I'm not trying to spread rumours, i said i wasn't english native, sorry if there is a misunderstanding.
Almost 100% of the population that is targeted by this law *should* not need it. When I said "people can't pay [for private paliative healthcare because public healthcare is going to be more and more broken]" I was talking about the people in the criteria of the law, not "all" the people.
I don't have the exact number, but for people under heavy care needs, palliative care, only something like x% (this is the number i cant recall, less says it's a "part") could ask themselves if they should access this end of life because science + our healthcare system cant do much more.
The other part, if they think about end of life is because the health care system failed them. Because in France public palliative healthcare teams are on budget cuts. Those people should have physical and mental healthcare, instead, they have just what the teams can do best as they can cuts after cuts. What happend when you are in paliative care, and there is no team to help your mental health? What could you think about and what does this law allow ?
There is no kind or dignity in Macron's law.
Really, we could save a "part" of that population, but instead priorise to allow them to die, for supposed kindness. True kindness would have been to focus to provide a decent public healthcare system especially in paliative field, for example, right ? (But Macron effort are to destroy the healthcare system and, in my opinion, not a rumour, that it is Orweilien to propose this law in this specific context in France)
Let's take an example with a current project of law from Macron (french president):
"Some people can't support their health condition, and they should be helped to die". This end of life law is introduced like a care service for people having issue with health with no happy ending at sight.
The reality of the vision of Macron (liberale capitalist) is: All his actions are made to kill public health care, and aims to open the field to private corporate.
People in need of bed at hospital are denied (public beds are getting more and more cut).
People in need of teams for mental care are denied (public teams are getting more and more cut and overbooked).
People in need are juste denied. They cant' pay? great, they can now legally choose death, it will be legal. Next client please. Everyone who can't pay doesn't need to feel a weight on his family/friend. Yay :/
This law is shown like a right of care, all the population can be legally targeted, while they could just have the right of health care and stay alive in decent condition. This could be another solution, but it doesn't meet Macron (and its sponsors) ultra capitalist's vision of open market.
Note: current concerned people are the first to call a big NOPE on this law.
I think you see where I go:
I think you're highlighting a true and very important problem (I've worked 10 years with children, i confirm your point), but the current solution brings more issues than what it is supposed to solve, same for Macron's end of life law. Having a problem doesn't mean you have to risk the full society in a Orwellien way.
Sorry im not english speaking native, hope you understand more my feeling ?
It is "funny" to read every single time "to protect minors online" like there are no adult around them, while technically those technologies are by design to control every single human for online access. It is not because the words are well chosen to sound unpolitical, just for "security", that it make those law/technology not political. It is political.
Parisians Métro 's ads screen are equiped with BT scanner, with a hidden sticker on the side to link you with a qrcode to a RGPD output website, where you have to log your private data to register your devices to be not scanned...
Am french, I can say that most of the voters whatch TV and mainstream medias.
Owned by the french oligarchs (les milliardaires comme on "aime" les appeler). They actually successfully make people think "right wing" is not left or right (for far right) or even centrist (modem), and all the left spectrum is extremist terrorist. Racism, islamophobia, lgbtphobia, anti feminism, and others kyriarchies are normalized.
What make you think the elections are fairs in this context ?
I'm not trying to spread rumours, i said i wasn't english native, sorry if there is a misunderstanding.
Almost 100% of the population that is targeted by this law *should* not need it. When I said "people can't pay [for private paliative healthcare because public healthcare is going to be more and more broken]" I was talking about the people in the criteria of the law, not "all" the people.
I don't have the exact number, but for people under heavy care needs, palliative care, only something like x% (this is the number i cant recall, less says it's a "part") could ask themselves if they should access this end of life because science + our healthcare system cant do much more.
The other part, if they think about end of life is because the health care system failed them. Because in France public palliative healthcare teams are on budget cuts. Those people should have physical and mental healthcare, instead, they have just what the teams can do best as they can cuts after cuts. What happend when you are in paliative care, and there is no team to help your mental health? What could you think about and what does this law allow ?
There is no kind or dignity in Macron's law.
Really, we could save a "part" of that population, but instead priorise to allow them to die, for supposed kindness. True kindness would have been to focus to provide a decent public healthcare system especially in paliative field, for example, right ? (But Macron effort are to destroy the healthcare system and, in my opinion, not a rumour, that it is Orweilien to propose this law in this specific context in France)