“That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and
territories and their medical regulatory bodies to establish a process that
respects a health care practitioner’s freedom of conscience while at the same
time respecting the needs of a patient who seeks medical assistance in dying. At a minimum, the objecting practitioner
must provide an effective referral for the patient.” [emphasis added]
How did a supposedly “civilized” country descend into this?
I believe this country has been in a steady progression downhill into decadence
over the last number of years. In fact one could say we are a “collapsed society.”
[1] People are now being made
accessories to “legalized” killing, either through their medical profession or
their compulsory tax dollars. It started with nine unelected judges on the
Supreme Court of Canada dictating to the government of the day that it must
bring in a law to make killing “legal.” This obscene decision could be called”
A Supreme Killing Decision.” [1a]
A number of people, recognizing that this disgusting
declaration could be a danger to everybody in the country, spoke out. They said,
“The Not-withstanding Clause in the Charter of Rights must be used to stop this
dictatorial decision.” Unfortunately, the leader of the land at that time did
not appear to have the courage to use this safeguard, nor did the other leaders
in parliament either. [2]
“Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott is urging federal
party leaders to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause to delay implementation of the
Supreme Court’s decision on physician-assisted death....” Althia Raj, Huffington Post, 02/10/2015
The words ‘physician-assisted
death’ is a misnomer. So, let’s tell it like it is, we are talking about
killing people and all the “sugar coated,” politically correct words cannot
disguise this truth. An article headlined “Medical help in dying should be widely available, with few
restrictions: report” by Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, Feb., 25, 2016
stated,
“Canadians enduring
intolerable suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions should
be able to seek medical help to die with few obstacles, a special parliamentary
committee has recommended.”
The article further stated:
“NDP committee member
Murray Rankin said the courts have already recognized the right of mature
minors to make end-of-life decisions. Nevertheless, he said the committee opted
for a ‘fair compromise’ that would allow expansion of the regime only after
it's been tested with adults.” [3]
Anyway, “adults,” it appears, are first to be “tested;” then
there will be “expansion of the regime.”
So it looks like the killing, oops I mean “Medical help in dying,” will
come into being gradually for some, and that others will get a licence to kill.
“The majority report of the Special Joint Committee on
Physician-Assisted Dying is almost certainly well-meaning. It has taken on
an issue that is difficult and fraught with emotion....
“The nub of the
report is a recommendation that would amend the Criminal Code to let
physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and pharmacists — under special
circumstances — kill people.
“Those being killed
would be required, in writing if possible, to request their own deaths.” Thomas
Walkom, The Toronto
Star, February 28, 2016.
A kind, moral, and decent society should have respect for
life, but as I said earlier, I believe our society has collapsed. Therefore, a
country that proposes killing as a solution is surely degrading itself and
destroying its morals and ethics. Once “legalized killing” starts, it could
advance into all parts of society. Killing for peoples’ organs, killing for
inheritances, killing of the unwanted, killing of “useless eaters” and on and
on this compulsory evil could progress.
“The German
experiment with euthanasia provides salutary lessons for the debate in the
early 21st century....”
In his "Medical Science under Dictatorship,"
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, July, 1949, Dr Alexander
observed:
"Whatever
proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who
investigated them, that they started from small beginnings. The beginnings at
first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of
physicians.
"It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.
"Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans." Dr. Leo Alexander [4]
"It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.
"Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans." Dr. Leo Alexander [4]
The question must now be asked: Does Canada not
remember what happened in other countries when killing was accepted as a “final
solution”? For as the words below state,
“Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)
Stephen J. Gray
February 28, 2016.
Endnotes:
Links of interest:
The CCRL Strongly
Opposes Parliamentary Committee’s Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Recommendations
