The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 4:04 pm Well, IC claimed that assisted suicide was being used to reduce costs in the Canadian healthcare system.

So debunking his nonsense is on topic.

Unless you can prove that dead people cost more to serve with healthcare than live ones do, you can't. Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system.

Why are more Canadians, per capita, taking the assisted suicide option than in any other country in the entire world? Is it your belief that it's just how Canadians think? Are they a bunch of unhappy Nihilists? Is living in Canada so miserable that they just can't go on? And is it the same in Belgium and the Netherlands, though not quite as bad?

I'll be fascinated to hear your counter-theory.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 5:27 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:45 pm Please -- a thread about "universal heath care" should not degenerate into a discussion of suicide, assisted or otherwise (both should be considered, together because if unassisted OK, the question arises how much assistance makes it "assisted" ------UNDER APPLIED ETHICS?

Go ahead, and have fun.

But the conversation here is highly relevant Assisted suicide is a thing provided by the government, under the pretext of "health care." And they can do so, because government is dictating to everybody else what constitutes "health care." (They do the same with abortion, of course.) This is a further consequence of the universalization of health care; the government can decide what lives are worthwhile, and who gets to live and die...and back it with the force of law.

Not everything about universalization is always good, you know. And that's the topic. So we're right on point, here.

I give up.

Unless you can prove that dead people cost more to serve with healthcare than live ones do, you can't. Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system.

The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the intention of the MAID program to reduce healthcare cost rather than that any reduction is an unintended consequence.

BTW, the cost reduction was a small 0.08% of healthcare budgets in 2020.

Why are more Canadians, per capita, taking the assisted suicide option than in any other country in the entire world? Is it your belief that it's just how Canadians think? Are they a bunch of unhappy Nihilists? Is living in Canada so miserable that they just can't go on? And is it the same in Belgium and the Netherlands, though not quite as bad?

I except it's because they want to die with dignity and without extreme suffering. Not an unreasonable desire.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:50 pm

Unless you can prove that dead people cost more to serve with healthcare than live ones do, you can't. Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system.

The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the intention of the MAID program to reduce healthcare cost rather than that any reduction is an unintended consequence.

If I'd said those words, I might have an obligation to prove it. I didn't. I didn't speculate about "intentions." I just pointed out consequences.

Why are more Canadians, per capita, taking the assisted suicide option than in any other country in the entire world? Is it your belief that it's just how Canadians think? Are they a bunch of unhappy Nihilists? Is living in Canada so miserable that they just can't go on? And is it the same in Belgium and the Netherlands, though not quite as bad?

I except it's because they want to die with dignity and without extreme suffering. Not an unreasonable desire.

But people in the US, the UK, Australia...you think they all want to die, too? But they just can't, because their governments are mean, and won't kill them?

Nice thinking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:12 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:50 pm

Unless you can prove that dead people cost more to serve with healthcare than live ones do, you can't. Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system.

The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the intention of the MAID program to reduce healthcare cost rather than that any reduction is an unintended consequence.

If I'd said those words, I might have an obligation to prove it. I didn't. I didn't speculate about "intentions." I just pointed out consequences.

I thought you said that the government was encouraging suicide in order to reduce healthcare costs. Are you not saying that now, or are we just supposed to accept your view on that?

Well, if something like MAID comes up for a vote in the US. I guess I'll vote against it. Doing otherwise would be me wanting to kill people. I certainly want to do the right thing.

Unless you can prove that dead people cost more to serve with healthcare than live ones do, you can't. Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:50 pm


The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the intention of the MAID program to reduce healthcare cost rather than that any reduction is an unintended consequence.

If I'd said those words, I might have an obligation to prove it. I didn't. I didn't speculate about "intentions." I just pointed out consequences.

As if the intention isn't implied in what you wrote : " Every assisted suicide is a savings package for the universal healthcare system. "

But excellent ... You think that cost savings from MAID are an unintended consequence. Then you can stop jabbering about costs associated with MAID. It's not a relevant factor for the discussion.

But people in the US, the UK, Australia...you think they all want to die, too? But they just can't, because their governments are mean, and won't kill them?

You think they want to suffer for no good reason. Nice thinking.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:12 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:50 pm
The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the intention of the MAID program to reduce healthcare cost rather than that any reduction is an unintended consequence.

If I'd said those words, I might have an obligation to prove it. I didn't. I didn't speculate about "intentions." I just pointed out consequences.

I thought you said that the government was encouraging suicide in order to reduce healthcare costs. Are you not saying that now, or are we just supposed to accept your view on that?

I'm saying that the reduction in health care costs is a very welcome outcome for a system stressed to the max by economic unsustainability. Did the government plan that, or did they just discover it? Who knows: but the fact remains that Canada, which by all rights should be regarded as one of the better places to live in the world, has the highest assisted suicide rate anywhere. I don't think we can look for causes in the standard of living, or in the privileges affording to the average Canadian, because life in that country is pretty darn secure, pretty darn affluent, and pretty darn good.

And yet, people are killing themselves, and their government is helping them to do it.

And that fact calls for explanation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:12 pm
If I'd said those words, I might have an obligation to prove it. I didn't. I didn't speculate about "intentions." I just pointed out consequences.

I thought you said that the government was encouraging suicide in order to reduce healthcare costs. Are you not saying that now, or are we just supposed to accept your view on that?

I'm saying that the reduction in health care costs is a very welcome outcome for a system stressed to the max by economic unsustainability. Did the government plan that, or did they just discover it? Who knows: but the fact remains that Canada, which by all rights should be regarded as one of the better places to live in the world, has the highest assisted suicide rate anywhere. I don't think we can look for causes in the standard of living, or in the privileges affording to the average Canadian, because life in that country is pretty darn secure, pretty darn affluent, and pretty darn good.

And yet, people are killing themselves, and their government is helping them to do it.

And that fact calls for explanation.

Maybe it's like abortion, legalizing things like suicide and abortion is thought to be a way of preventing some of the ugly consequences of those things if done illegally in desperation in the 'backrooms' when there's no other alternative available. There are those who will do those things regardless of whether they are legal, and having it illegal is not going to stop them from doing it, so the idea is that legalizing and administering it 'humanely' is better than leaving them to use a more crude and painful method to accomplish their goal. Some argue the same thing for legalizing prostitution or drugs. Making it illegal doesn't stop some people from turning to those things.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:48 pm

I thought you said that the government was encouraging suicide in order to reduce healthcare costs. Are you not saying that now, or are we just supposed to accept your view on that?

I'm saying that the reduction in health care costs is a very welcome outcome for a system stressed to the max by economic unsustainability. Did the government plan that, or did they just discover it? Who knows: but the fact remains that Canada, which by all rights should be regarded as one of the better places to live in the world, has the highest assisted suicide rate anywhere. I don't think we can look for causes in the standard of living, or in the privileges affording to the average Canadian, because life in that country is pretty darn secure, pretty darn affluent, and pretty darn good.

And yet, people are killing themselves, and their government is helping them to do it.

And that fact calls for explanation.

Maybe it's like abortion, legalizing things like suicide and abortion is thought to be a way of preventing some of the ugly consequences of those things if done illegally in desperation in the 'backrooms' when there's no other alternative available.

That's always been a nonsense argument, in relation to abortion. "Choice" is already had at the moment of conception. So all the "consequences" could be avoided by being continent in the first place...and nobody would have to die.

But assisted suicide...which one of those things I listed that the government is pretending they know do they really know?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:59 pm
I'm saying that the reduction in health care costs is a very welcome outcome for a system stressed to the max by economic unsustainability. Did the government plan that, or did they just discover it? Who knows: but the fact remains that Canada, which by all rights should be regarded as one of the better places to live in the world, has the highest assisted suicide rate anywhere. I don't think we can look for causes in the standard of living, or in the privileges affording to the average Canadian, because life in that country is pretty darn secure, pretty darn affluent, and pretty darn good.

And yet, people are killing themselves, and their government is helping them to do it.

And that fact calls for explanation.

Maybe it's like abortion, legalizing things like suicide and abortion is thought to be a way of preventing some of the ugly consequences of those things if done illegally in desperation in the 'backrooms' when there's no other alternative available.

That's always been a nonsense argument, in relation to abortion. "Choice" is already had at the moment of conception. So all the "consequences" could be avoided by being continent in the first place...and nobody would have to die.

But assisted suicide...which one of those things I listed that the government is pretending they know do they really know?

So are we going to bank on human perfection? No one is going to make a mistake? People will think rationally about the urges in our genitals? And if they do make a mistake, then they deserve the consequences?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:18 am

Maybe it's like abortion, legalizing things like suicide and abortion is thought to be a way of preventing some of the ugly consequences of those things if done illegally in desperation in the 'backrooms' when there's no other alternative available.

That's always been a nonsense argument, in relation to abortion. "Choice" is already had at the moment of conception. So all the "consequences" could be avoided by being continent in the first place...and nobody would have to die.

But assisted suicide...which one of those things I listed that the government is pretending they know do they really know?

So are we going to bank on human perfection?

Obviously not. And that's why we should never "bank on" government. They don't become perfect merely because they show up in groups, you know. They're still badly flawed. And you'll find this rule is ubiquitous, too: the more people in a group, the less moral responsibility any of them feels. That's been scientifically demonstrated, and repeatedly so: in groups, people always feel it's "somebody else's decision" what happens, not their own.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:35 am
That's always been a nonsense argument, in relation to abortion. "Choice" is already had at the moment of conception. So all the "consequences" could be avoided by being continent in the first place...and nobody would have to die.

But assisted suicide...which one of those things I listed that the government is pretending they know do they really know?

So are we going to bank on human perfection?

Obviously not. And that's why we should never "bank on" government. They don't become perfect merely because they show up in groups, you know. They're still badly flawed. And you'll find this rule is ubiquitous, too: the more people in a group, the less moral responsibility any of them feels. That's been scientifically demonstrated, and repeatedly so: in groups, people always feel it's "somebody else's decision" what happens, not their own.

Do we have any other choice than to form governments? Governments benefit us too. Isn't the trick to call out the bad behavior and promote the good?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:39 am

So are we going to bank on human perfection?

Obviously not. And that's why we should never "bank on" government. They don't become perfect merely because they show up in groups, you know. They're still badly flawed. And you'll find this rule is ubiquitous, too: the more people in a group, the less moral responsibility any of them feels. That's been scientifically demonstrated, and repeatedly so: in groups, people always feel it's "somebody else's decision" what happens, not their own.

Do we have any other choice than to form governments?

Form minimal, limited, restricted ones. That's the only way to compensate for the inherent veniality of human nature.

There are no "special good" human beings. We're all fallen and flawed. So limiting powers, limiting terms, accountability to others through regular voting, constitutional guarantees, and a free and government-critical press...these are the things we can do to minimize (but never eliminate) the corruptibility of human nature.

And this is one of the things that makes Socialism such a universal disaster. It trusts some human beings to be morally "better" or "purer" than others, and then elevates them to a Socialist elite that cannot be any longer questioned, or doubted, or tested, or rivalled, or removed from power. So it plays right into the hands of the Fabian-style manipulators, those who are just longing for uncontested freedom to do what serves their own purposes.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:25 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 9:13 am ...unless you can provide facts to support your argument...

How about the witness of everybody's eyes? Would that do for you? How about you take a look yourself? Visit, and you'll lose all doubts.

Who was it who said:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 3:05 pm...the experience of one man isn't data, of course.

As it happens, I live in central London, and indeed there are people who are struggling, that have been abused or let down, but unlike whatever shithole you apparently live in, London is not:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:32 pm...full of the mentally ill, the homeless, drug abusers...

Again you fail to appreciate the implications of your own assertion. You said:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pmYet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

Unless there is some dystopian cesspool that you have had the misfortune to end up in, the above is hyperbolic, hand waving, gossipy bollocks. I think the latter more likely, but again, if you could provide some improbably high numbers for the "mentally ill, the homeless, drug abusers" in your nadir, you might show that you have a case that their treatment, which you first have to demonstrate they do not get now, will "explode the costs" if they ever do. You clearly have no sense of scale, nor proportion, though:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 4:32 pm...the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program

In a population of 40 million, that is 0.04%. If you think that is a big number, you are incurable.