MAiD
Canada’s euthanasia regime considers death less harmful than offering help to live
From LifeSiteNews
A Canadian judge has ordered an injunction from a father to be lifted so that his 27-year-old autistic daughter can be permitted to undergo a doctor-assisted suicide.
On March 14, I reported on the story of a 27-year-old Albertan woman with autism who had been approved for euthanasia in December; she was planning to receive a lethal injection on February 1 when her father, whom she lives with, successfully obtained a temporary court injunction the day prior. Her father argued that her autism and “possibly other undiagnosed maladies do not satisfy the eligibility criteria for MAiD [Medical Assistance in Dying]”; the daughter’s attorney argued that it was “none of [her father’s] business.”
It fell to Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby to examine the approval process and to determine whether the young woman was eligible for suicide-by-doctor. He admitted to being troubled by the case. “As a court, I can’t go second guessing these MAiD assessors… but I’m stuck with this: the only comprehensive assessment of this person done says she’s normal,” Feasby stated. “That’s really hard.” It shouldn’t have been.
The desperate father has received another brutal setback in his quest to save his daughter from Canada’s euthanasia regime. On March 25, Feasby ruled that the injunction preventing her death be lifted. As the Calgary Herald put it: “Preventing a Calgary woman’s medically assisted death would cause her irreparable harm, a judge ruled Monday.” Reread that sentence a moment and let it sink in: preventing a woman’s death would cause her irreparable harm. In Canada’s euthanasia regime, words mean nothing. Suicide is healthcare. Stopping suicide causes irreparable harm. Death… doesn’t, somehow.
“The harm to MV [the woman in question] if the injunction is granted goes to the core of her being,” Feasby stated in his written ruling. “An injunction would deny MV the right to choose between living or dying with dignity. Further, an injunction would put MV in a position where she would be forced to choose between living a life she has decided is intolerable and ending her life without medical assistance. This is a terrible choice that should not be forced on MV, as attempting to end her life without medical assistance would put her at increased risk of pain, suffering, and lasting injury.”
Note here that there is no limiting principle to this ruling. That logic, such as it is, would apply to any suffering person experiencing suicidal ideation. It is also a false choice. The choice is not between dying by lethal injection or dying by some other form of suicide; it is between dying by lethal injection or being cared for by her loving father, who is ready and willing to do whatever he can for her. As Feasby himself said in his previous comments on the case: “The only comprehensive assessment of this person done says she’s normal.” Apparently, that didn’t matter.
Addressing the young woman in his ruling, Feasby added:
What I know of your journey through the health-care system from the evidence in this case suggests that you have struggled to find a doctor who could diagnose your condition and offer appropriate treatment. I do not know why you seek MAiD. Your reasons remain your own because I have respected your autonomy and your privacy. My decision recognizes your right to choose medically assisted death; but it does not require you to choose death.
Keen readers will notice that these statements are also in conflict. The young woman “struggled to find a doctor who could diagnose your condition and offer appropriate treatment”; that is why she is seeking euthanasia. Feasby can pretend not to know this, but the evidence is clear.
Feasby did admit that his ruling would be deeply harmful to the parents of the young woman. “The harm to WV [the father] if the injunction is not granted will be substantial,” he wrote. “The pain of losing a child, even an adult child, is not something that any parent should experience. (The parents) have devoted their lives to raising MV from birth and have continued to support her since she has come of age. They will understandably be devastated by her death. For many parents, the loss of a child is a life-changing event that they never truly recover from. The loss is immeasurable.”
He is right. He could have made a different decision. The 27-year-old had to shop around for doctors willing to sign off on her application for euthanasia; she initially struggled to find the necessary two. But in the end, she succeeded. The father can appeal Feasby’s decision, but his attorney has not commented on whether he will do so. If he does not, he will face what so many Canadian families have endured over the past several years: the knowledge that his family member will expedite her death, and that he is helpless to stop it.
From LifeSiteNews
Even the UN has described Canada’s assisted suicide program as ‘state-sponsored eugenics’ and called upon the government to curtail plans to expand euthanasia access.
In Canada, we kill the disabled. Over 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted; pre-born children diagnosed with other disabilities usually meet the same fate. But for decades, our Nazi-style lethal ableism was limited to those not yet born.
With the expansion of euthanasia eligibility to those suffering solely from disability or mental illness scheduled to come into effect in 2027, that is slated to change. Disability groups have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of this plan, which has been delayed twice by the Liberal government due to pushback from across Canadian society – but not cancelled entirely.
Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, examining Canada’s compliance with the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities earlier this year, concluded that Canada was embarking on “state-sponsored eugenics” and called on the Canadian government to scrap these plans and roll back the expanding euthanasia regime. The disability rights group Inclusion Canada, as well as several others, had written to the body to sound the alarm about Canada’s euthanasia policies.
Canadians with physical disabilities have been attempting to get the government’s attention for years, with stories of those who seeking euthanasia because they cannot get the support or care they need periodically dominating international headlines. (This ugly reality is best encapsulated in a famous cartoon showing stairs leading to a healthcare provider, with the only wheelchair ramp leading to “euthanasia.”) These stories have not yet been heeded by the government.
A story recently posted to X by Samantha Smith, a victim advocate and survivor of the grooming and rape gangs in the U.K., highlights Canada’s grim slippery slope. It is worth reading in full:
A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada. They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue. In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised. He didn’t want to die. But my family member was legally forced to end his life. They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty.”
That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily. He wasn’t terminally ill. He wasn’t particularly old. He wasn’t dying. He didn’t want to die. But he didn’t have a choice. Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.
And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures – that their conscience wouldn’t allow it – they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse. They still refused. But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to. It starts with “choice” and “dignity.” But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it.” And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality. In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid. If it can happen there; it will happen here. People will be killed against their will.
When asked for public corroboration, Smith stated: “No, my family member will not ‘go public.’ Yes, I trust his testimony. No, he is not a horrible, awful person. Yes, this is really happening. The black letter law vs. the grim reality are two very different things. Just because the law was supposed to protect against coercion or non-consenting procedures … doesn’t mean it is.”
I wish I didn’t believe her, but I do. I believe her because euthanasia providers have ended the lives of people like Alan Nichols, who was taken to the hospital by family members after a psychiatric episode and euthanized days later. I believe her because leaked documents show that Ontario’s euthanasia providers have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single case being referred to law enforcement. I believe her because Canada’s medical establishment already embraces lethal ableism, and our government does too.
Canada is already killing those with disability or mental illness; thus far, euthanasia practitioners are forced to come up with other reasons for doing so (the written reason for Alan Nichols’ lethal injection was “hearing loss”). But once eligibility requirements are expanded in 2027, the floodgates will open. There is still time to stop this expansion, and we must doing everything we can to do so. The lives of people with disabilities depend on it.
From LifeSiteNews
After ten years of assisted suicide, Canada has become synonymous with grim stories of death by lethal injection, with the regime’s net growing ever wider.
When Justin Trudeau took power in 2015, he announced that Canada was back and that his election was a harbinger of “sunny ways” and a new era for the country.
It was a new era, alright, but the ways turned out not to be sunny. In his ten years in office, over 60,000 Canadians were euthanized under the regime that his government brought in, and overnight, Canada became an international cautionary tale.
International headlines highlighted the grim story of Canada, where people were getting lethal injections because they were disabled; because they couldn’t get cancer treatment; because they were veterans with PTSD. As the U.K.’s Spectator asked in a chilling 2022 headline: “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?”
READ: New Conservative bill would ban expansion of euthanasia to Canadians suffering mental illness
Indeed, in the United Kingdom – where Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s dystopian assisted suicide bill passed last week – Canada was seen as so objectively horrifying that euthanasia advocates insisted that comparisons to their Commonwealth neighbor constituted fearmongering. Leadbeater, in fact, stated that her bill is “worlds apart” from Canada’s euthanasia regime. Anyone advocating for euthanasia must now reckon with Canada, which highlights how short and slick the slope really is.
Earlier this month, the New York state legislature also passed a bill legalizing assisted suicide; assisted suicide laws are also being considered in Maryland and Illinois. On June 14, the New York Times published a powerful op-ed by Ross Douthat titled “Why the Euthanasia Slope Is Slippery.” As is now standard in the international press, Canada’s euthanasia regime came up.
“A few days before the vote, my colleague Katie Engelhart published a report on the expansive laws allowing ‘medical assistance in dying’ in Canada,” Douthat wrote, “which were widened in 2021 to allow assisted suicide for people without a terminal illness, detailing how they worked in the specific case of Paula Ritchie, a chronically ill Canadian euthanized at her own request.”
“Many people who support assisted suicide in terminal cases have qualms about the Canadian system,” Douthat continued. “So it’s worth thinking about what makes a terminal-illness-only approach to euthanasia unstable, and why the logic of what New York is doing points in a Canadian direction even if the journey may not be immediate or direct.”
Notice, here, that a columnist can refer to the “Canadian direction” with the assumption that everybody recognizes, without question, that this a particularly bad direction to be heading in. Even euthanasia advocates, while privately admiring the scale and efficiency of the Canadian killing fields, feel it necessary to distance themselves from Canada publicly.
Douthat noted that the Canadian example reveals why the slippery slope is inevitable; that people have essentially come to expect that doctors “always need to offer something,” and that when no further care or treatment is possible, that assisted suicide should be available. This logic “assumes that the dying have entered a unique zone where the normal promises of medicine can no longer be kept, a state of exception where it makes sense to license doctors to deliver death as a cure.” But Douthat observes:
The problem is that a situation where the doctor tells you that there’s nothing more to be done for you is not really exceptional at all. Every day, all kinds of people are told that their suffering has no medical solution: people with crippling injuries, people with congenital conditions and people … with an array of health problems whose etiology science does not even understand.
READ: Cardinal Dolan denounces New York assisted suicide bill as ‘cheapening of human life’
The logic of assisted suicide means that inevitably, eligibility will expand to all kinds of suffering.
“Suffering is general and not limited, the dying are not really a category unto themselves, and the case for a lethal solution will creep beyond the bounds you set,” Douthat concluded. “In the end, you can have a consensus that suicide is intrinsically wrong, that suffering should be endured to whatever end and that doctors shouldn’t kill you. Or you can have an opening to death that will be narrow only at the start – and in the end, a wide gate through which many, many people will be herded.”
How do we know? Well, Douthat writes, “The Canadian experience shows this clearly.” After ten years of sunny ways, “Canada” has become synonymous with grim stories of death by lethal injection.
Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’
US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?
Lacombe meat processor scores $1.2 million dollar provincial tax credit to help expansion
The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee profiles – Alpine Skiing Athlete – Brady Leman
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Resets The Energy Policy Playing Field
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta school boards required to meet new standards for school library materials with regard to sexual content
-
International2 days agoSecret Service suspends six agents nearly a year after Trump assassination attempt
-
Environment23 hours agoEPA releases report on chemtrails, climate manipulation
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Alberta1 day agoFourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta