So, I came across a fairly alarmist post written by some right wingers about euthanasia in Canada's healthcare system. However, I did some research into it and found an AP link backing up the claims made by the post. Basically, it looks like Canada is having a problem with euthanasia. They seem to be recommending that people kill themselves if they're too much of a drain on the healthcare system, with one person being shamed for costing the state $1500 a day for being kept alive. Other people were recommended suicide for non terminal conditions like PTSD and hearing loss. Back in my conservative days, I'd be screaming death panels over this, but I did feel like this deserves more nuanced consideration given my support of universal healthcare.
It's a common problem in some state run healthcare systems like Canada's and the UK's that they are underfunded and often skimp on treatment as a result. And conservatives often do this to argue against universal healthcare systems. But in a lot of cases it's the conservatives' own doing, they intentionally try to undermine the healthcare system and push for privatization. But barring that, it shouldn't be a huge issue. Just fund your healthcare systems properly and don't intentionally sabotage them.
Beyond that, that isn't the core issue here. As the article states, there are other countries with universal healthcare systems, but they don't have this issue. The thing is, they have more strict standards associated with euthanasia, where only doctors can suggest it, and only after all other options are exhausted. Moreover, many are forbidden from mentioning it as a treatment option, the person has to request it.
This is fair. While euthanasia in Canada is technically voluntary, the core issue here is consent to the procedure seems to be pressured by doctors, nurses, etc. They lack proper ethics around it, leading to weird situations like people with PTSD and hearing loss being recommended suicide as a "treatment option". So, it seems, at the very least, Canada needs to adopt much stricter restrictions on the option. This isn't so much a universal healthcare problem as it is a lack of ethics option.
Obviously, the purpose of the healthcare system is to help people, and to do no harm. Death should only be an option when all other options are exhausted, and costs should largely be kept out of it. While there are fringe situations that conservatives make a big deal on where for example, some healthcare systems might refuse to keep dying babies with severe birth defects alives when there's no real helping them, generally speaking, they do a good job. These systems work on a triage system where people who need help get it when they need it and less severe problems can wait. Wait times and denial of treatment are often blown up as problems by conservatives, but this seems largely overstated.
By the way, we have healthcare rationing in the US too. It's called 40 million people not having healthcare, and 45000 people dying every year unnecessarily. So we ration care too, we just do it on the basis of cost. And if you don't think insurance people allow people to die to save money, you got another thing coming.
So is this necessarily a problem with universal healthcare systems? not really. This is a problem with poor ethics surrounding legalized euthanasia. Other societies with universal healthcare do not have these issues, because their ethics surrounding the option are much stricter.
This actually makes me give pause to the idea of assisted suicide, which is ironic given i just took all of those political quizzes and came out in favor of the concept. I still would say I support it, but only for terminally ill patients, and only with strict ethics and regulations surrounding it. I'm fine with restricting "freedom" if people are coerced or pressured into doing something that they otherwise wouldn't do or shouldn't do.
No comments:
Post a Comment