Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we take a look at the trend in Canada in which people are increasingly taking advantage of the country's expansive euthanasia policies to end their life on their own terms, so to speak.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who's been on the paper trail long enough. Now he can just live his life.
Did you leave any breadcrumbs for the rest of us to follow here?
Nope.
[00:00:42] Speaker B: I don't want anyone following me. I want to be alone.
I'm going to keep it all to myself. So there we go.
[00:00:48] Speaker A: There we go.
[00:00:49] Speaker B: No Hansel and Gretel over here.
So.
[00:00:54] Speaker A: All right, now we're recording on September 30, 2025. And Tunde, I want to jump right in. About 10 years ago, Canada legalized euthanasia, first in very limited circumstances, and then it's been subsequently expanded over time and grown and grown in practice and practically like being used by people to the point now where their medical field is struggling to keep up with the demand for it. You know, when people want to end their own life. And this is something that we noted from a piece in the Atlanta called Atlantic called Canada Is Killing Itself by Elena Plot Calabra. So I want to ask you, you know, what stood out to you in this piece about Canada's kind of euthanasia policy, assisted suicide, you may want to call it, and how as it's grown, as it's become more accepted, it's like the medical field is struggling to keep up with the demand for people who want to do this.
[00:01:48] Speaker B: It's very interesting. I agree with you like that. This is surprising to learn that so many people wanted. I saw that one of the stats was the city of Quebec, or I guess the province of Quebec. 7% of all deaths have been through from euthanasia in the most recent stats. I think it's 7% of an entire population of all the deaths chosen euthanasia. So I find it fascinating, honestly, not in a good or bad way, just interesting that when given an opportunity for this, more people seem to be choosing it. And I know we'll get into the conversation of some of the whys, but I also just to finish succinctly here is I found that interesting too. Like you said, I will, I'll use this term. The article didn't kind of that slippery slope, which is, you're right that 10 years ago it was kind of very strict, like someone I think of my mom who had bone cancer and died 10 years ago, unfortunately.
[00:02:46] Speaker A: And.
[00:02:46] Speaker B: And I remember that, you know, kind of the last year of her life was really miserable. She told me how much pain she was constantly and all that, so I could see that, okay, that's who it was originally intended for. People like that that have such a chronic and terminal, or really a terminal issue, but they have this chronic pain that's not going away, and it's like, all right, well, if you're going to die anyway in a year or two and it's unbearable now, you know, we can help you. We can speed that up and just let you die with some dignity. Because also, my mom didn't look that great in the last few days. You know, it was an undignified way to go. And so that to me is like, all right, we started there.
And to your point, there's some people now that are just saying, hey, I'm making this a little bit too simplistic. But it's almost like, hey, I had a bad day, I'm stressed out, and I just don't feel like going on the journey anymore. Hey, I want to tap out.
Let me go find the right doctor. And so that's what I mean by slippery slope is that, yes, it seems like the door to this has opened up to a lot more people that, let's say, can qualify than originally intended. And that's where I think that slippery slope term that I made up comes into play. So it's a very interesting topic.
[00:03:58] Speaker A: But the door opening up, that's not happening in isolation. Like, it seems like there are more people who were interested in taking advantage of. Of this. And as. As a part of that, the door kind of opened up wider for more people to make the decision that they want. They wanted to do it, and then be approved in order to be able to do it. I mean, I find this fascinating from the standpoint of. I mean, it's. It's contrary to what we. We believe kind of is our. Our inner wiring as far as to survive, you know, and, you know, is this too much knowledge? You know, like, if you're. You get diagnosed with something and then you go read about it on the Internet, and it's like, oh, my gosh, this is, you know, this is going to be really tough in five years or whatever, and then that's going to make you miserable. So then it's like, well, hold up, if that. If I'm going to just be miserable while I'm waiting for this thing, then am I going to, you know, just kind of check out now and I can, you know, have a nice dinner with my family and have everybody with me and so forth. And so kind of the giving people the option, you know, seems to. This is kind of like, you know, the idea where things just don't happen, you know, in isolation. It's like, okay, once you give people the option, that then changes how they view the option, you know, when they didn't have the option, when it's like, okay, you don't have any choice, man. You just got to keep living and, you know, try to make the best of it. Then you might approach these things differently. And then apparently you do, because, yeah, when you're talking, you know, they like, they were like, oh, yeah, we think we're going to get the 4%. Oh, it's going to get the 5%. Like, and then it's pushing up over 5% and then in some places up to 7%. Now. That's a lot of people. A high percentage of deaths. You know, conceivably it's going to get to 10%, you know, at some point where people are just like, okay, I want to, To. To take control of this and do this my way. There are, there's other pieces about this that are really interesting because also, you know, you have. The way their health system is set up, you know, is something that, you know, there are. There could be incentives, you know, coming from either the government or even from people where it's like, okay, well, I think instead of having to deal with administration of things that I might check out also. So I think that it's very complicated, though. I mean, the reason I know we want to do this is because it really does. Like, you look at it from a societal standpoint, but also you have to look at this from a personal standpoint as well. Like, okay, man, I, I value my life, you know, so it's like, what could possibly be having these people where, where could people's heads be? You know, because yes, obviously, with the terminal people and the people that are in tons of pain, you know, let you get it more. So. But then, but then. But that's not just. There are more people that are doing this than just that in Canada right now. And it's like, well, what's happening on a personal level that's making this. Pushing people to do this.
[00:06:36] Speaker B: Yeah, so it's interesting, man, because you got me thinking a couple things. So one is, I'm just gonna share a thought I had as. As you were answering the first part, which is the opening up of it in the slippery slope. And this is two very different topics. So I'm not trying to be like joker here, but. But it reminds me of the service dogs.
Remember service dogs from when we were kids, right? Blind people, maybe someone with type 1 diabetes and the dog has ability to smell if the blood sugar drops. That was considered a service animal for people that had real like physical limitations. Like a blind person that can't see has a dog that can spot traffic and stuff and help the blind person, you know, be part of society. And remember that got kind of a slippery slope with that where they started opening up the idea that, oh well, people that have a little bit of an emotional issue, but again, remember they're.
[00:07:31] Speaker A: Opening it up to because people are wanting to do. Like they're right.
[00:07:35] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I mean.
[00:07:35] Speaker A: Like people will say, hey, if they can do that because they can't see or if they can do that for this, why can't I do it for this reason? Or why can't I do that for that reason?
[00:07:42] Speaker B: And that's what I'm getting where it becomes a slippery slope where yes, maybe the intent was good to open it up, but then remember it was what, 10, 15 years ago, we'd go on a plane and people have a parrot on one shoulder or another guy having iguana, he's petting. And it became a little bit too much. And then the system kind of corrected that and said, no, no, no, if you're going to come in here with any service animal, it's got to be a dog. And it can't be something.
And I think that might be what Canada may end up going through a bit, which is, yeah, we opened this up for, for reasons we thought were, were noble. But to your point, maybe too many people are starting, this is becoming a catch all for people that just, you know, are just tired of being alive or they're tired of the system or they're tired of whatever. And so that's what I want to.
[00:08:24] Speaker A: Get to the reasons. Yeah, in a second. But you know, I just wanted to throw something out that I know you appreciate and that is the, you know, it's kind of like, you know, you see it in like that quantum sense, like where, okay, you observe, you can't observe a quantum particle without changing it, you know. Well, in this instance, once you make something an option to people that changes how they view it and their, their acceptance of it. Like you can't, they don't happen in isolation, so to speak. And but the part of it about this that, like the expansion, like, they did mention briefly, slippery slope, but only to say that this, what's happening in Canada, isn't really a slippery slope. Because what they pointed out is that Canada approached this from the standpoint of patient autonomy being the guiding principle. And so when that. The point made in the article is that if that's your guiding principle is patient autonomy, then any restriction you put on being able to end your own life starts to look more arbitrary. Because it's like, well, hold up, I'm the patient, it's my call, so why are you telling me, oh, I gotta do this or I gotta jump through that hoop and stuff like that. So while it may appear on the outside, like they're sliding into this, it's kind of like they set the framework up where this was going to be the eventuality anyway. It's like, well, if patient autonomy is your number one guiding principle, then. And freedom, you know, this is freedom. This is the ultimate freedom right here, you know, and if that's the case, then, you know, like, this is what, you know, this is kind of where you're going to go. So, I mean, on those points, you know, like, autonomy, you know, individual autonomy for adults, you know, or something like that, or freedom, you know, freedom to make good decisions and bad decisions. Those are values that a lot of people seem to have, you know, or at least say that they have. So, you know, like, why do you think this then? You know, why do we. Why do so many people, including, you know, myself, read this and have a certain level of discomfort? Like, oh, man, what's happening here? Like, it's not my life that somebody. Like, it's. People are doing this on their own, you know, with stuff. So why. Why do. Why does this make it feel a certain way?
[00:10:16] Speaker B: Man, I think it's a combination of. I mean, first of all, it's new, right? We're not used to seeing this stuff.
[00:10:23] Speaker A: Yeah. Culturally. Culturally, it's not something that we.
[00:10:25] Speaker B: And I think it's adjacent to suicide. Right. I think that's why it feels.
[00:10:29] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:10:29] Speaker B: I mean, it's a person. And that's. Again, we've been conditioned, you know, I think rightfully so, to not be fond of the idea of taking your own life and suicide. So. And to think that if someone does that, it's because there's something seriously wrong going on in their life or their emotional state or something like that. And so I think this idea of people voluntarily wanting to choose to die is something new for us, as people like you say, culturally, and all that. And I just think, you know, that's why it stands out and that's why it's an interesting topic, even for us. And one of the things I wanted to ask you a question, though, which is interesting, which is, do you think this could happen in the United States because of the idea of patient autonomy and how different our healthcare system maybe sees the idea of a patient actually having their own autonomy and directing traffic?
[00:11:19] Speaker A: Well, it is in place of states. Not as permissive as Canada, but I think maybe Oregon, there's a few states.
[00:11:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:11:27] Speaker A: Do allow this?
I don't think so. Because I think that when it comes to the idea of freedom and all those kind of things, a lot of Americans are kind of foolish.
Like, they don't really believe that stuff. They just say they do. And so I think that they would. And I'm not saying that in this case that we should be rushing to open this door. You know, Like, I find it to be something that is a difficult thing to kind of. This is where like the idea of religion or spirituality or just kind of a belief in something greater can help you with this kind of thing, because I don't think you can logic your way to this, you know, especially from a societal standpoint. Like, I have a thought for you, though. What's that?
[00:12:10] Speaker B: Before we keep moving about if it can happen here or not, the reason.
[00:12:13] Speaker A: I wanted to ask you is I.
[00:12:14] Speaker B: Was thinking about as we're talking, and my answer is no, I don't think it could happen here.
I appreciate what you said because I agree with you that we think we're freer than we are. Because if you look at our.
[00:12:24] Speaker A: Yeah, we think we believe in that stuff more than we do. But, but, but.
[00:12:28] Speaker B: And I'm so I'm saying even our healthcare system, we think we have more governance and autonomy in it than we really do. And that was. My point, is saying that the American health care system profits off of people being sick for extended periods of time. And I feel like, imagine if 5% of Americans with a population this big decided to just. I'm not going to say another two years getting chemo and hurting. I just want to die now. Think about all the profit that certain insurance carriers, medical device, you know, if.
[00:13:00] Speaker A: It throws at certain points, you know, So I don't know.
But what I wanted to say, though was just that like, we see even, like Americans. Just not to wade into a very controversial topic, but the issue of abortion, you know, is an issue where it's not the same as this, but we see where a lot of Americans want to interject themselves into someone else's personal decision, you know, like, so I, I just don't think that, I think that America is comfortable with the. Many Americans, not all Americans, many Americans are comfortable with the idea of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to these types of things.
The thing that, to me about this, just kind of this idea of why this sounds so controversial, I think we all have dealt with the healthcare system and so what really concerned me when I was reading this is that how much of this is kind of the, you know, like the, the administrative difficulty that people face or are concerned of facing that may lead them to not say that this is, you know, kind of an easy way out. Because I don't think this is easy. But just saying, look, I can't pay for my health care. I can't. Like there was a story in here talking about a lady who, if she could get more help, like if she, she had like a degenerative disease and if she could like have the level of personal care needed that she needs in order to live a life, then it's like, well that then yeah, I would look at this differently but I can't, I can't afford to have a nurse here. I can't afford all the meds that I need now I'm going into all this debt, you know, all these other types of things. And so from an administrative standpoint, there's a discomfort here. It's like there's not just like the options don't seem to be top notch medical care, keeping you comfortable, keep giving you the best shot, you know, for a day to day life that is decent. It seems like, hey, you're kind of, you could do the best you can with limited resources or hey, you can, you know, take this shot. And then all the pain is going away. And so it, I worry that difficulties from an administrative standpoint not even say that in a sinister way, but just administrative stuff can sometimes be slow and difficult to work your way through and stuff dealing with this person sitting on hold for this person. And it's like I would be concerned with those normal difficulties would kind of incentivize people in a way that would send them towards, oh well, you know, I can, I can get, you know, I can kill myself in three months, but if I want to get treatment, it's going to take me nine months, you know, so it's like, geez, like that changed. That creates a more complicated like calculation which I'd be worried about. In this type of context. Because while I have a difficult time, and this is what I was saying as far as the faith thing, like, and again, not saying a specific religion or any, but just saying I don't know that you can get there, like pure unpassionate logic. Yes, this makes sense, but I don't know that we can or should live our lives by that type of code completely. Because you end up with a lot of situations where it's like, well, the cold logical decision is almost as inhumane and we're not machines, we're not. So let's not trying to make ourselves.
[00:16:08] Speaker B: Here's where I would say it's an interesting observation, man, because I think this is where we get back to those 30,000 foot choices about the system. And these are where we have these debates in our societies about what kind of system do we want. Because what you're talking about too James, is the allocation of resources, right? Or this person, what this woman was saying was I'm going to choose to end my life because I don't have the resources to live comfortably. Right? Maybe she chooses.
[00:16:34] Speaker A: I don't know that she actually made the choice yet. But, but she said if I do choose. But that's what I'm saying, this is why I'm gonna do it.
[00:16:40] Speaker B: So some people might hear that to your point and say we need to create a society where that lady doesn't have to make that choice, where we have the ability to have, you know, she has resources through the system and all that, which would probably cause us to have a conversation about taxes and redistribution of wealth and all that. So these are, this is where those debates really end up at a granular level about what does that mean for the person who's in this situation that needs the help.
[00:17:05] Speaker A: The other crazy that is, that's Canada, which has the kind of nationalized health care system here, you know, crazier conversation because you got people get kicked off of health care and all that kind of stuff. It makes that decision even crazier, so to speak.
[00:17:17] Speaker B: No, I agree and that's what I'm saying. That's why these are interesting conversations for society because it is about the allocation of resources and choice. Because to your point about observation with the quantum part earlier is.
[00:17:29] Speaker A: I knew you'd.
[00:17:29] Speaker B: No, no. So we've already. Yeah, of course I'm going to get on that. I'm going to hit it again.
But, but of course we're in a modern society. So as you were talking, I'm thinking, okay, maybe 500 years ago, that lady would have died 20 years ago. And the point I'm making is this is one of those real discussions too we got to have is human beings don't live forever. So this goes back to remember when the Affordable Care act was first being presented in 2010. A lot of Americans were ginned up into fear because certain politicians who didn't like where that was going was we're talking about death panels, right. And that somebody's going to be. There's going to be a bureaucracy that decides when you are going to die. Now, my argument used to be that bureaucracy already existed in the private sector because I took my health insurance exam in 2001 in the state of Florida, and I learned then that once a private insurance company like United Healthcare or Blue Cross hits $1 million in spend on a patient, back then I don't know what it is now, they have the right to just cut it off.
And so that's somebody, a bureaucrat in some corporate office making a decision like.
[00:18:39] Speaker A: All right, which is worse decision that's exactly based on making money.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: Exactly. And it's a company, not a collective group of representatives who are elected by people, their constituents, to go to D.C. and make choices. Right.
[00:18:54] Speaker A: So, minimum, whether they're elected or they're not, they don't get more money by sending you to death, whereas the private insured gets more money by sending you to death.
[00:19:03] Speaker B: So that's why I say it's a good thing you bring up that lady's situation from the article, because that's the whole point of these debates, Right. For society is how do we want to organize ourselves so that when we have things like this, that now we have the ability that people can choose death? And then a question like yours comes up. Well, is if someone is doing this only because they can't afford to kind of, at least they.
[00:19:31] Speaker A: To have a decent level of care, basically, yeah.
[00:19:34] Speaker B: They can't afford their resources to have that decent life, you know, to not have pain, chronic pain or something like that. So they'd rather die.
To me, I could see pros and cons on both arguments. Right. Well, if we have the type of society that makes sure they can live as long as they want, even if it's to 105 without the pain, because that's just what they want, that is going to suck resources from other parts of the society potentially. And the other thing is, you know, do we want to have a society where, you know, we don't account for these things and people just die without getting Certain care that might get them to this point where they got to make these. So I don't know. Like.
[00:20:11] Speaker A: Well, no, that's what I mean. You can't logic yourself to this. Like, there's the values. There's a value judgment that needs to be made. And wherever you get those values, you know, ideally you get those values in a way that is some level of pro humanity. But even from there, you can go different directions with these decisions. And so, you know, like, I think now the plot thickens, though. Then there's one other piece, but this.
[00:20:30] Speaker B: Isn'T where I'm supposed to share that I'm a shareholder of United.
Would that interrupt my value system? It probably would, based on our last show.
[00:20:40] Speaker A: Your financial incentive might. Might influence the values, or it may actually reveal the values, you know, but the plot thickens on this because the other piece about this that we have to mention is the piece on how this interplay relates to family and the people around you. And so one of the things discussed in this article is how this is difficult sometimes for people's family members that can say, okay, well, my family members decided that they're gonna kill themselves. Well, hold up. Did they? There's these treatment options available. Why didn't they do this? And we've seen in Canada, the article talks about places where people filed lawsuits to try to prevent the person from. From going through with the euthanasia piece and, you know, varying levels of success and all that. But that's a whole nother issue. You know, that. And then the other thing I just want to set up before I throw this to you, as far as for your thoughts on kind of the family dynamic is that in one instance, they talked about where there was a person who had signed up for it and wanted to do it under the more permissive kind of. Not that I'm about to die, but I.
I'm in a position where I can get approved for it. And. And then their family found out that they did that, started spending more time with them, and then the person's like, no, I'm good. I don't want to do it anymore because now my family's spending all this time with me, and it's like, so, yeah, yeah. I mean, it. It's.
[00:21:57] Speaker B: Yeah, may. Maybe they just need some family counseling. They didn't need all this other stuff.
[00:22:01] Speaker A: Well, but. But again, this is where those things that, like, if the person just says, oh, I'm just. I'm just not feeling good anymore. You guys never come see me. Family members are probably like, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever man. But then once they take this actual step, that changes how they perceive the threat level.
[00:22:16] Speaker B: Interesting. Yeah.
[00:22:17] Speaker A: And so just, you know, the family dynamics, what stood out to you in any of, you know, either the ones I mentioned or anything like just kind of. What did you find significant in that?
[00:22:25] Speaker B: Yeah, so, you know, I mean all of that is very significant because I can't help to think as you were talking about, like I shared with you in the audience here, my mom's situation where, you know, I showed up, she lived, you know, far away from us. So you know, I got an email from the doctor basically with his cya, you know, with this hippo law, like, hey, Elizabeth gave me permission to tell you this and basically it was that, you know, she wasn't going to make it to come be with us like we had planned that I better get my butt out there. Because the brain, the cancer had spread from, I guess the bone area, you know, all that stuff into her spinal cord and now it was in the spinal fluid. So he was basically telling me she may got a couple of weeks left at best. So I took a one way ticket, not knowing she passed on the third day after I showed up in town and she was emaciated, she, she lost her motor skills, blah, blah, blah. So to your point, you know, could I see maybe a month early? Because it seems like the last three weeks of her life were the ones that were really bad and you know, seemed very painful for her. She was making all these noises and stuff even though she couldn't, she couldn't speak. And you know, I rushed there on a one way ticket. Like I said, she passed on the third day. So my wife and kids didn't show up until like a week later. Once we knew, okay, the dust settled, we're gonna have a funeral.
So to your point, I mean, would I have preferred if my mom had the opportunity maybe a month or two beforehand and the doctor sat down and said, look, this stuff, this is bad.
[00:23:52] Speaker A: This is about to happen.
[00:23:53] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. And what maybe she said, okay, well if I could do this and euthanize myself, maybe I could have my son come out with his family, we could spend a few days together having a celebration of my life and really hug each other and I can see the grandkids and all that and do it the right way. And that's an interesting question, James. I never thought of it. And so to think about it, live here as a son that lost his mother, you know, I can look back and think that would have Been actually a beautiful event. If I could have had watched my kids and my mom have a final day together.
[00:24:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:28] Speaker B: And not be like, you know, just having them show up a few days after she passed so that we could have a funeral.
[00:24:35] Speaker A: Yeah. And then, you know, in the pain that she was in during that time period.
[00:24:38] Speaker B: And that too.
[00:24:39] Speaker A: But part of the issue there is that you can't put yourself in how you would have felt about that a month or two in advance before the pain. Before.
[00:24:49] Speaker B: That's a great point, too. Cause maybe I had to go see. Yeah. Maybe I had to see all that and experience it for me to right now say.
[00:24:55] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. If that would've been brought up to you a month before she went through all the incredible pain, before your family couldn't get there, you might have been like, no way. You know, like.
[00:25:04] Speaker B: I wanna say this, James.
Sorry, man. I just.
[00:25:07] Speaker A: I appreciate it. No, no, please, please.
[00:25:08] Speaker B: Cause it brings back the memory. No, because she had breast cancer in 06, I think, and.
Right. Or I guess I should say went into remission. It shows back up in 2013. And that was bone cancer. So I think I was naive. I was younger, Right. And I was naive to what all this cancer stuff was. I mean, I'm not a medical professional or anything, so I just kind of am a layman with regards to that topic. And I did really. I don't think I took the second. The bone cancer as serious as I would right now because I thought, hey, she beat a cancer already. She'll beat this one. And then people telling you, well, bone cancer is tough and all that. And, you know, you're kind of like, whatever, because you don't want your mom to die. So you're right. I may have fought it before this experience because I might have looked at her and the doctor and said, what are you doing, Mom?
[00:25:54] Speaker A: You can.
[00:25:55] Speaker B: You can beat this. Da, da, da. So who knows? It's a great point you make. That's why I wanted to stop you, just even for our discussion in the audience. Because I think it's another example where if you lack the experience of a certain thing in life, it's hard for you to make a judgment or to criticize how someone else would do it. And I think that's one thing. I would broaden this out.
[00:26:16] Speaker A: Something to go back and say, well, before I went through that, I would.
[00:26:20] Speaker B: Have been, yeah, exactly.
[00:26:21] Speaker A: Because it's like.
[00:26:22] Speaker B: And then. So.
[00:26:22] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:23] Speaker B: And I think in today's world, with the Internet and social media, I mean, I say that that's all people do now, as a much broader. Yeah, I would say. I say that statement much broader than just this topic we're doing. Because I would hope that even. It's weird with this reflection I'm having here. It's is like, you know, another example has nothing to do with this would be. I didn't care about, you know, how good the public schools were in my area before I had kids. And once I became a dad, you know, those are things I looked at.
[00:26:49] Speaker A: Like, okay, if we move to another.
[00:26:50] Speaker B: House, how are the schools? So it's just. I do think you're right. Like, we should always remember that. Especially a topic like this that's very personal and sensitive. Like, we're talking about people making these kind of decisions that, you know, this is all biblical stuff with Jesus about having. Well, yeah, but complain about a splinter and a man when you got a log in your eye or something.
[00:27:13] Speaker A: But it's because, like, the thing is. And I don't. I mean, part of the reason I want to discuss this is because I don't think there is a answer, so to speak. Like, it seems like there's quantum physics. There's two different things happening here that we're kind of talking about. And it may be helpful to kind of separate them. It may not, you know, but one is just the idea of what we're talking about, the idea of the assisted suicide. When is that appropriate?
How much autonomy should someone have? Should their family have a role in that?
Should they be able to object or something like that?
Does their family have a role in. Hey, if you help them out more, maybe they wouldn't be in that mindset. But then there's also the piece of how the government and whether the government should be involved. And that's where Canada seems to be taking a particularized stand here and saying that the government. They're trying to pull the government back as much as possible. And so we're looking at it, you know, from the United States, like, oh, where the government is. Does play a role in it saying, oh, well, it's because the government isn't standing in the way that all this stuff is happening. And that may be the wrong way to look at it, you know, because the government actually isn't necessarily supposed to stand in the way all the time when you're talking about a person making. Doing things that individually for themselves. Now, how if you affect other people, you know, if I'm reckless driving, that's different than if I'm at home, you know, and rolling around, you know, like, oh, I'm not hurting anybody else. I'm not putting anybody else in danger at home rolling around because I'm, you know, incapacitated or something like that versus if I'm incapacitated on the road. So the question of how you affect other people has to come into more focus when you're talking about should the state be involved in this? But that, to me is the hard part to wrestle with because we inevitably, we're human beings, we take our own personal feelings and biases into how we think the state should be participating in this stuff. It's really difficult to say, hey, I don't agree with something, but I think the government should stay out of it. And again, a lot of people talk like that's what they think. But clearly that's not something that people actually really believe in large part a lot of the times. So that, to me is where I end up between. Is that okay, Well, I have a difficult time with this personally. You know, like, if it was in my family, I'd have a very difficult time with it. But from the state standpoint, I can respect what Canada is trying to do and saying, hey, we're going to try to get out of the way. But at the same time, I think if that's the case, then they got to make sure that their systems aren't their other state systems. The other things the state is or isn't doing are not incentivizing people from a state standpoint. Again, state can't make your family show up and visit you, but the state can make it so that, hey, if you can't, I can kill myself in three months, but I got to deal with the pain for nine months if I want to get rid of the pain. Like, the state has to make sure they, if they're going to open this door, they got to make sure they avoid those type of situations that may incentivize people in the wrong direction, you know. So, yeah, I mean, there is no, no, no to me at least, you.
[00:30:12] Speaker B: Know, I think you're right. Like, that's.
[00:30:13] Speaker A: We're feeling great about it. Oh, yeah, we got it figured out.
[00:30:16] Speaker B: No, that's why I think you're right and that's why I joke and say, you know, I'll bring back quantum physics about your observation about, you know, like the double split experiment. I mean, that observing something will naturally will change its behavior. So it's kind of like that reality in a certain sense, that the quantum level is always fluid. And I think this topic is A good example at the macro level that these kind of topics in reality are fluid for all the things that we're saying. And one of the things that I'll kind of start wrapping my thoughts upon are there's an interesting part in the article that I pulled out of this where this could be abused, let's say, if you had the wrong type of government, because they said something like talking about, like the homeless and worry that assisted. I'll quote the article, but there's some worries that assisted. That assisted death, originally authorized for one class of patient, would eventually become legal for a great many others too. And I'll go a little bit quote. As assisted death becomes, quote, sanitized, one group argued, more and more people will be encouraged to choose this option, further entrenching the, quote, better off dead message in public consciousness. And what they were talking about were homeless. And this idea that, that they're starting to see this thing where homeless people are coming in and saying, well, I'd rather just die. I don't want to be on the street owned business. And that's what I was thinking like, well, we just had, let's say this was legal in the US and we just learned, I think a week or two ago, I saw in the news that this alligator, Alcatraz right by us here in Florida. There's 1200 people missing. They just, they don't know where they're at. And what if, what if we saw that this was legal in the US and what if we saw that one day the government just come out and say, well, those people all just chose to take this path?
And you'd be like, well, did anyone really check with them? Do we have any records, any videotapes of them? No, no, no.
They said they want to do it.
[00:32:12] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The vulnerable people, the things that could legally happen to you. The universe expands, you know what I mean?
[00:32:18] Speaker B: I don't know that that's like the.
[00:32:19] Speaker A: Direction we want to go.
[00:32:20] Speaker B: Remember with the original Eugenics 150 years ago to Nazi Germany. Who did they really start with? It was the disabled. It was the mentally ill. So people that kind of couldn't defend themselves really in society. And imagine if we, you know, countries started legalizing this and all of a sudden we don't see down syndrome people anymore. We don't see certain things because they could coerce somebody into saying, you know, I'll sign this, or whatever, or they'll just say, hey, they wanted this, and don't look over.
[00:32:48] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean, well, the leadership piece is important. And yeah, I want to wrap it. But like, the only thing I'll say about that is that because, you know, with complex issues, this is also something that allows you to kind of.
It exposes or reveals the nature of leadership and kind of also the kind of leadership people are, some certain people are drawn to versus other people are drawn to. Like, some people with an issue like this would want leadership to make it easy for them. Hey, I want you to just make grand statements and make this an easy decision for me. I don't want to have complicated decisions. I don't want complexity being presented to me. Say that all these people are bad and then we can just deal with it. And that's an easy decision. Some people, although wouldn't run from the complexity and would want to hear, okay, like, how do we want to deal with this? This is not easy. This is complicated, you know, and so forth. And the thing about a democratic society is that all of those people have to interact together to try to get to an answer how we want to deal with this society. But that's why I said it kind of reveals though, you know, Cause when you deal with an issue like this, I guarantee you if you're dealing with it here, there are people who just try to make it very easy, like, and say, hey, you don't have to think about anything but this one issue. And that can be the justification of your decision. Other people are like, no, let's look at this. Let's weigh again. Let's weigh. Are we, are we doing things to incentivize people down this way? So, you know, it's just one of those things, man. This is. When you live in a society meaning a collection of people that are all together, then there are quote unquote hard decisions or things that aren't super, super duper easy. And I would say beware when people try to make those hard decisions very easy a lot of times, because a lot can be.
[00:34:20] Speaker B: That's why I'm laughing, because I'll just, I'll just end with this. That I agree with you that that's the point of having this kind of debates and stuff. But I think we're, it seems like we're going further into society where they're just going to make our minds up for us and we're not going to debate too much.
[00:34:34] Speaker A: What it is, is conceivably algorithmically, people's minds will be made up without them even knowing.
But we'll end it on that higher note.
We appreciate my fragona maybe.
[00:34:47] Speaker B: Maybe we revisit this one in a few years, so see how it played out.
[00:34:51] Speaker A: We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
All right, we'll talk soon.
