Euthanasia

Ummm... looks like this is what she actually said, which is way different from the above:
This link was from Mark Crispin Miller today:


OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Minster of Mental Health and Addictions Carolyn Bennett appeared to have a “Freudian slip” in the House of Commons yesterday after commenting that people who provide euthanasia services are indeed “trained” to “eliminate” suicidal people.

Bennett, who also serves as the Associate Minister of Health, made the comment in response to a grilling by Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre, who yesterday blasted the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over its continued expansion of the nation’s euthanasia laws.
“I think it is totally irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to misrepresent what this (legal euthanasia) means,” said Bennet.

“All of the assessors and providers of MAiD are purposely trained to eliminate people who are suicidal,” she added.

Bennet then began to say “This is for…” before being cut off by many MPs yelling “oh! oh!” in response.

Poilievre had commented in the House that after “eight years of growing poverty and desperation” with Trudeau as prime minister, “more and more Canadians are suffering with depression.”

“Some of them are going to food banks, asking for help ending their lives, not because they are sick but because life has become so miserable and they want to end their lives altogether. The government has suggested veterans should end their lives instead of getting the help they need,” said Poilievre.

“Now the Liberals have announced that, a year from today {this recent, they rolled it back a year after outrage}, they will introduce measures to end the lives of people who are depressed. Will the Liberals recognize that we need to treat depression and give people hope for better lives rather than ending their lives?”

Poilievre, seeming flabbergasted, took to Twitter to post footage of the exchange.


Later, Bennett tried to clear up her earlier apparent Freudian slip by saying, “Mr. Speaker, we on this side, and with the support of the expert panel and so many Canadians {?}, will continue to develop and provide the kind of mental health supports necessary for people who are depressed.”
 
Source (Dutch only): ‘Bekendheid ‘middel X’ leidt tot toename gebruik’

'Awareness of 'drug X' leads to increase in use'

Poisonings:
The number of people who die after ingesting 'drug X' has increased significantly in 2022, the Dutch Poisons Information Center (NVIC) notes. It sees a connection with information provided by Coöperative Laatste Wil.

Kim Bos - February 13, 2023 at 16:59

'Drug X' blocks cell division, causing the person who took it to eventually die. There is no antidote; from a certain quantity, death is inevitable.

The number of reports about people who have poisoned themselves with this suicide powder rose sharply in 2022, records from the National Poisons Information Center (NVIC), where healthcare workers and other emergency responders can request medical information about acute poisonings, showed Saturday. The center registers all inquiries.

In 2022, 16 poisonings involving the drug were reported. Twelve poisonings were determined to be fatal.

In 2021, there were 4 reports of deaths after taking drug X. Since the NVIC began registration in 2014, a total of 24 suicide attempts have been reported through 2021, 20 attempts were fatal.

Last Will Cooperative

Where is this increase coming from? The NVIC thinks there is a connection to the disclosures made by Cooperative Last Will (CLW). "At the end of 2021, Cooperative Last Will disclosed which drug it refers to as drug X. We think that's why people are looking for the drug in a more targeted way," says toxicologist Antoinette van Riel, who works at NVIC.

CLW initially kept the real name of the drug a secret - so that interested parties would not order it at random. But because there were also people who googled another suicide powder that, according to the organization, is less suitable because it does have an antidote, CLW decided at the end of 2021 to be more upfront. The use of that other drug, which is used much less, is also registered by the NVIC: thus, in 2022 there were 3 suicide attempts, slightly less than in 2021 (5) and 2019 (5).

Before 2017, poisonings with both products were extremely rare, Van Riel says. "And then mainly in people who work at a lab, and had access to the product there." But in 2017, the drug gained national prominence as CLW announced it would start providing it to its members (about 30,000). CLW believes people should be able to decide and dispose of their own deaths, and argues that remedy X is a "humane" method.

Because assisted suicide is illegal in the Netherlands, the Public Prosecutor's Office decided to nip CLW's plan in the bud, but the organization continued to educate about the remedy it intended to distribute. For example, the cooperative tells members that drug X can be purchased from certain wholesalers.

NVIC believes drug does not cause 'humane' death at all


'Dying is not easy'

The NVIC finds that the drug does not cause a "humane" death at all. It is uncertain beforehand how poisoning will progress, but known symptoms include nausea, dizziness, headache, chest pain and shortness of breath. Sometimes people resist their impending death, NVIC hears. "Some people take drug X and are startled by the symptoms that ensue, followed by agony," Van Riel said.

"Dying is not easy," Coöperatie Laatste Wil writes about it on its website. "Every death is accompanied by rattling, gurgling, involuntary movements, loss of urine and stool."

The NVIC's statistics are incomplete. Nowhere does it track exactly how many people take drug X and in what ways they die. "There is no reporting requirement and there is no proper registration," Van Riel says. Still, she thinks NVIC's registration shows a trend. "It's a pretty exotic and severe intoxication, so it's something that healthcare workers do contact about." It could well be, according to Van Riel, that drug X has been used more than the registration shows.

Unease among care workers

Care workers may call the center while they are in the process of performing CPR, for example to discuss how best to proceed, or to ask if they themselves are at risk. "But if they already know how the drug works, they may not contact us."

There is unease about the drug among care workers, but also among funeral directors, Van Riel notes. "They think the drug is so toxic that they themselves are at risk," the toxicologist says. That is not the case, she says, although in 2022 an officer became unwell after entering a home of someone who had ingested the drug and possibly inhaled some of it. "It's not clear if there's a connection," she said.

Emergency workers sometimes wonder aloud, according to Van Riel, whether it makes sense to treat someone who has ingested drug X because it is so deadly. "Just do it, I always say. You never know for sure how much someone has taken. Or maybe it is a different drug after all. As long as you don't know for sure you should try." The NVIC also saw last year that someone who believed himself to have ingested a lethal amount only developed some mild symptoms.

NVIC does not know the condition of the four people who initially survived ingestion of the drug. "Sometimes emergency responders call us from the ambulance, then later we don't know who to turn to for information about how it turned out," But you can sustain brain damage from the drug, she says. "The effect is similar to acute oxygen deprivation in your cells. The brain and the heart are relatively sensitive to that."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 

A Canadian medical assistance in dying (MAID) provider told Maclean's that she believes laws surrounding the controversial procedure are not fleshed out enough, adding that they missing "fundamental safeguards for vulnerable people." As the head of the University Health Network, a research hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, Li says that she oversaw "hundreds of cases," and that she "personally provided MAID numerous times."

Li writes about how she regrets providing MAID to a young person with cancer that had a 65 percent chance of cure. The person refused treatment, and two other MAID assessors agreed that they had met the criteria for eligibility. The person had a "grievous irremediable condition," which she says was only irremediable ebcause the person refused the treatments available.
"This person organized a goodbye party. They invited all their friends to the hospital atrium and ordered pizza, calling it a reverse birthday party. It was a large gathering of friends... The whole thing usually takes about five minutes, although it took longer than usual in this case because the patient was otherwise young and healthy. Eventually their heart stopped," she said.

"I didn’t regret it at first. But when I started thinking deeply about how to better safeguard this process, I regretted ending this young person’s life. I just parachuted in, I didn’t know this patient. And I didn’t take the time to have a meaningful discussion with them. I didn’t sit down and say, 'Why don’t you just try this treatment? If it’s as bad as you think it’s going to be, MAID will be available.' MAID was so new then, and we were all so focused on patient autonomy. The current law has no place for clinical judgement, and no stipulation for meaningful conversation. If it did, this person may be alive today."

Those who wish to pursue MAID must meet several criteria, though critics, including Dr. Madeline Li, say that the laws are lacking.

Li describes how she does not allow her personal values effect how she assess patients for MAID, but notes that she does not believe that MAID should be provided for mental disorders. The Trudeau Liberals recently moved to delay the expansion of MAID for people suffering solely from mental illness.

"My opinion is that we shouldn’t be providing MAID for mental disorders—and more broadly than that, for chronic illness. I don’t think death should be society’s solution for all forms of suffering," Li writes. " If someone is suffering because they can’t afford housing, do we think that death is the appropriate solution for that? If your suffering is because you can’t afford your medication, or other structural vulnerabilities, is that a good reason for MAID? I personally think this is the medicalization of suffering, but I’m a servant of my country, and I will do what the public mandate demands. I’m just not sure we have that mandate."


Li also writes about her concerns over whether certain "crucial safeguards for patients" are in place, noting that she was happy the government is seeking a one-year delay in the expansion to those seeking MAID for mental illness. Li explains how she felt that the stakes were higher when giving MAID to someone "who wouldn't otherwise die." She served a patient who had a complex "medical and psychiatric history" who applied for MAID.

"I did my best to advocate for getting this person into a study for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, which I thought could be very helpful, but I wasn’t successful. There was no way they could afford it privately, since it costs thousands of dollars. This was so morally distressing to me. This person was willing to have the treatment, but couldn’t access it. I think it would be a tragedy if this lovely person went ahead with MAID. As far as I know, this person is now applying for MAID. I have no doubt in my mind that when they apply, they could be found eligible and receive it," Li writes, saying that the case causes her disterss.

Li writes that while she is not trying to deny patient autonomy, she doesn't "think I should blindly defer to autonomy," saying that she still needs to keep her personal value system "out of it."

"Helping someone die, especially when they wouldn’t otherwise, shouldn’t be a matter of checking things off a list," she concludes.
 

A Canadian medical assistance in dying (MAID) provider told Maclean's that she believes laws surrounding the controversial procedure are not fleshed out enough, adding that they missing "fundamental safeguards for vulnerable people." As the head of the University Health Network, a research hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, Li says that she oversaw "hundreds of cases," and that she "personally provided MAID numerous times."

Li writes about how she regrets providing MAID to a young person with cancer that had a 65 percent chance of cure. The person refused treatment, and two other MAID assessors agreed that they had met the criteria for eligibility. The person had a "grievous irremediable condition," which she says was only irremediable ebcause the person refused the treatments available.
"This person organized a goodbye party. They invited all their friends to the hospital atrium and ordered pizza, calling it a reverse birthday party. It was a large gathering of friends... The whole thing usually takes about five minutes, although it took longer than usual in this case because the patient was otherwise young and healthy. Eventually their heart stopped," she said.

"I didn’t regret it at first. But when I started thinking deeply about how to better safeguard this process, I regretted ending this young person’s life. I just parachuted in, I didn’t know this patient. And I didn’t take the time to have a meaningful discussion with them. I didn’t sit down and say, 'Why don’t you just try this treatment? If it’s as bad as you think it’s going to be, MAID will be available.' MAID was so new then, and we were all so focused on patient autonomy. The current law has no place for clinical judgement, and no stipulation for meaningful conversation. If it did, this person may be alive today."

Those who wish to pursue MAID must meet several criteria, though critics, including Dr. Madeline Li, say that the laws are lacking.

Li describes how she does not allow her personal values effect how she assess patients for MAID, but notes that she does not believe that MAID should be provided for mental disorders. The Trudeau Liberals recently moved to delay the expansion of MAID for people suffering solely from mental illness.

"My opinion is that we shouldn’t be providing MAID for mental disorders—and more broadly than that, for chronic illness. I don’t think death should be society’s solution for all forms of suffering," Li writes. " If someone is suffering because they can’t afford housing, do we think that death is the appropriate solution for that? If your suffering is because you can’t afford your medication, or other structural vulnerabilities, is that a good reason for MAID? I personally think this is the medicalization of suffering, but I’m a servant of my country, and I will do what the public mandate demands. I’m just not sure we have that mandate."



Li also writes about her concerns over whether certain "crucial safeguards for patients" are in place, noting that she was happy the government is seeking a one-year delay in the expansion to those seeking MAID for mental illness. Li explains how she felt that the stakes were higher when giving MAID to someone "who wouldn't otherwise die." She served a patient who had a complex "medical and psychiatric history" who applied for MAID.

"I did my best to advocate for getting this person into a study for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, which I thought could be very helpful, but I wasn’t successful. There was no way they could afford it privately, since it costs thousands of dollars. This was so morally distressing to me. This person was willing to have the treatment, but couldn’t access it. I think it would be a tragedy if this lovely person went ahead with MAID. As far as I know, this person is now applying for MAID. I have no doubt in my mind that when they apply, they could be found eligible and receive it," Li writes, saying that the case causes her distress.

Li writes that while she is not trying to deny patient autonomy, she doesn't "think I should blindly defer to autonomy," saying that she still needs to keep her personal value system "out of it."

"Helping someone die, especially when they wouldn’t otherwise, shouldn’t be a matter of checking things off a list," she concludes.
Having worked in these departments in the past, I can attest that it is the case.
People are assessed on the their chances or survival and other criteria. I must admit that although the case above is unusual.

I recall a young man of about 35 who had abused his body for many years, on drugs and alcohol. His mother tried to intervene by asking Palliative to look after him for his disease. His heart was beyond hope and he could not have a transplant because of his "drug" dependency. His heart was barely functioning and therefore he asked MAID to give him what he wanted.

Now I do not condone this idea of mentally depressed people having access to MAID. MAID is for people who want to leave this plane of existence because of chronic pain and no hope of survival caused by a terminal disease that can't be cured. One of the criteria is quality of life. If you will be living in a wheelchair and no hope of ever being able to function without the help of machines or other apparatus, then perhaps that is justified. I cannot say that i agree as every person is an individual and each case is a different as night and day.
I personally do not agree with the intention of the gov. to accept people who have a mental disease or feel really depressed, particularly those who have worked their whole lives and still cannot make ends meet with all the economic situations we are going through. That is the present gov's fault: if they were using our taxes and other methods to help our people, to get our economy thriving ( not the criminally insane WEF way), to cooperate with the world about exchanging and keeping our sovereignty intact, we would be able to help all our people, not just a select few! And particularly wasting our hard earned cash to "pay" for a ritzy hotel to attend the funeral of a head of state with all the bells and whistles (valet and butler service) that majority of the population can't even imagine exist!

Mental disease is the brainchild of our gov and WHO and WEF (pun intended). They created this situation in our world that could be so easily remedied if they let go of criminals' control over our lands. That is why they enjoy this show. They created it and intend to continue until all the majority of mentally sick and elderly people are gone! This way they can control the younger generations to do whatever they wish.

This is done in every aspects for our lives: elders are let go by any means possible and young ones believe they have all the control when in fact, they become prisoners of the corporations. JT is an exemplary control freak. He believes we should all be like him. Look at what he did with WE Charity and see also Hockey Canada. Who benefits????? Not the kids really!
 
The Wisdom of a famous dwarf: or the creativity of its famous author!

death-is-so-final-whereas-life-life-is-full-of-cis.jpg
 
What the heck is it?
with deepl

'Awareness of 'drug X' leads to increase in use'
Poisonings The number of people who die after taking 'drug X' has increased significantly in 2022, the Dutch Poisoning Information Center (NVIC) notes. It sees a connection with the information about it provided by Coöperatie Laatste Wil.

'Drug X' blocks the 'breathing' of the cell, causing the person who ingested it to eventually die. There is no antidote; from a certain amount, death is inevitable.

The number of reports about people who have poisoned themselves with the suicide powder behind this name rose sharply in 2022, records from the National Poisons Information Center (NVIC), where healthcare workers and other emergency responders can request medical information about acute poisonings, showed Saturday. The center records all inquiries.

Sixteen poisonings involving the drug were reported in 2022. Twelve of these were determined to be fatal. In 2021, there were four reports of deaths following ingestion of drug X. Since the NVIC began registration in 2014, a total of 24 suicide attempts have been reported through 2021, 20 of which were fatal.

Where is this increase coming from? The NVIC believes there is a connection to the provision of information by Cooperative Last Will (CLW). "By the end of 2021, Coöperatie Laatste Wil has disclosed which drug it refers to as drug X. We think that this makes people look for the drug in a more targeted way," says toxicologist Antoinette van Riel, who works at the NVIC.

Antidote
CLW initially kept the true name of the drug a secret - so that interested parties would not order it at random. But because there were also people who googled another suicide powder, which according to the organization is less suitable because there is an antidote for it, CLW decided to be open about it at the end of 2021. The NVIC also records the use of that other drug: thus, in 2022 there were three suicide attempts, slightly less than in 2021 (5) and 2019 (also 5).

Before 2017, poisonings with both products were extremely rare, Van Riel says. "And then mainly in people who work at a lab, and had access to the product there." But in 2017, the drug gained national prominence as CLW announced it would provide it to its members (about thirty thousand). CLW believes people should be able to decide and dispose of their own death, and argues that remedy X is a "humane" method.

Because assisted suicide is illegal in the Netherlands, the Public Prosecutor's Office decided to nip CLW's plan in the bud, but the organization continued to provide information about the remedy it wanted to distribute. For example, the cooperative tells members that "remedy X" is for sale at certain wholesalers.

The NVIC finds that the drug does not lead to a "humane" death at all. It is uncertain in advance how the poisoning will progress, but known symptoms include nausea, dizziness, headache, chest pain and shortness of breath. Sometimes people resist the impending death, NVIC hears. "Some people take drug X and are startled by the symptoms, after which a death struggle ensues," Van Riel said.

"Dying is not easy," the cooperative writes about it on its website. "Every death is accompanied by rattling, gurgling, involuntary movements, loss of urine and stool."

NVIC's figures are incomplete. Nowhere is there an exact record of how many people take drug X and in what way they die. "There is no reporting requirement and there is no proper registration," says Van Riel. Still, she thinks NVIC's registration shows a trend. It could well be, according to Van Riel, that drug X has been used more than the registration shows

Caregivers may call the center while they are in the process of resuscitation, for example to discuss how best to proceed, or to ask if they themselves are at risk. "But if they already know how the drug works, they may not contact us."

There is unease about the drug among care workers, but also among funeral directors, Van Riel notes. "They think the drug is so toxic that they themselves are at risk," the toxicologist says. That is not the case, she says, although in 2022 an officer became unwell after entering a home of someone who had ingested the drug, and possibly ingested some of the substance. "It's not clear if there is a connection," she said.

Emergency workers, according to Van Riel, sometimes wonder if it makes sense to treat someone who has ingested drug X because it is so deadly. "Just do it, I always say. You never know for sure how much someone has taken. Or maybe it is a different drug after all." At the NVIC last year, a person who believed himself to have ingested a lethal amount was also seen to have only mild symptoms.

NVIC does not know the condition of the four people who initially survived ingestion of the drug. "Sometimes emergency responders call us from the ambulance, then we don't know who to turn to for information about how things turned out," said Dr. K. K., who is a member of the NVIC. You can be left with brain damage from the drug, she says. "The effect is similar to acute oxygen deprivation. The brain and heart are relatively sensitive to that."

Talking about suicide can be done at the national helpline 113 Suicide Prevention. Phone 0800-0113 or www.113.nl
 
I didn't read the article because it's behind a subscription wall, but thought to drop it here in the archive for our collective viewing displeasure.

Alternative article, this one is free to read:
 

I didn't read the article because it's behind a subscription wall, but thought to drop it here in the archive for our collective viewing displeasure.

Here is the text - and i added also a pdf file in the end.

A Yale Professor Suggested Mass Suicide for Old People in Japan. What Did He Mean?

Yusuke Narita says he is mainly addressing a growing effort to revamp Japan’s age-based hierarchies. Still, he has pushed the country’s hottest button.

00JAPAN-SUICIDE-top-lbvw-superJumbo.jpg
Yusuke Narita, wearing his signature eyeglasses with one round and one square lens. He said his comments about mass suicide and the elderly had been “taken out of context.”
Credit... Bea Oyster for The New York Times



Motoko RichHikari Hida
By Motoko Rich and Hikari Hida
Reporting from Tokyo
Feb. 12, 2023


His pronouncements could hardly sound more drastic.

In interviews and public appearances, Yusuke Narita, an assistant professor of economics at Yale, has taken on the question of how to deal with the burdens of Japan’s rapidly aging society.

“I feel like the only solution is pretty clear,” he said during one online news program in late 2021. “In the end, isn’t it mass suicide and mass ‘seppuku’ of the elderly?” Seppuku is an act of ritual disembowelment that was a code among dishonored samurai in the 19th century.

Last year, when asked by a school-age boy to elaborate on his mass seppuku theories, Dr. Narita graphically described to a group of assembled students a scene from “Midsommar,” a 2019 horror film in which a Swedish cult sends one of its oldest members to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff.

“Whether that’s a good thing or not, that’s a more difficult question to answer,” Dr. Narita told the questioner as he assiduously scribbled notes. “So if you think that’s good, then maybe you can work hard toward creating a society like that.”

At other times, he has broached the topic of euthanasia. “The possibility of making it mandatory in the future,” he said in one interview, will “come up in discussion.”

Dr. Narita, 37, said that his statements had been “taken out of context,” and that he was mainly addressing a growing effort to push the most senior people out of leadership positions in business and politics — to make room for younger generations. Nevertheless, with his comments on euthanasia and social security, he has pushed the hottest button in Japan.


00JAPAN-SUICIDE-home-wjlm-jumbo.jpg
A nursing home in Japan. The country is grappling with growing numbers of older people who suffer from dementia or die alone.
Credit... Ko Sasaki for The New York Times


While he is virtually unknown even in academic circles in the United States, his extreme positions have helped him gain hundreds of thousands of followers on social media in Japan among frustrated youths who believe their economic progress has been held back by a gerontocratic society.
Appearing frequently on Japanese online shows in T-shirts, hoodies or casual jackets, and wearing signature eyeglasses with one round and one square lens, Dr. Narita leans into his Ivy League pedigree as he fosters a nerdy shock jock impression. He is among a few Japanese provocateurs who have found an eager audience by gleefully breaching social taboos. His Twitter bio: “The things you’re told you’re not allowed to say are usually true.”

Last month, several commenters discovered Dr. Narita’s remarks and began spreading them on social media. During a panel discussion on a respected internet talk show with scholars and journalists, Yuki Honda, a University of Tokyo sociologist, described his comments as “hatred toward the vulnerable.”

A growing group of critics warn that Dr. Narita’s popularity could unduly sway public policy and social norms. Given Japan’s low birthrate and the highest public debt in the developed world, policymakers increasingly worry about how to fund Japan’s expanding pension obligations. The country is also grappling with growing numbers of older people who suffer from dementia or die alone.

In written answers to emailed questions, Dr. Narita said he was “primarily concerned with the phenomenon in Japan, where the same tycoons continue to dominate the worlds of politics, traditional industries, and media/entertainment/journalism for many years.”

The phrases “mass suicide” and “mass seppuku,” he wrote, were “an abstract metaphor.”

“I should have been more careful about their potential negative connotations,” he added. “After some self-reflection, I stopped using the words last year.”

00JAPAN-SUICIDE-book-tmqg-jumbo.jpg
A book by Dr. Narita that is being translated into English.Credit...
Bea Oyster for The New York Times


His detractors say his repeated remarks on the subject have already spread dangerous ideas.
“It’s irresponsible,” said Masaki Kubota, a journalist who has written about Dr. Narita. People panicking about the burdens of an aging society “might think, ‘Oh, my grandparents are the ones who are living longer,’” Mr. Kubota said, “‘and we should just get rid of them.’”

Masato Fujisaki, a columnist, argued in Newsweek Japan that the professor’s remarks “should not be easily taken as a ‘metaphor.’” Dr. Narita’s fans, Mr. Fujisaki said, are people “who think that old people should just die already and social welfare should be cut.”

Despite a culture of deference to older generations, ideas about culling them have surfaced in Japan before. A decade ago, Taro Aso — the finance minister at the time and now a power broker in the governing Liberal Democratic Party — suggested that old people should “hurry up and die.”

Last year, “Plan 75,” a dystopian movie by the Japanese filmmaker Chie Hayakawa, imagined cheerful salespeople wooing retirees into government-sponsored euthanasia. In Japanese folklore, families carry older relatives to the top of mountains or remote corners of forests and leave them to die.
Dr. Narita’s language, particularly when he has mentioned “mass suicide,” arouses historical sensitivities in a country where young men were sent to their deaths as kamikaze pilots during World War II and Japanese soldiers ordered thousands of families in Okinawa to commit suicide rather than surrender.

Critics worry that his comments could summon the kinds of sentiments that led Japan to pass a eugenics law in 1948, under which doctors forcibly sterilized thousands of people with intellectual disabilities, mental illness or genetic disorders. In 2016, a man who believed those with disabilities should be euthanized murdered 19 people at a care home outside Tokyo.

In his day job, Dr. Narita conducts technical research of computerized algorithms used in education and health care policy. But as a regular presence across numerous internet platforms and on television in Japan, he has grown increasingly popular, appearing on magazine covers, comedy shows and in an advertisement for energy drinks. He has even spawned an imitator on TikTok.

He often appears with Gen X rabble-rousers like Hiroyuki Nishimura, a celebrity entrepreneur and owner of 4chan, the online message board where some of the internet’s most toxic ideas bloom, and Takafumi Horie, a trash-talking entrepreneur who once went to prison for securities fraud.


00JAPAN-SUICIDE-Nishimura-jtvm-jumbo.jpg
Hiroyuki Nishimura, center, who owns 4chan. He and Mr. Narita are part of a handful of Japanese provocateurs who seem to enjoy breaching social taboos.
Credit... Ko Sasaki for The New York Times


At times, he has pushed the boundaries of taste. At a panel hosted by Globis, a Japanese graduate business school, Dr. Narita told the audience that “if this can become a Japanese society where people like you all commit seppuku one after another, it wouldn’t be just a social security policy but it would be the best ‘Cool Japan’ policy.” Cool Japan is a government program promoting the country’s cultural products.

Shocking or not, some lawmakers say Dr. Narita’s ideas are opening the door to much-needed political conversations about pension reform and changes to social welfare. “There is criticism that older people are receiving too much pension money and the young people are supporting all the old people, even those who are wealthy,” said Shun Otokita, 39, a member of the upper house of Parliament with Nippon Ishin no Kai, a right-leaning party.

But detractors say Dr. Narita highlights the burdens of an aging population without suggesting realistic policies that could alleviate some of the pressures.

“He’s not focusing on helpful strategies such as better access to day care or broader inclusion of women in the work force or broader inclusion of immigrants,” said Alexis Dudden, a historian at the University of Connecticut who studies modern Japan. “Things that might actually invigorate Japanese society.”

In broaching euthanasia, Dr. Narita has spoken publicly of his mother, who had an aneurysm when he was 19. In an interview with a website where families can search for nursing homes, Dr. Narita described how even with insurance and government financing, his mother’s care cost him 100,000 yen — or about $760 — a month.


00JAPAN-SUICIDE-work-bcgp-jumbo.jpg
Dr. Narita at home in New Haven, Conn. His extreme positions have helped him gain hundreds of thousands of followers on social media in Japan. Credit... Bea Oyster for The New York Times


Some surveys in Japan have indicated that a majority of the public supports legalizing voluntary euthanasia. But Mr. Narita’s reference to a mandatory practice spooks ethicists. Currently, every country that has legalized the practice only “allows it if the person wants it themselves,” said Fumika Yamamoto, a professor of philosophy at Tokyo City University.

In his emailed responses, Dr. Narita said that “euthanasia (either voluntary or involuntary) is a complex, nuanced issue.”

“I am not advocating its introduction,” he added. “I predict it to be more broadly discussed.”

At Yale, Dr. Narita sticks to courses on probability, statistics, econometrics and education and labor economics.

Neither Tony Smith, the department chair in economics, nor a spokesperson for Yale replied to requests for comment.

Josh Angrist, who has won the Nobel in economic science and was one of Dr. Narita’s doctoral supervisors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said his former student was a “talented scholar” with an “offbeat sense of humor.”

“I would like to see Yusuke continue a very promising career as a scholar,” Dr. Angrist said. “So my main concern in a case like his is that he’s being distracted by other things, and that’s kind of a shame.”


Motoko Rich is the Tokyo bureau chief, where she covers Japanese politics, society, gender and the arts, as well as news and features on the Korean peninsula. She has covered a broad range of beats at The Times, including real estate, the economy, books and education. @motokorichFacebook

Hikari Hida reports from the Tokyo bureau, where she covers news and features in Japan. She joined The Times in 2020.
@hikarimaehida
 

Attachments

  • A Yale Professor Suggested Mass Suicide for Old People in Japan. What Did He Mean? - The New Y...pdf
    3.4 MB · Views: 1
Source: More people ask euthanasia center for help; 1,240 requests approved last year

Thursday, 23 March 2023 - 08:41

More people ask euthanasia center for help; 1,240 requests approved last year


The Euthanasia Expertise Center granted 1,240 requests for euthanasia last year, 11 percent more than in 2021. The number of requests increased by 13 percent, from 3,689 in 2021 to 4,159 in 2022, Trouw reports based on the center’s annual figures.

The Euthanasia Expertise Center, formerly called the End of Life Clinic, helps people whose own doctor cannot honor their request for euthanasia, for example, because they find the request too complicated. About a third of the patients who went to the center last year received euthanasia. That percentage has been stable for years.

Around a fifth of the euthanasia requests the expertise center received last year came from patients with psychological suffering. Of the 781 requests, the center granted 90. The expertise center is working with the Ministry of Public Health and mental health services to increase knowledge about euthanasia among psychiatrists. Psychiatrists sometimes shy away from euthanasia because the patients involved are often relatively young, and it is difficult to determine whether they’ve exhausted all treatment options.

The number of euthanasia requests increases nationwide by almost 10 percent per year. The number of times doctors throughout the Netherlands granted euthanasia last year will be announced next month. In 2021 it was 7,666 times.

The increase in people receiving euthanasia can partly be explained by the aging population. But the share of euthanasia in the total number of deaths also increased to almost 5 percent two years ago. Experts told Trouw that this is because euthanasia is a more accepted option, and baby boomers find it more important to decide for themselves how their lives will end.

Similar: More requests for specialist help made to euthanasia centre - DutchNews.nl

Dutch coverage:
https://www.msn.com/nl-nl/nieuws/Binnenland/opnieuw-meer-euthanasieverzoeken-bij-expertisecentrum/
https://www.msn.com/nl-nl/nieuws/other/expertisecentrum-verleende-in-2022-vaker-euthanasie/
 
OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Minster of Mental Health and Addictions Carolyn Bennett appeared to have a “Freudian slip” in the House of Commons yesterday after commenting that people who provide euthanasia services are indeed “trained” to “eliminate” suicidal people.
It may have been a "Freudian slip" or she may have meant they try to "eliminate" the possibility that a person is suicidal before allowing them to have access to the program. It just seemed that way in the one video I watched. Of course in the case of psychopathy anything goes but we try to reason as a normal human might many times to our own regret.

This is a depressing thread but I know you are all just trying to observe and be objective. I was reluctant to comment due to so many depressing events but I just kept thinking I might seeing something that would be relevant.

It reminds me of the Bill Gates slip with saying in a TED talk video speaking of vaccinations, "First we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, health services we could lower that by 10 or 15 percent."

The only argument for what Bill Gates really meant that is anywhere plausible is in this young man's response but he is not aware of so much of what we are learning.


By no means do I think the above video and the young man see the real intention of Bill Gates or Canada's Minister of Mental Health was not making a "Freudian slip". Certainly, I think Trudeau is in alignment with the likes of Bill Gates and the eugenics agenda so it is very confusing.

I think I am just having trouble dealing with psychopathy in general I suppose.

I pray we all survive this mess and we may one day sing a new song.
 
Source (Dutch only): Van Dijk (NPV): We hebben ouderen meer te bieden dan dodelijke spuit

Van Dijk (NPV): We have more to offer seniors than deadly syringe

Michiel Kerpel
: March 27, 2023 10:29 - Modified: March 27, 2023 11:47

The choice of euthanasia is not an isolated decision. The opinion of loved ones and the possible burden on the environment in the last phase of life play a major role.

This emerged Saturday from a survey conducted by newspaper Trouw. The newspaper had an opinion poll conducted by Panel Inzicht. The survey was completed by a thousand people.

For 40 percent of the participants, euthanasia is an option. Another 32 percent said they might consider it. For more than half of these groups combined (57 percent), the burden on loved ones weighs heavily. One in five say they do not want to burden society. This may be an important reason for them to choose euthanasia. Of the group open to euthanasia, 70 percent mainly want to prevent suffering due to illness.

The research shows that the autonomous -or independent- human being does not exist, says Diederik van Dijk, director of the NPV-Care for Life. "Political parties that defend euthanasia unilaterally stress the right to self-determination. But more factors come into play when choosing euthanasia. The fact that a person wants to exit life is not a completely personal decision. This research shows that a human being does not stand alone. He lives in relationships. The environment, society matters. Important that this research highlights that."

Van Dijk finds it worrisome that a culture is developing in the Netherlands where people see themselves as a burden to their environment or a cost to society. "Instead, we must work on a culture of living. Towards the elderly the message should be: we don't want to lose you, we can't do without you. You may perform less economically, but your life is precious to us. From Christian faith, every human life is essentially valuable."

Embedded

The survey found that nearly three-quarters of people are considering euthanasia. "I consider that an awful lot," Van Dijk responds. "It fits the trend that a self-chosen death is increasingly seen as a normal option. Surely we can offer our elderly something better than a lethal injection? Choosing to die is not part of a civilized culture."

Care and love for parents should be ingrained, Van Dijk said. "I quite understand that elderly people worry whether they are not a burden on those around them. But that only further demonstrates that each should take responsibility. Just as parents take care of their children first, there may also come a time when children take care of their parents. In fact, that can be extremely valuable."

Reading the survey, the NPT director was also immediately reminded of the staffing shortages in health care. "We need to have the care in order, so that at least the elderly don't experience pressure from that to step out of life," he said.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
Back
Top Bottom