This is the killing that makes them think ‘yes, it’s not easy enough for men to get away with murder while claiming it as a mercy killing’.

If you’re under 50 men can get away with murdering you by claiming that enjoyed being strangled. Over 50, and men can murder you by claiming that did it out of compassion for you.

Stats from the Netherlands shows that legalised euthanasia resulted in more deaths among women than men.

I don't know that it matters that legalized euthanasia resulted in more deaths of women than men. Unless there's some outside influence driving this stat, I think legal euthanasia is fundamentally a good thing.

My mom and I took care of my dad while he was losing his mind to brain cancer. My grandmother took care of my grandfather for years after he had a stroke. My aunt cared for my grandmother for many years as she declined from various ailments including dementia. It's women who overwhelmingly carry the burden in these cases. There's a feminist case to be made for regulated legal euthanasia.

I would certainly want it to be an option for me and the people I love.

Like almost everything, this is also a feminist issue because of the reasons behind why this happens. Worth noting that in the Netherlands euthanasia is available and carried on children, and does not require a patient to be ‘close to death’. As a result many female psychiatric patients are using this as a form of suicide. Women are disproportionately affected by inadequate access to mental healthcare.

Susan Wolf’s paper is perhaps the most well known:




I know there's a big tussle right now in Canada over expanding access to euthanasia for mental illness sufferers. I can see both sides of the argument: despite the ostensible "universal healthcare", access to mental health care is apparently spotty there, and disability-aid payments are relatively stingy, so there's concern that people are being pushed to off themselves to save money for the government(s) rather than expand the safety net: helping them die rather than live. Healthcare is managed by provincial governments, and most of them are conservative, so there doesn't seem to be much that Trudeau's government can do about this. Except to offer more money for mental healthcare, but apparently the provincial governments are playing hardball, because they don't want the money to be specifically earmarked as such, when they could just use it with no strings attached to pay down the deficit or whatever (and then complain again that healthcare is collapsing, and they need more federal monies, rinse, repeat, etc.).

I followed the debate closely (though I'm disappointed that they didn't allow for foreign travellers to go to the clinics, like Switzerland does, which I was hoping for). I thought it was hyperbolic and even downright offensive for some of the anti- campaigners to be accusing him or the Liberal government of Nazism and eugenics and signing his mother's death warrant (an accusation I thought was particularly cruel because Margaret Trudeau has nothing to do with this), the bill being the modern-day equivalent of Action T4, etc. Yes, the safety net should be expanded, but their beef should have been with people like Rob Doug Ford. I think Trudeau has really, really screwed up badly the whole gender issue, but on this file he's got it right.

On the other hand, I don't think it necessarily should be an either/or situation: expanding the safety net is an unequivocal good, but at the same time money doesn't solve everything; if it did, rich and poor alike wouldn't die of cancer, let alone suffer depression, bipolar disorder or anything else in the D.S.M. Here in the U.S., when all else fails, pretty much your only option is a messy "Second Amendment" solution to determining the course of your existence. Which is why I was disappointed to find that the law in Canada does not include what's called "suicide tourism". Probably because they would have experienced an unmanageable influx of Americans, suffering everything from long-haul COVID to P.T.S.D. to complications from ectopic pregnancies and so on, and having gone bankrupt from unaffordable healthcare, driving over the border en masse looking to do themselves in. (They may end up having that with Americans fleeing Gilead to seek Canadian abortions. Suicide would probably break the system altogether.)

The fact is science has yet to come up with a cure for either cancer or mental illness, and it's cruel in my opinion to leave people to suffer until natural causes takes them. Everyone has a breaking point, and it's not really for anyone else to determine where that point should be or how it should be handled. Therapy or medication isn't helpful for everybody. Some conditions like autism-spectrum disorder don't even have treatments. And there are still some instances, because of the stigma attached to mental health, where even just seeing a therapist can lead to blackmail, being depicted as "crazy" and not being taken seriously, etc. I won't reveal too much, but I'm going through such a situation right now, a legal/court one, where the therapist's records were subpoenaed, and the "other side" is using them to try and paint a picture of a "hysteric" (that old word).

Honestly, if I could just call up a clinic and make an appointment at the Soylent Green center I would do so in a heartbeat. I suspect I'm not alone.

If we had legal, regulated assisted suicide, we wouldn't have to take his word that this was what she wanted.

I completely supported legalised assisting dying that should be legislated and audited like the rest of EOL healthcare.

The thing that rubs me up the wrong way about this particular case is that he slit her throat. That seems a weirdly excessive and violent way to commit the act tbh. :/

If possible op, could you archive or copy/paste the article? Thank you.