"a now-suspended Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker.... which has now uncovered a total of four cases where veterans were allegedly offered MAID — all apparently by the same caseworker".

One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees. One person who presented the option overzealously or inappropriately, leading to four people feeling pressured, out of, IIRC, 45,000 people annually choosing MAID.

One person...that we know of. The fact this one person did this, contradicts your earlier statement of "But we've found zero evidence since its introduction of its abuse, of its application as a cost-cutting measure, of it being forced on people."

A more generous reading of the comment might have read it as "widespread abuse"

They should have included the "widespread" disclaimer rather than making an absolute statement if they wanted that generous reading.

Well I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people will understand that any system will be prone to abuse - what's more important is how much it realistically enables, and how it responds to that abuse

That's a great attitude when you're talking about other people (a.k.a. numbers). We'll see if you have the same attitude when it's you or someone you know.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. If it were someone I knew, I would be upset, yes, and would pursue options for justice - which is, as I said, the more important aspect of such a system. Furthermore, even if my position changed if it were one of my loved ones, I wouldn't think my emotionally-charged thinking should be used to craft legislation.

If you're advocating for systems that cannot possibly be abused... good luck. Providing benefits to society often comes with avenues of potential abuse.

I'm advocating for not enabling a system that allows legalizing death. This is similar to people who are against the death penalty because it can and has been used to execute people who were later exonerated. "Move fast & break stuff because the benefits are worth the cost" is a better argument for almost any other policy than ones that explicitly result in death.

Tracing back, this one case of one case worker who suggested MAID to perhaps as many as five veterans .. did not result in death being "forced" upon any one.

The outrage over MAID being suggested as a viable option has resulted in even more scrutiny, oversight, and guard rails.

This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.

> This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. It's an example that demonstrates abuse, and "guard rails" (LOL) that are supposedly going to protect against future abuse.

"Legalizing death" isn't really accurate, isn't it? I mean, it's not illegal to die. And this isn't legalizing murder, as murder doesn't generally require the informed, prolonged consent of the person going to be murdered.

Death that isn't murder doesn't generally require someone else taking an action that kills you.

And while encouraging people to commit suicide may or may not be illegal depending on where you live, who it is, etc, it's generally not seen as moral.

Your assuming a motive in that case when none is known of.

> One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees.

Yes, a gov't employee working for the gov't. A.k.a. the gov't.

A lot of people who could be asked about whether they've been pressured or felt society could have done more for them than killing them are no longer available to collect evidence from for some reason.

Yeah, I think it's fair to be cautious about the topic and keep a close eye on the employment of the MAID process. It's definitely one of those things that warrants a lot of oversight IMO, lest the line between mercy and manslaughter be crossed by too much "suggestion" or "help". Not that I am especially well-versed on the subject - just my overall feeling on it.