MAiD
Assisted suicide is never really about ‘choice’: here’s why
From LifeSiteNews
Just a few years ago, we understood that suicidal ideation itself was an indication that something was seriously wrong – but our euthanasia regime has changed all of that.
Just last week, I wrote a column on the normalization of euthanasia and the sinister insistence by those who advocate for it that being killed by lethal injection is, in fact, both a good and a life-saving thing. We are seeing the complete perversion of language in order to justify medicalized killing, which is why you don’t read terms like “killing” or “suicide” in the context of the euthanasia debate in the press. Activists realized very quickly that these terms were unhelpful in the push for normalization.
Earlier this month, Canadian MP Kevin Lamoureux, a Liberal, took it a step further, stating: “MAiD [assisted suicide] legislation, even on occasion, I would ultimately argue, saves lives.”
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 pic.twitter.com/bFU57gKxCJ
— Michelle Ferreri (@mferreriptbokaw) February 12, 2024
What a truly insane thing to say – and the sad fact is, he likely believes it. He also likely doesn’t realize how dangerous his statement is. What message is being sent to those the government has deemed eligible for state-facilitated suicide? Euthanasia is, legally speaking, a choice. But just as with abortion, the “choice” is often a farcical one.
When women were legally granted the “choice” of abortion, it swiftly became an expectation. Sick, sad, and depressed people may be told they merely have the “choice” to be euthanized – but as we have seen, this choice often seems like a social obligation.
This point was made in a recent essay about euthanasia in Newsweek by Katherine Brodsky, who supports euthanasia in principle. She has, however, come to have doubts that a euthanasia regime in which choice is freely exercised is possible. She writes:
I am now skeptical about the true autonomy of individuals opting for assisted death, especially in a country with socialized health care. The risk of medical practitioners recommending MAiD as a cost-cutting measure to alleviate strain on the health care system is unsettling, as suggested by a 2020 analysis estimating potential annual savings of save $66 million annually in health care costs. Individuals considering MAiD are already vulnerable due to physical or mental suffering, making them susceptible to external pressures. Reflecting on my own past struggles, I recognize the unpredictability of emotions and circumstances. What seems unbearable one day may change with time and support – yet the choice to end life is a permanent one.
Fortunately, the Canadian government has delayed – for the second time – expanding euthanasia to those suffering from mental illness. But they insist that this is a delay, not a cancellation, meaning that the position of the Trudeau government is that someone suffering acute despair caused by a mental illness is clear-headed enough to choose suicide-by-doctor. This is obviously untrue, and I genuinely wonder why the government seems so hellbent on doing this. Just a few years ago, we understood that suicidal ideation itself was an indication that something was seriously wrong – but our euthanasia regime has changed all of that.
Brodsky notes that the “choice” being offered to a specific subset of Canadians who have been pre-approved for this “choice” – a choice not offered to all Canadians, but only those the government has decided have lives not worth living – is often a false one. Citing the example of Lauren Hoeve, the Dutch girl who was euthanized earlier this year, she notes:
And yet, I was struck by something in the statement put out by Lauren Hoeve’s parents. ‘Millions of people are affected by ME/CFS, with no established treatment pathways and no cure,’ they wrote on X on Feb. 2. ‘Why is their suffering acknowledged enough for euthanasia but not enough to fund clinical research?’ And herein lies the rub. Why is euthanasia offered as a viable solution to a potentially non-permanent problem, when other options are possible?
Mental health services in Canada (and elsewhere) are scarce. Psychologists are expensive and out of reach for many. Psychiatric services are free of charge, but the wait lists are even longer than those for psychologists and few people can get access. The wait to get help is usually over a year. Family physicians just end up prescribing medications based on a checklist and see what sticks.
READ: Terminally ill children in the Netherlands can now be euthanized against their will
Precisely true. We know that many people in Canada have chosen euthanasia because it was the only “choice” being offered to them at all. Cancer patients who cannot get the treatment they actually want have opted for suicide-by-doctor instead. One woman noted that her requests for additional help to deal with her chronic condition were denied, and thus euthanasia was, she felt, the only option left available. “Ultimately it was not a genetic disease that took me out, it was a system,” she wrote. “There is desperate need for change. That is the sickness that causes so much suffering. Vulnerable people need help to survive. I could have had more time if I had more help.”
So, what does an ill and suffering Canadian hear when an MP stands up in the House of Commons and says that euthanasia “saves lives”? They know it doesn’t save their life. As Amanda Achtman noted: “Obviously, it’s not the lives of those being killed that are being saved. Such a utilitarian calculation amounts to a war against the weak and this is dehumanizing and wrong.”
From LifeSiteNews
Alberta announced it ‘is reviewing how MAID is regulated to ensure there is a consistent process as well as oversight that protects vulnerable Albertans, specifically those living with disabilities or suffering from mental health challenges.’
The Conservative provincial government of Alberta is pushing back against the Canadian federal government’s continued desire to expand euthanasia in the nation, saying it will launch a review of the legislation and policies surrounding the grim practice, including a period of public engagement.
The United Conservative Party (UCP) government under Premier Danielle Smith in a press release said the province needs to make sure that robust safeguards and procedures are in place to protect vulnerable people from being coerced into getting euthanatized under the MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) program.
“Alberta’s government is reviewing how MAID is regulated to ensure there is a consistent process as well as oversight that protects vulnerable Albertans, specifically those living with disabilities or suffering from mental health challenges,” said the government Monday.
The government said a online survey regarding MAiD open to all Albertans who have opinions about the deadly practice will be available until December 20.
“We recognize that medical assistance in dying is a very complex and often personal issue and is an important, sensitive and emotional matter for patients and their families,” said Alberta’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery.
Amery said it is important to ensure this process has the “necessary supports to protect the most vulnerable.”
The government said that it will also be engaging with academics, medical associations, public bodies, as well as religious organizations and “regulatory bodies, advocacy groups” regarding MAiD
The government said all information gathered through this consultation will “help inform the Alberta government’s planning and policy decision making, including potential legislative changes regarding MAID in Alberta.”
When it comes to MAiD, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government sought to expand it from the chronically and terminally ill to those suffering solely from mental illness.
However, in February, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government delayed the mental illness expansion until 2027.
Alberta’s Minister of Mental Health and Addiction Dan Williams said that the UCP government has been “clear” that it does not “support the provision of medically assisted suicide for vulnerable Albertans facing mental illness as their primary purpose for seeking their own death.”
“Instead, our goal is to build a continuum of care where vulnerable Albertans can live in long-term health and fulfilment. We look forward to the feedback of Albertans as we proceed with this important issue,” he noted.
The Alberta government said that as MAiD is “federally legislated and regulated” it is main job will be to try and make sure that it protects “vulnerable individuals” as much as possible.
Alberta’s Minister of Health Adriana LaGrange reaffirmed that the Alberta government “does not support expanding MAID eligibility to include those facing depression or mental illness and continues to call on the federal government to end this policy altogether.”
The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection under the nation’s MAiD program since 2016 stands at close to 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone. Many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.
To combat Canadians being coerced into MAiD, which LifeSiteNews has covered, the combat pro-life Delta Hospice Society (DHS) is offering a free “Do Not Euthanize Defense Kit” to help vulnerable people “protect themselves” from any healthcare workers who might push euthanasia on the defenseless.
From LifeSiteNews
Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored.
Euthanasia activists are currently doing what they do best: the bait and switch.
As the debate heats up in the U.K., all of the familiar tactics are on display. First, of course, there is the relentless lying. Despite the case study of Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium – and despite disability activists, judges, palliative physicians, and the secretaries of health and justice warning that no “safeguards” will hold – U.K. euthanasia activists are insisting that this time everything will be different.
The response to these critiques has been predictable but infuriating. Euthanasia activists insist that all of this is about religion – that those nasty Christians are, once again, seeking to impose their suffering-based theology on the country. (This despite the fact that even Ann Furedi, who heads up the U.K.’s second largest abortion provider, opposes the proposed assisted suicide law.) One good microcosmic example of this tactic comes from UK writer Julie Street, who posted to X (formerly Twitter):
Just walked out of Mass bloody fuming – our priest used the homily to read a letter from the Catholic bishops telling people to oppose the Assisted Dying Bill then handed out cards with our local MP’s details on to lobby them. Religion has no place in politics or women’s rights.
There is much to say in response, of course. Why is Street so surprised to discover that her Catholic priest and bishops are, in fact, Catholic? Is she ignorant of the religion that she at least appears to practice? How airtight does one’s mind have to be not to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as religious issues? Indeed, “euthanasia” is Greek for “good death” – the theological premises are baked right into the term. Or does Street think that religious people should shut their mouths in the political arena and voluntarily disenfranchise themselves as the fates of the weak are decided?
Is Street also ignorant of the fact that it was largely due to the Catholic Church’s public opposition that Adolf Hitler moved the Nazi’s euthanasia operation underground? (We now know, of course, that the Nazis only claimed to have disbanded the T-4 program.) I thought progressives wanted a Church that stood up for the weak, vulnerable, and dispossessed – and who qualifies more than the sick, elderly, and those with disabilities? Christians are accused of not being loving enough, and then rebuked when they stand up for the victims the political class deems expendable – first the unborn, now those on the other end of life’s spectrum.
But there’s more to this tactic than grating ignorance. Progressives like to play both sides of the fence. Take abortion, for example. Politicians like to claim that it is a religious issue, and that thus they cannot legislate against it due to the fact that we live in pluralistic societies. Many religious leaders are quite happy to follow this logic, claiming that since abortion is a political issue, it cannot be discussed in church. And all the while, the countless corpses of the aborted unborn pile up in the No Man’s Land between.
The assisted suicide debate is unfolding along similar lines. Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored. Meanwhile, because politicians are debating the issue, folks like Street can claim that because this is now a political issue, priests and pastors should keep their traps shut. See what they did there? It’s a neat trick, and despite how farcical and illogical it is, it seems to work with maddening regularity.
In fact, the priest Julie Street had the good fortune to hear was standing in the tradition of the clergy who stood up against Adolf Hitler and his eugenicist gang – and fighting the same evil being advanced under many of the same premises, to boot. She should be grateful. If she can’t manage that, she should at least be better educated.
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
Five Government Programs That Musk’s Government Efficiency Agency Could Put On The Chopping Block
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones
Trudeau government to roll out another digital border crossing app by 2026
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
DOGE seeks ‘super high-IQ’ people willing to work 80 hours a week for free
-
conflict1 day agoUS and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
Alberta2 days agoEarly Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
armed forces1 day agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel2 days agoGreen Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Addictions2 days agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
conflict2 days agoPutin Launches Mass-Production of Nuclear Shelters for his People
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square