agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Laws Lessons of History UD Newswatch highlights

UK Spectator: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” (Slippery slopes dept.)

Spread the love

April 30:

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. It only took five years for the proverbial slope to come into view . . . .

A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse . . . [Click and read]

This is the Schaeffer-Koop warning about the incremental undermining of the value of life, and it is a case in point on slippery slopes. Let us hope Canada wakes up and let us not go there. END

13 Replies to “UK Spectator: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” (Slippery slopes dept.)

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    UK Spectator: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” (Slippery slopes dept.)

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    A good analogy is what’s happening to stocks and bitcoin right now. The central banks have stopped pouring counterfeit money into the markets. The most abstract and stupid investments are collapsing to zero instantly, and the semi-abstract stuff is dropping fast.

    If federal bailouts for research stopped, the most abstract and stupid subject areas would simply disappear, and the not-entirely-stupid subjects would be filtered down to one or two articles per decade.

  3. 3
    JHolo says:

    Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity.

    Perhaps you should have read the first sentence for the nonsense it is.

  4. 4
    News says:

    Certainly, Canada is gradually broadening the scope of euthanasia. One issue is that Canada’s free, universal public healthcare system is not sustainable. I am told that the local hospital is operating at 150 percent capacity. There are few doctors in private practice and nurse practitioner clinics are overwhelmed.

    A critical difference between Britain and Canada is that Britain allows private healthcare facilities; Canada does not. The private option acts as a safety valve. People who can pay go private and the poor get to the head of the line sooner as a result.

    But in Canada allowing private health care facilities would be seen as a defeat for socialism. It would be much more controversial than simply expanding the grounds for euthanasia to include lonely and anxious people with few resources – which is starting to happen.

  5. 5
    JHolo says:

    News: Certainly, Canada is gradually broadening the scope of euthanasia.

    With respect, calling it “euthanasia” is misrepresenting the practice. Canada is not killing people against their will. They are allowing people to make the choice for themselves.

    I agree that we have to be very careful about how this is done so that it is clearly the will of the person, and not coerced by family members. But if I truly believe that I no longer wish to live, why shouldn’t my will be granted?

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    A critical difference between Britain and Canada is that Britain allows private healthcare facilities; Canada does not. The private option acts as a safety valve. People who can pay go private and the poor get to the head of the line sooner as a result.

    I didn’t realize that.
    People have to suffer for the sake of the ideology. Did PM Trudeau receive socialism as his family inheritance? The photo evidence sure makes it seem that way to me.
    I’m right across Lake Ontario – looking forward to my next visit to Toronto, London, Hamilton & St. Catherine’s.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    JH physician assisted suicide under colour of law is a euthanasia policy. It is leading further down the exact cascade of increasing compulsion as deliberately induced death becomes seen as a solution that Schaeffer and Koop warned against so long ago now. KF

  8. 8
    BobRyan says:

    “A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days.”

    That makes clear choice is not really a choice. Socialism brings callousness.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, there were several other disturbing cases in the article. KF

  10. 10
    AndyClue says:

    @JHolo:

    With respect, calling it “euthanasia” is misrepresenting the practice. Canada is not killing people against their will. They are allowing people to make the choice for themselves.

    By definition, what Canada is doing, is called “euthanasia”:

    Collins Dictionary: Euthanasia is the practice of killing someone who is very ill and will never get better in order to end their suffering, usually done at their request or with their consent.

  11. 11
    JHolo says:

    Andyclue, the operative word is “usually”. Euthanasia also involves the killing of people without their consent.

    In Canada at present, unless things have changed recently, people cannot provide advanced consent for things like dementia. The proper term is doctor assisted suicide, and I don’t see any problem with it. But I agree that there has to be very detailed criteria such that we err on the side of caution.

  12. 12
    BobRyan says:

    This sums up what Canada’s move towards socialism has become.

    “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass,” she said in a video obtained by the network. For two years, she and friends had pleaded without success for better living conditions, she said.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, euthanasia, historically starts as mercy killing then as respect for life wanes, becomes more and more coercive.Often, the worst cases are concealed. KF

Leave a Reply