I know I’m late to the conversation, but this was a hard listen for me. Not because I don’t love the pod but because I’ve had four very close family members pass away in the last year. Two of them suffered for years because doctors refused to prescribe them pain and anxiety medicine, despite the fact that they were over 80, on oxygen, and basically immobile. We overheard each praying nightly (they did not know each other) for their god to take them. Another one died suddenly but had told me for years that he was so tired of hurting and ready to go.
I don’t think limiting this care to people with terminal illnesses is enough because it doesn’t account for SO many people experiencing extreme amounts of pain for years, whether physical or emotional. I think that just having the option would provide hope to many people, as backwards as that sounds.
I grew up on a ranch and was always taught that putting an animal out of its misery was better than letting it suffer, even if it was emotionally taxing to ourselves. I always saw that as a sacrifice that actually honored the sanctity of life and was more respectful to the animal. I know we’re not animals in the same way, but only because we have the intelligence to make that decision for ourselves. I don’t think it’s my choice to take that decision away from someone who has carefully thought it through.
All that to say, I don’t think it honors the sanctity of life to let our fellow humans needlessly suffer just because it is emotionally painful or we personally find it morally offensive. I just don’t agree that giving people the opportunity to choose their own end = societal devaluation of life.
My mother has serious dementia, but is in decent physical health. This story made me suddenly remember an incident that happened when she was in the hospital for complications from a UTI. At the time she was pretty out of it, but I had no reason not to assume the antibiotics would kick in and all would be well, and it ultimately was. But early on a doctor pulled me aside and asked some questions about Mom’s daily life and abilities, and I got the definite impression that she was investigating whether this was a life worth prolonging. I was so startled that I brushed her off and that was the last I ever heard about it, but that incident makes clear to me that this subject would absolutely come up in stressful times and under circumstances that don’t allow for careful, methodical decision making. In a number of aspects of my mom’s care my siblings and I have been asked to make decisions about things we have literally never given a moment’s thought about. Legislation alone doesn’t prepare people, and to Sarah’s point about a government checking a legislative item off of their list and calling it “done”, clearly there will be a lot more to consider.
What stood out to me from the Atlantic piece is the tension between prioritizing access vs prioritizing restraint. I get it. If MAiD is available, it should be available to everyone, not just the wealthy. But what else is introduced when access is the highest value?
Also, what I always think about during these conversations, is that we clearly have a humane way of helping people die using pharmaceuticals. If we’re going to insist on the death penalty in America, why on earth are we using inhumane methods when a humane method that people are willing to pay for exists. Maybe it’s more expensive. I don’t care. It makes me so mad.
I am not finished with the episode, but I have an issue with the categorization that Canada doesn’t consider life as sacred because of this policy when here in the US we refuse to protect children from guns, people die because they can’t pay for medication, and people are being deported to death prisons.
I was able to listen to the episode today and I enjoyed it. I spoke with Beth earlier this year about my experience as a hospice nurse in California and I thought I'd share some things with you all. We have the End of Life Option (ELO) Act here and I've had a lot of experience navigating the process with patients and families here. I was surprised to hear more about how Canada is implementing MAID and the staggering rate it's being used. In 2023 about 1300 Californian's were prescribed these meds and about 880 ingested them so very small numbers when considering our population and annual deaths, ingestion rates hover around 60-70% from year to year. The law here is not overly complicated but it's a process for sure. Patients must be of sound mind and make the requests themselves. They have to have 2 MD's attest they expect the patients natural death within the next 6 months with a high certainty. After those two visits they must go through a waiting period and then make a 2nd request. During these initial MD appointments the MD's interview patients about their reasons and make sure they have been offered palliative intervention or hospice care, most patients are already on hospice when they start this process. We don't want patients seeking out these meds due to lack of effort to get them comfortable. After all that the medications can be prescribed and purchased (hospice will not pay for these meds). A pharmacist consults with them once the meds are delivered, where they explain what to do with the meds if they choose to ingest them and how to safely return them if they do not ingest them. The patients get education on things that could happen with their health that would disqualify them from taking the meds even if they have them in the home. I've seen patients get these meds before and they have a change in condition and I've told families to send the meds back as the person lacks capacity or whatever. I've also seen patients who just don't take them as they progress but they feel good having it there in case they desire to take them.
Where I work we have a totally separate department that manages this process and connects patients with MD's if their PCP's or specialists opt out of the program. Hospice isn't actually involved in the process but we can help educate people on what to expect and provide support. The first few years it was kind of a "no no" to bring it up at all and I would only talk about it if people asked about it. Now we've all had education and training about how to discuss this with patients if it seems like they'd like to learn more about the program and ask for that referral. For example if a patient of mine had very complicated pain I have to be honest with them about their options and the realities and limitations of what we can do at home to manage serious complicated symptoms like pain and sometimes the ELO option makes sense to discuss based on what my patients ask and say about what they are dealing with. Sometimes my patients ask me how they can control how much time they have left and my honest answer is that the only way we can truly take their lifespan into their conscious control is through what we choose to eat and drink, or going through the ELO process. It's not like, "hey have you thought about killing yourself?", it's like, "would it be helpful to you to learn more about the End of Life Option Act?" These deaths are not treated like suicides and the cause of death is always listed as their terminal diagnosis. I explain to people that they'd never be prescribed this without the terminal diagnosis and so that is still the cause of death. It doesn't affect life insurance or anything like that.
There have been changes to the law in recent years to shorten the waiting period, and to allow alternate routes to take besides oral ingestion. Now patients may administer rectally or via g-tube if they cannot swallow. I believe these changes are good and public support of the law is around 78% so most people here support the way we have implemented the law. As clinicians we can all refuse to participate in any way. Some of the nurses on my team do not agree with this and if their patients want nurse support at that time others can step in and help. I have been with many patients when they've taken their meds and I feel like if they've met all the requirements, are of sound mind, and can ingest themselves then they are free to make that choice. I know the term "suffering" is very subjective but we don't get to decide what is suffering and what is not to our patients. I know it's obscene to consider finances and how robust a persons support system is as part of this equation but that's reality. I wish we had the kind of health care and social support networks in place to eliminate this worry from peoples minds but we don't. I do my best as a hospice nurse to manage peoples symptoms, assist them/their families on how to physically take care of a dying person, and be honest with them at all times. I know these interventions prevent people from seeking out the ELO meds and by far most of our patients do not seek this out. I feel comfortable with our law right now and like the guardrails as I can imagine so many grey areas that would not be good for clinicians or patients to wade out into. The ELO process in itself is a deterrent to most people I work with, as it's arduous to a dying person to do all this stuff honestly. I've never witness any coercion and mostly I see families trying to talk their loved ones out of it.
I have a patient who will be getting her meds tomorrow and plans to ingest them next week. I plan to be with her per her request. We talked about it today and I told her that she will make the decision herself and if she decides not to that I'll be ready to help her no matter what happens. I took care of her husband years ago when he died of ALS so she knows I'm serious and I'm ready for whatever might happen while she is under my care. The ingestion process includes taking anti-nausea drugs 1 hour before you take the actual ELO meds. She told me we're going to watch George Carlin stand up while we wait that hour. She's got her favorite sherbet ready for her last bite after the meds and to chase the nasty taste. I kind of love that. She's ready to laugh, take one more delicious bite and go join her beloved husband, and she wants me to be there to share this moment with her. I love this woman and I will fully support her decision no matter what happens. I know this is all complicated but with a strict law and lots of education I don't feel most of my patients are seeking this out of desperation and I'd like to see the process stay this way. I know this is a lot and I could write a whole lot more but I feel like California has a good process in place and my organizations follows the law to the letter. I feel comfortable with guiding people through it and being with my patients when they take these drugs. I'm happy we have this option in California. Keep up the good work Sarah and Beth.
Thank you for all this information. I’m a PNP in Michigan and my plan is to eventually move into palliative/hospice care so I loved reading all of your story.
I also want to mention that a lot of my patients do openly discuss this topic with their religious leaders and communities. Sometimes their faith community is supportive and sometines they are not.
This was a great episode and I plan to read the article this weekend. One thing, Sarah made a comment that the USA does believe in the sanctity of life and I just don’t agree. We treat people poorly all the time and I think the conversation about human dignity should be broader than just end of life decisions.
The comment about the danger of commodification of euthanasia stopped me in my tracks. Yes. We don’t have to look any farther than the industries that have sprung up dealing with commodifying school safety (safety from school shootings) companies selling software, apps, new door lock systems, lockdown training, emergency kits for classrooms, the list goes on and on. I have a really hard time accepting this part of American capitalism.
Absolutely love this conversation! I fall into the trap sometimes of “every country does it better.” On things like this, I’m glad other countries are going first, so we can learn from their mistakes.
Also, I love the idea of - tell me your life story. I am not going to forget that. I’ve made new friends since we’ve moved a few years ago and really don’t know much about their past. Totally going to take your suggestions and put them to use.
I am one of the Canadians who is horrified by being represented by some of the doctors quoted in this story and the general sense that we’ve agreed as a country that this policy framework is okay. I don’t think we have agreed on that at all but policy has been allowed to proceed regardless. 2 people in my life circle have ended their lives with MAID due to terminal illness and it was meaningful, peaceful, and full of love for them/their families. Everything that this program promises for that tier 1 patient situation. AND. The ignoring of warnings from Europe, the expansion of the program without much meaningful public consultation, etc has me deeply concerned about the moral injury to our country, medical workers, and culture as a whole. It holds multitudes and I think we have failed as a country to truly dig into the multitudes before proceeding with this program.
One thing I think is important in the body of work that is the podcast, is to avoid proof texting Beth and Sarah. The benefit of having their perspectives, to me, is that it leads me to sharpen or shift or soften my own perspectives. I've listened to well, every episode of the pod, but specifically to all of the episodes and supplemental episodes about assisted death. I've read about it extensively. I read the links shared this week.
I don't know what I believe about this.
I don't want our current U.S. situation, which makes it more and more impossible to get healthcare. I don't like the conversations we have around pain and relief from pain. I didn't like watching elderly relatives and some younger friends and children have prolonged deaths. I don't even know what I want for myself. I waffle on it all the time. For years.
I'm coming around to some things I do want, which are more pathways out of loneliness. I want more people to feel valued. I want more people to find something that brings them joy, even if its a solitary practice. I guess overall I want a lot more conversation about death and dying, not the sanitized fear-based conversations that permeate our culture.
This is such a heavy topic. I lost a brother who had many, many medical complexities, and my parents chose many, many interventions that I am not sure improved his quality of life. He was not capable of making choices for himself- he never spoke or walked. He couldn't feed himself and relied on tube feeding for some of his nutrition and medication. He had complex seizures. And he laughed and added value to our lives for sure, but he suffered. A lot. He died in 2020 at 31, and it was so fast that there wasn't time for medical intervention. This was a grace, I think. In the time my parents called 911 he passed.
All that said to say, I very much appreciated the reference to "Noah is Still Here." I had not read that article, but it did help me better understand the complexities of the choices my parents made in caring for Sam.
The rest of my comment aside, medically assisted death is complicated, and I am glad you are having this conversation.
This was a great conversation, and I look forward to reading the source material. I believe I have a right to make the choice of when my life ends, though I would not want to have anyone else disregard their ethical or moral beliefs. Also, I have to question the assumption that this country values life, beyond primarily white males. We say we do; the evidence says otherwise. For me, at least Canada isn’t claiming moral high ground they don’t follow.
The daily challenges of caring for your grandmothers must be so difficult.
One of the parts of the Atlantic article that stopped me cold was the passage that described the challenge between discerning the difference between suicidal ideation and a request for MAID. Not wanting to be here any longer - is a sign of a need for help (even with acknowledging that the necessary help may be very difficult to obtain), or the act of the will that is to be given more regard than elanyrhing else.
A couple things came to mind listening. I think the man quoted from the article was using the word “sacred” to mean bestowed by God, and it felt like Sarah was interpreting his use of “sacred” to mean having value. I also saw a stark contrast to how people view the potential for moral damage, and thus the need for a right to refuse to participate in providing this type of care, for medical providers versus how that is viewed with abortion care, where people are often vilified as anti-women if they express a moral opposition to providing those services.
Yes to this! The term "sacred" is by definition religious -- "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration." I do believe that human life deserves the utmost respect and reverence, but it's not because I believe human life is connected with any divine being or that it has any divine purpose. There is plenty to discuss and disagree about regarding MAiD. But I worry about using religious language to oppose or critique policies that expand the right to bodily autonomy. Not only does it set the stage for an unproductive conversation, with an unagreed-upon premise, but religious language just doesn't persuade non-religious people. This is obviously a discussion worth having that all kinds of reasonable people can have all kinds of valid opinions about. But I feel a bit left out of the conversation when the premise that I am supposed to accept for entry is that there's something supernatural or divine about human life.
This was so thoughtful. A few thoughts (probably word vomit)
1. I’m a person who has generally always supported MAID. My Nana died with Alzheimer’s, from an infection. She’d been hospitalized numerous times due to dehydration, despite being in a memory care facility. She had a bad fall when I was 7, went into the facility, and died when I was 11. I always wonder if Alzheimer’s is something that will happen to me too, and I know I don’t want to end up in a state where I’m calling my children my brother’s names. But how do we make the ethical choice of when someone with dementia can die?
2. Beth, the advertising point. Oh. My. God. It gave me chills thinking about it.
3. My husband and I went to Ireland in 2023. We asked the bartenders about life, especially their healthcare. They hated it! Everything was still either waitlisted or costly, and the surgery centers that were most accessible were sketchy, per their view. And we heard this in Letterkenny (a town of one main street) and Dublin and Galway. Just wanted to leave that somewhere with the thought that even places progressives idolize aren’t perfect.
4. On medical ethics: I was a philosophy minor. I have THOUGHTS on ethics that I struggle with. But just a general comment—we as Americans need to value those thoughts again.
I know I’m late to the conversation, but this was a hard listen for me. Not because I don’t love the pod but because I’ve had four very close family members pass away in the last year. Two of them suffered for years because doctors refused to prescribe them pain and anxiety medicine, despite the fact that they were over 80, on oxygen, and basically immobile. We overheard each praying nightly (they did not know each other) for their god to take them. Another one died suddenly but had told me for years that he was so tired of hurting and ready to go.
I don’t think limiting this care to people with terminal illnesses is enough because it doesn’t account for SO many people experiencing extreme amounts of pain for years, whether physical or emotional. I think that just having the option would provide hope to many people, as backwards as that sounds.
I grew up on a ranch and was always taught that putting an animal out of its misery was better than letting it suffer, even if it was emotionally taxing to ourselves. I always saw that as a sacrifice that actually honored the sanctity of life and was more respectful to the animal. I know we’re not animals in the same way, but only because we have the intelligence to make that decision for ourselves. I don’t think it’s my choice to take that decision away from someone who has carefully thought it through.
All that to say, I don’t think it honors the sanctity of life to let our fellow humans needlessly suffer just because it is emotionally painful or we personally find it morally offensive. I just don’t agree that giving people the opportunity to choose their own end = societal devaluation of life.
Really great episode. I’m glad there was a follow-up to the first one. I just read this article from People along a similar topic and thought I would share it in the comments: https://people.com/family-gets-text-message-mom-ended-life-assisted-suicide-11801722
It is pretty disturbing, but I think it really highlights the processes that should be in place for any situation like it.
My mother has serious dementia, but is in decent physical health. This story made me suddenly remember an incident that happened when she was in the hospital for complications from a UTI. At the time she was pretty out of it, but I had no reason not to assume the antibiotics would kick in and all would be well, and it ultimately was. But early on a doctor pulled me aside and asked some questions about Mom’s daily life and abilities, and I got the definite impression that she was investigating whether this was a life worth prolonging. I was so startled that I brushed her off and that was the last I ever heard about it, but that incident makes clear to me that this subject would absolutely come up in stressful times and under circumstances that don’t allow for careful, methodical decision making. In a number of aspects of my mom’s care my siblings and I have been asked to make decisions about things we have literally never given a moment’s thought about. Legislation alone doesn’t prepare people, and to Sarah’s point about a government checking a legislative item off of their list and calling it “done”, clearly there will be a lot more to consider.
What stood out to me from the Atlantic piece is the tension between prioritizing access vs prioritizing restraint. I get it. If MAiD is available, it should be available to everyone, not just the wealthy. But what else is introduced when access is the highest value?
Also, what I always think about during these conversations, is that we clearly have a humane way of helping people die using pharmaceuticals. If we’re going to insist on the death penalty in America, why on earth are we using inhumane methods when a humane method that people are willing to pay for exists. Maybe it’s more expensive. I don’t care. It makes me so mad.
I am not finished with the episode, but I have an issue with the categorization that Canada doesn’t consider life as sacred because of this policy when here in the US we refuse to protect children from guns, people die because they can’t pay for medication, and people are being deported to death prisons.
I was able to listen to the episode today and I enjoyed it. I spoke with Beth earlier this year about my experience as a hospice nurse in California and I thought I'd share some things with you all. We have the End of Life Option (ELO) Act here and I've had a lot of experience navigating the process with patients and families here. I was surprised to hear more about how Canada is implementing MAID and the staggering rate it's being used. In 2023 about 1300 Californian's were prescribed these meds and about 880 ingested them so very small numbers when considering our population and annual deaths, ingestion rates hover around 60-70% from year to year. The law here is not overly complicated but it's a process for sure. Patients must be of sound mind and make the requests themselves. They have to have 2 MD's attest they expect the patients natural death within the next 6 months with a high certainty. After those two visits they must go through a waiting period and then make a 2nd request. During these initial MD appointments the MD's interview patients about their reasons and make sure they have been offered palliative intervention or hospice care, most patients are already on hospice when they start this process. We don't want patients seeking out these meds due to lack of effort to get them comfortable. After all that the medications can be prescribed and purchased (hospice will not pay for these meds). A pharmacist consults with them once the meds are delivered, where they explain what to do with the meds if they choose to ingest them and how to safely return them if they do not ingest them. The patients get education on things that could happen with their health that would disqualify them from taking the meds even if they have them in the home. I've seen patients get these meds before and they have a change in condition and I've told families to send the meds back as the person lacks capacity or whatever. I've also seen patients who just don't take them as they progress but they feel good having it there in case they desire to take them.
Where I work we have a totally separate department that manages this process and connects patients with MD's if their PCP's or specialists opt out of the program. Hospice isn't actually involved in the process but we can help educate people on what to expect and provide support. The first few years it was kind of a "no no" to bring it up at all and I would only talk about it if people asked about it. Now we've all had education and training about how to discuss this with patients if it seems like they'd like to learn more about the program and ask for that referral. For example if a patient of mine had very complicated pain I have to be honest with them about their options and the realities and limitations of what we can do at home to manage serious complicated symptoms like pain and sometimes the ELO option makes sense to discuss based on what my patients ask and say about what they are dealing with. Sometimes my patients ask me how they can control how much time they have left and my honest answer is that the only way we can truly take their lifespan into their conscious control is through what we choose to eat and drink, or going through the ELO process. It's not like, "hey have you thought about killing yourself?", it's like, "would it be helpful to you to learn more about the End of Life Option Act?" These deaths are not treated like suicides and the cause of death is always listed as their terminal diagnosis. I explain to people that they'd never be prescribed this without the terminal diagnosis and so that is still the cause of death. It doesn't affect life insurance or anything like that.
There have been changes to the law in recent years to shorten the waiting period, and to allow alternate routes to take besides oral ingestion. Now patients may administer rectally or via g-tube if they cannot swallow. I believe these changes are good and public support of the law is around 78% so most people here support the way we have implemented the law. As clinicians we can all refuse to participate in any way. Some of the nurses on my team do not agree with this and if their patients want nurse support at that time others can step in and help. I have been with many patients when they've taken their meds and I feel like if they've met all the requirements, are of sound mind, and can ingest themselves then they are free to make that choice. I know the term "suffering" is very subjective but we don't get to decide what is suffering and what is not to our patients. I know it's obscene to consider finances and how robust a persons support system is as part of this equation but that's reality. I wish we had the kind of health care and social support networks in place to eliminate this worry from peoples minds but we don't. I do my best as a hospice nurse to manage peoples symptoms, assist them/their families on how to physically take care of a dying person, and be honest with them at all times. I know these interventions prevent people from seeking out the ELO meds and by far most of our patients do not seek this out. I feel comfortable with our law right now and like the guardrails as I can imagine so many grey areas that would not be good for clinicians or patients to wade out into. The ELO process in itself is a deterrent to most people I work with, as it's arduous to a dying person to do all this stuff honestly. I've never witness any coercion and mostly I see families trying to talk their loved ones out of it.
I have a patient who will be getting her meds tomorrow and plans to ingest them next week. I plan to be with her per her request. We talked about it today and I told her that she will make the decision herself and if she decides not to that I'll be ready to help her no matter what happens. I took care of her husband years ago when he died of ALS so she knows I'm serious and I'm ready for whatever might happen while she is under my care. The ingestion process includes taking anti-nausea drugs 1 hour before you take the actual ELO meds. She told me we're going to watch George Carlin stand up while we wait that hour. She's got her favorite sherbet ready for her last bite after the meds and to chase the nasty taste. I kind of love that. She's ready to laugh, take one more delicious bite and go join her beloved husband, and she wants me to be there to share this moment with her. I love this woman and I will fully support her decision no matter what happens. I know this is all complicated but with a strict law and lots of education I don't feel most of my patients are seeking this out of desperation and I'd like to see the process stay this way. I know this is a lot and I could write a whole lot more but I feel like California has a good process in place and my organizations follows the law to the letter. I feel comfortable with guiding people through it and being with my patients when they take these drugs. I'm happy we have this option in California. Keep up the good work Sarah and Beth.
Thank you for all this information. I’m a PNP in Michigan and my plan is to eventually move into palliative/hospice care so I loved reading all of your story.
I also want to mention that a lot of my patients do openly discuss this topic with their religious leaders and communities. Sometimes their faith community is supportive and sometines they are not.
This was a great episode and I plan to read the article this weekend. One thing, Sarah made a comment that the USA does believe in the sanctity of life and I just don’t agree. We treat people poorly all the time and I think the conversation about human dignity should be broader than just end of life decisions.
The comment about the danger of commodification of euthanasia stopped me in my tracks. Yes. We don’t have to look any farther than the industries that have sprung up dealing with commodifying school safety (safety from school shootings) companies selling software, apps, new door lock systems, lockdown training, emergency kits for classrooms, the list goes on and on. I have a really hard time accepting this part of American capitalism.
Absolutely love this conversation! I fall into the trap sometimes of “every country does it better.” On things like this, I’m glad other countries are going first, so we can learn from their mistakes.
Also, I love the idea of - tell me your life story. I am not going to forget that. I’ve made new friends since we’ve moved a few years ago and really don’t know much about their past. Totally going to take your suggestions and put them to use.
I am one of the Canadians who is horrified by being represented by some of the doctors quoted in this story and the general sense that we’ve agreed as a country that this policy framework is okay. I don’t think we have agreed on that at all but policy has been allowed to proceed regardless. 2 people in my life circle have ended their lives with MAID due to terminal illness and it was meaningful, peaceful, and full of love for them/their families. Everything that this program promises for that tier 1 patient situation. AND. The ignoring of warnings from Europe, the expansion of the program without much meaningful public consultation, etc has me deeply concerned about the moral injury to our country, medical workers, and culture as a whole. It holds multitudes and I think we have failed as a country to truly dig into the multitudes before proceeding with this program.
One thing I think is important in the body of work that is the podcast, is to avoid proof texting Beth and Sarah. The benefit of having their perspectives, to me, is that it leads me to sharpen or shift or soften my own perspectives. I've listened to well, every episode of the pod, but specifically to all of the episodes and supplemental episodes about assisted death. I've read about it extensively. I read the links shared this week.
I don't know what I believe about this.
I don't want our current U.S. situation, which makes it more and more impossible to get healthcare. I don't like the conversations we have around pain and relief from pain. I didn't like watching elderly relatives and some younger friends and children have prolonged deaths. I don't even know what I want for myself. I waffle on it all the time. For years.
I'm coming around to some things I do want, which are more pathways out of loneliness. I want more people to feel valued. I want more people to find something that brings them joy, even if its a solitary practice. I guess overall I want a lot more conversation about death and dying, not the sanitized fear-based conversations that permeate our culture.
This is such a heavy topic. I lost a brother who had many, many medical complexities, and my parents chose many, many interventions that I am not sure improved his quality of life. He was not capable of making choices for himself- he never spoke or walked. He couldn't feed himself and relied on tube feeding for some of his nutrition and medication. He had complex seizures. And he laughed and added value to our lives for sure, but he suffered. A lot. He died in 2020 at 31, and it was so fast that there wasn't time for medical intervention. This was a grace, I think. In the time my parents called 911 he passed.
All that said to say, I very much appreciated the reference to "Noah is Still Here." I had not read that article, but it did help me better understand the complexities of the choices my parents made in caring for Sam.
The rest of my comment aside, medically assisted death is complicated, and I am glad you are having this conversation.
This was a great conversation, and I look forward to reading the source material. I believe I have a right to make the choice of when my life ends, though I would not want to have anyone else disregard their ethical or moral beliefs. Also, I have to question the assumption that this country values life, beyond primarily white males. We say we do; the evidence says otherwise. For me, at least Canada isn’t claiming moral high ground they don’t follow.
The daily challenges of caring for your grandmothers must be so difficult.
One of the parts of the Atlantic article that stopped me cold was the passage that described the challenge between discerning the difference between suicidal ideation and a request for MAID. Not wanting to be here any longer - is a sign of a need for help (even with acknowledging that the necessary help may be very difficult to obtain), or the act of the will that is to be given more regard than elanyrhing else.
I'm sorry - this comment was meant to be in response to Hannah Lutz.
A couple things came to mind listening. I think the man quoted from the article was using the word “sacred” to mean bestowed by God, and it felt like Sarah was interpreting his use of “sacred” to mean having value. I also saw a stark contrast to how people view the potential for moral damage, and thus the need for a right to refuse to participate in providing this type of care, for medical providers versus how that is viewed with abortion care, where people are often vilified as anti-women if they express a moral opposition to providing those services.
Yes to this! The term "sacred" is by definition religious -- "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration." I do believe that human life deserves the utmost respect and reverence, but it's not because I believe human life is connected with any divine being or that it has any divine purpose. There is plenty to discuss and disagree about regarding MAiD. But I worry about using religious language to oppose or critique policies that expand the right to bodily autonomy. Not only does it set the stage for an unproductive conversation, with an unagreed-upon premise, but religious language just doesn't persuade non-religious people. This is obviously a discussion worth having that all kinds of reasonable people can have all kinds of valid opinions about. But I feel a bit left out of the conversation when the premise that I am supposed to accept for entry is that there's something supernatural or divine about human life.
This was so thoughtful. A few thoughts (probably word vomit)
1. I’m a person who has generally always supported MAID. My Nana died with Alzheimer’s, from an infection. She’d been hospitalized numerous times due to dehydration, despite being in a memory care facility. She had a bad fall when I was 7, went into the facility, and died when I was 11. I always wonder if Alzheimer’s is something that will happen to me too, and I know I don’t want to end up in a state where I’m calling my children my brother’s names. But how do we make the ethical choice of when someone with dementia can die?
2. Beth, the advertising point. Oh. My. God. It gave me chills thinking about it.
3. My husband and I went to Ireland in 2023. We asked the bartenders about life, especially their healthcare. They hated it! Everything was still either waitlisted or costly, and the surgery centers that were most accessible were sketchy, per their view. And we heard this in Letterkenny (a town of one main street) and Dublin and Galway. Just wanted to leave that somewhere with the thought that even places progressives idolize aren’t perfect.
4. On medical ethics: I was a philosophy minor. I have THOUGHTS on ethics that I struggle with. But just a general comment—we as Americans need to value those thoughts again.