to note that a person voluntarily agreeing to assisted suicide should not be screaming when it happens."
****ing what?! I actually feel sick and very VERY angry!
>"The lesson here should not be that assisted suicide is bad"
No **** OFF with that bullshit. If you want to die then fine, do it yourself. Medicine as NO business being involved with this at all!
the philosophical argument for the right to die can also end up colliding with troubling decisions in a country where the government funds and controls access to healthcare.
There are just as many troubling decisions that take place in a country where government funds healthcare (eg for those over 65 who comprise the vast majority of patients esp for specialists) but where government neither controls access to that healthcare nor really uses its leverage to negotiate prices either.
The scale of our entitlement liability problem is pretty unique here
This is a very important question. Luckily, I don't have any major health problems. True, quite often my teeth and gums hurt, but I think that this is hereditary, since my mother also doesn't have good teeth. I think I was lucky to find a good gum specialist singapore because I'm a bit afraid of dentists, but with these specialists I'm sure everything will be fine.
Remember when they told us there would be no death boards.
Is there any question about how easily mandates and social pressure for vaccination could be applied to people "stubbornly refusing to give into nature" and "costing the rest of us for the chance to eke out a few more miserable years"?
I predict, oh, 4 or 5 years from now- certain denizens of this site will be arguing to us that they should be able to lecture us endlessly about our moral obligation to just die already. "Of course I oppose these death panels, and of course the government shouldn't be funding all healthcare, but there is a cost you put on society by living, and....blah blah blah"
Who is going to organize the drive to send Hank Phillips on a one way medical vacation to Canada?
Soylent Green is people.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
Sure, Line them up before the firing squad. Get rid of sterile, antiseptic procedures.
Actually, I believe it was "death panels". I'm assuming that if one person at a time suggests suicide, that apparently can't be considered a "panel".
It's one of those situations where a good idea, when combined with a bad idea, makes the bad idea immeasurably worse. Allowing physician-assisted suicide, while a good idea on its own IMO, when combined with a government-run healthcare system can pretty much only produce bad outcomes.
More accurately, Geiger Goldstaedt believes that everything there is to know can be gleaned from knowing his/her own prejudices and preferences.
Your strawman about what libertarians believe (let alone what "doctrinaire libertarians believe, whoever they are) is exactly that - a strawman as disconnected from reality as you are accusing your political opponents of being.
No, it's much simpler than that. Libertarians have always disagreed on the details of this issue. A person has a right to end his own life, but the question of whether physicians should be shielded from any consequences for facilitating someone's death is less clean cut for libertarians.
Perhaps the best libertarian answer is end drug prohibition and let people make their own suicide cocktail. The only reason physician assistance is needed is that they are the gatekeepers of the legitimate sources of drugs that reliably and painlessly will kill you.
Libertarians then have to decide whether to support the good idea on principle, or oppose the bad combo of ideas our of pragmatism.
A simple logical syllogism.
You alleged above that all libertarians hold the beliefs and assumptions above.
I consider myself a libertarian.
I do not hold the beliefs and assumptions you alleged above.
Since a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove an alleged general rule, your premise is false.
However, it's trivially easy to read the comments of others right here at Reason (where many consider themselves libertarian to one degree or another) and see that they also do not necessarily hold to your beliefs and prejudices.
You should be denied care because you are fat, or smoked, or are unvaxxed, or ugly, belong to the wrong party, said bad things on Twitter, have a poor social score, on and on.
And by denizens do you mean Scott and over half the staff? Or did you mean to limit this to just 50 cent commenters?
"There are certain...ahh..."externalities" deriving from your continued existence, which it would be unethical for us to ignore."
~future "Director of Ethics/Executioner"
Mandates are only suggestions in hindsight.
Well said. I was going to say something similar, but probably more wordy.
My problem with it was exactly as you say, when you combine the ideal of letting people choose their own way of painlessly checking out with the assistance of professionals with the West's inexorable march towards state-run healthcare, it makes for a very disturbing stew of dangerous incentives.
He's alleged that "doctrinaire" libertarians believe the above, not all libertarians. Doctrinaire I guess meaning, self-proclaimed "principled libertarians." I disagree, in part because to sign on with the Left and their policy "solutions" requires a compromise in principles, to begin with, regardless of their rhetoric. But when you spend enough time around no true Scotsman types of any ideology it's not too hard to become skeptical about their ideological beliefs.
Also sad to say libertarians have failed in establishing themselves in this country as a separate and stable force, not dependent on the Left or the Right, to push back against the government's takeover of our lives, whether it was due to the Left's seducing certain libertarians, incompetence, or something else can be debated forever.
But that is why Geiger is wrong here. Doctrinaire libertarians do not agree with state-run healthcare. So now you have to ask whether a doctrinaire libertarian would be willing to take one (physician assisted suicide) without the other (free market healthcare). That requires qualitative value judgements that cannot be rendered to a single doctrine.
Which to me is the ultimate failure of the libertarian movement. We didn't build a successful base at the community and local level showing that voluntarist/market-based solutions can work. Add to this the failure to build a culture based on responsibility and liberty (not entirely the fault of libertarians), libertarians ended up in a place where they feel they can only choose the solutions proposed by statists.
"Give it time. We'll get there."
I sometimes fear we might already be there.
There’s also selective enforcement and the order in which the government knots get undone.
There are clearly some principled libertarian arguments for letting homeless people reside in public spaces, etc. But when we haven’t affectively addressed private property rights and all of the taxes, regulations, and restrictions on property owners first, you’re gonna end up with a bunch of people shitting on your lawn and store front AND no real property rights for owners.
Drug decriminalization makes total sense as a way of ending one of the stupidest policies of the past century. But if you just increase drug demand and there’s only a black market run by gangs to run it, you’ve just upped the murder count and associated violence and theft.
But you should get priority care if you are brown, female, trans, indigenous, ESG, DEI, or a Hero Worker.
Now with 10% more Asians!
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ani-09) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
The problem I often see is people limit their response to the narrow question before them and dismiss the wider implications as some separate topic to be addressed at a later time.
The entire immigration issue is like this as one example. Should people be allowed to move freely, sure. Now how about if their movement forces increased state control and confiscation further existing citizens? They'll get back to you once they have their open borders policy.
I am a doctrinaire libertarian and I have never been "seduced by the left". So I agree with Rossami. You are making up caricatures in your head and body slamming them. I am sure that makes you very smug, but it is also about as reality based as professional wrestling.
But as a rhetorical device it does get certain general points across.
Are we going to Demand humility from people here or just point out simple problems with arguments and leave off the endless justifications... its the self justification that results in poorer and poorer quality of discussion.
Now, the justification of ones proper argument is quite the opposite and whether wrong or right does end up being better than the posted articles from which they were spawned.
Its similar to when people here try to pin down the various 50 centers in their hypocrisy or outright lying. It just wastes space because once trapped they will either squirm for 50 posts or the hunters eventually leave off.
guess I should have read further down b4 posting ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- I'd have seen a nice transition to the argument based discussion.
Good to see and I suppose to be expected because those involved are all monikers of good posters here on a topic less tribally charged amongst a more honest lot on the whole.