I don't disagree conceptually.

I'd argue that it's like the death penalty. The right people should be killed but what happens if you execute an innocent person? It's better to err on the side of not killing so you don't accidentally kill an innocent person.

Likewise? I think the bar for euthanasia should be insanely high. I do think it should exist - there are people who deserve to die with dignity. Cancer or life ending conditions.

I think the problem is "where appropriate"... I seriously doubt that the 10k people in Canada killed this year are all appropriate. There are examples of people being given "the option" for being depressed or simply to poor to afford better options. Those aren't appropriate.

One person killed that shouldn't be is too many.

I've replayed a handful of stories that point to the fact that there are 10 thousand assisted suicides in Canada. Out of those thousands, if "assuming they're broadly correct" add up to a system that is not well thought out and is already having problems with "oh, you're poor and having a bad day? we can fix that!"

And my original question still stands: Why is the interpretation "California is letting people suffer needlessly" not "Why is Canada killing people to save money"? - since the original person I responded to is just as likely to be wrong that CA isn't killing enough people...

I don't think it's wrong to assume that Canada is killing people that don't need to die. 1 is too many... and it's easily 10's of people... and easily hundreds. It's not that hard to assume it's at least 10% of the 10k killed meaning "add up to thousands" is easy to assume.

The problem isn't people not being able to end suffering... the problem is people being ended before time and people being ended because they are poor and the government is simply cost cutting.

"created by people with agendas" and "MAID" is defended by people with agendas. Everyone has an agenda - even people like you that presumably want to "end suffering".

"why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer" Because anyone who trusts the government with the right to end peoples lives and ignores OBVIOUS problems with such power (IE: the stories about people with "agendas" - aka those who shouldn't be getting killed) is ignorant of governments abusing powers.

"Why are you so pro-big-government?" I'm not pro big government... I'm anti-government killing people. I don't think they should have the right to cut costs by killing people who shouldn't be killed.

Don't try to spin this as pro-big government... it's actually ANTI big government because I don't trust the government. If you do? You're ignorant of history - past and present.