Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.
Things don't happen in vacuum. There are always factors affecting people's decisions, or entirely depriving them of agency. And in this specific case state medicine (the one that is responsible for the process, and has all the power to influence it) is immensely motivated to force sick people into euthanasia whether those people want it or not, while those who are supposed to provide oversight (government) are motivated to support euthanasia in, practically, all cases (unless its a patient in private clinic, they are costing money that could line up pockets of the rich and help politicians get re-elected).
Even on the level of implementation things are incredibly abusable. Feedback is similarly fucked, as it is nigh impossible to object to it: those who are forced into euthanasia are cut off from the rest of the world, and can't complain afterwards as they are disposed of in the process. The example in the article had been made public only because murder victim had caring family that refused to shut up, and hospital was sloppy (failed to come up with a convincing reason for euthanasia, patient clearly had no reason to desire death). And even those circumstances required years of effort to make things public.
I.e. for all intents and purposes, Canadians are killing off undesirables (elderly, seriously sick, etc.). If government is supposed to pay you any money in any form, you are on a kill list. This is what euthanasia is for: budget cuts. Austerity measures.
