Assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 Canada deaths

Statistical framing and scope

• Several commenters note that “1 in 20 deaths” sounds alarming but mostly reflects terminally ill people shifting from slow, medicated deaths to MAID; 96% had “reasonably foreseeable” natural deaths and median age is ~77.
• Some argue this roughly matches estimates that ~4–5% of people have suffering not controllable by palliative care.
• Others want more meaningful metrics (e.g., “life‑years lost” or negative quality‑of‑life years) rather than simple share of deaths.

Supportive views: autonomy and relief of suffering

• Many describe harrowing experiences with cancer, COPD, dementia, and late‑stage organ failure, seeing MAID as a humane option versus prolonged agony or heavy sedation.
• Strong emphasis on bodily autonomy: people who never chose to be born should be able to choose when/how to die.
• Some would like MAID widely available for older people who have “had enough,” seeing a “good death” as planning, saying goodbye, and avoiding drawn‑out decline.

Critiques and fears: coercion, economics, slippery slope

• Major concern: vulnerable people (poor, disabled, socially isolated) might choose MAID because they lack housing, income, care, or treatment.
• Several cite cases where benefits or supports were denied or inadequate and MAID was seen as the “only” option, or was inappropriately suggested.
• Fears of MAID as de‑facto austerity policy or a “solution” to high end‑of‑life costs; some compare this to bussing homeless people to other cities.
• Slippery‑slope worries: normalization now could lead to social or family pressure later, particularly as criteria expand (e.g., to mental illness).

Process, safeguards, and reported abuses

• Described safeguards: two independent doctors, assessment of a “grievous and irremediable” condition, capacity tests, waiting periods (longer if death not imminent), private interviews, and ability to withdraw consent anytime.
• Some Canadians and Dutch contributors say oversight is strong, cases are documented, and serious abuses are rare; a small number of inappropriate MAID “offers” triggered investigations and tighter guardrails.
• Critics counter that you cannot fully audit coercion in people who are now dead, and even one abusive pattern is unacceptable.

Comparison to existing end‑of‑life practice

• Multiple healthcare workers and families note that “passive euthanasia” already happens: escalating opioids, stopping aggressive treatment, withholding IV fluids, and letting people die under the label of “symptom management.”
• Some argue MAID mainly makes this explicit, faster, and less psychologically torturous for patients and families; others are disturbed by how quietly implicit euthanasia already occurs.

Mental illness, dementia, and capacity

• Strong division on extending MAID to people with non‑terminal mental illness: some see it as recognizing unbearable, untreatable suffering; others see it as abandoning people who might later recover.
• Dementia is a special flashpoint: current Canadian rules require contemporaneous capacity, so advance directives for future dementia aren’t honored; many find that cruel, others fear abuse when a person can no longer confirm consent.
• Broader debate about how to tell genuine, stable will from transient suicidality, grief, intoxication, or family pressure; suggestions include longer waiting periods and detailed advance directives.

Socioeconomic and healthcare context

• Multiple commenters stress that MAID policy can’t be separated from healthcare access, housing, disability benefits, and overburdened systems (Canada, UK, US).
• Some argue MAID is appropriate only in societies that robustly fund care, to avoid “killing people instead of helping them”; others note no system is perfect, and withholding MAID until utopia arrives prolongs large amounts of suffering.

Cultural, religious, and philosophical divides

• Clear split between autonomy‑focused, often secular views (“my life, my choice”) and positions grounded in sanctity‑of‑life or religious ethics (life’s value outweighs personal desire to die; fear of repeating historical eugenics).
• Animal euthanasia is frequently invoked: many see it as inconsistent to end a pet’s suffering but force humans through extreme decline; opponents respond that human life has distinct moral status.
• Some users from countries with long‑standing euthanasia (e.g., Netherlands, Switzerland) report broad acceptance and normalized practice; others, especially from the US/UK, are more cautious and emphasize potential for abuse and political misuse.