Canada set to put into effect medically assisted suicide for the mentally ill
Our peaceful and friendly neighbors to the north are planning on helping the mentally ill kill themselves:
Changes are being made to Medical Assitance in Dying (MAID) which will expand eligibility criteria to eliminate the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” criterion. This means that it will no longer be required for a person’s death to be reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID services.
The government of Canada’s website says that those whose only medical condition is a mental illness will not be eligible for MAID until March 2023, meaning that it will be fully available for those with just a mental condition after that date.
There is a list of criteria there, but it seems as though it will be available to people as young as eighteen, as long as they supposedly are cognitively aware and non-coerced (although how the latter could be determined, I don’t know).
I guess the argument promoting this sort of thing is a combination of a libertarian/left outlook and supposed compassion for suffering. It seems outrageous and terrible to me, though, in particular the availability of this “solution” to people so young – but really the entire plan. But this is the direction in which our culture is going.
Here’s the government website explaining the new law.
Not JUST the mentally ill…
“Canadians Turn to Euthanasia as Solution to Unbearable Poverty”—
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canadians-Turn-to-Euthanasia-as-Solution-to-Unbearable-Poverty-20220523-0013.html
For the most moral of reasons, to be sure….
…The inevitable…the inexorable…vector of the notorious slippery slope…
(As it is said—and sung: O! Canada….)
I fully agree with your concern Neo. I was going to add something about a slippery slope, but I think this would carry us immediately to the bottom.
There are circumstances in which an assist is easily supportable. My wife died of a terminal cancer that essentially amounted to slow suffocation. Before and when she entered into hospice, we were assured they would keep her comfortable. But when things got unbearable near the end, they failed to keep their promise. They needn’t have worried about any legal ramifications; my wife and I would both have signed any waiver necessary.
But situations life my wife’s are far from what appears to be a “duty to die” or “make it easy for the relatives to get rid of an unwanted family member” philosophy that seems to be taking hold.
TimK:
Please accept my condolences.
TimK, deepest condolences. I do agree that hospice care for intractable discomfort should be able to ignore normal limits on pain meds. It is unreasonable to worry about addiction or possible overdose in these extreme circumstances when death is very near.
But this is a different question from taking action to kill people who are not in the throes of death, or who are not terminally ill.
The issue to watch in these nations which are enabling euthanasia is how soon they will shift from assisted death on request to assisted death for lives deemed not worth continuing.
The slope was first lubricated with “right to die”. How cruel to keep people alive against their will, even though there was no one wanting to do that and all the financial incentives for all stakeholders run toward letting people die.
Thou shalt not kill, but needs not strive
Officiously to keep alive
was what they sold us. But what we got instead was Lebensunwertes Leben.
C. S. Lewis once said “The painless death of a pious relative at an advanced age is not an evil. But an earnest desire for her death on the part of her heirs is not reckoned a proper feeling, and the law frowns on even the gentlest attempts to expedite her departure.” Not anymore.
Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation. –Cormac McCarthy, “No Country For Old Men”
The slippery slope is a fallacy of formal logic, but it is an empirical fact when it comes to human behavior.
Perfect. Teen-age girls can have their breasts cut off, and then a few years later when they are depressed about their bad decision they can off themselves with their doctor’s help.
“If suicide is allowed, everything is allowed.” — Wittgenstein
Kate says, “The issue to watch in these nations which are enabling euthanasia is how soon they will shift from assisted death on request to assisted death for lives deemed not worth continuing.”
Trudeau is one of Klaus Schwab’s little darlings– I’m not in the least surprised he’s in favor of death-on-demand. It’s a small step from “You will own nothing and be happy” to “You will have no rights even over your own life.”
Well, once this “solution” is implemented for a person, there wouldn’t be a need for any other solution. It would be rather… final.
A way to deal with the Lebensunwerte Leben dilemma!
Perhaps centralized places to help carry out the suicides, some sort of camp, perhaps.
The end point of socialism, national or otherwise, eh?
Some might say that the trans community will be hardest hit.
The slippery slope has been well lubricated by the example of other countries.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/10/15/netherlands-prepares-to-expand-euthanasia-to-children-under-12/
I remembered reading about this story, but that particular link is dead now.
Rather fitting, in the context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
“Euthanasia of children under the age of 12 remains technically illegal; however, Dr. Eduard Verhagen has documented several cases and, together with colleagues and prosecutors, has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. Prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this Groningen Protocol is followed.”
“Under current Dutch law, euthanasia by doctors is only legal in cases of “hopeless and unbearable” suffering. In practice this means that it is limited to those suffering from serious medical conditions like severe pain, exhaustion or asphyxia. Sometimes, psychiatric patients that have proven to be untreatable, can get euthanasia. There is much discussion about people with early dementia who have previously stated in a written will that if they ever got dementia, they would want to get euthanasia.[12]
In February 2010 a citizens’ initiative called Out of Free Will further demanded that all Dutch people over 70 who feel tired of life should have the right to professional help in ending it. The organisation started collecting signatures in support of this proposed change in Dutch legislation. A number of prominent Dutch citizens supported the initiative, including former ministers and artists, legal scholars and physicians.[13][14] However, this initiative has never been legalised.
In 2016, the Dutch Health Minister of the Second Rutte cabinet announced plans to draft a law that would allow assisted suicide in cases without a terminal illness, if the person feels they have completed life.[15]”
‘ Trudeau is one of Klaus Schwab’s little darlings– I’m not in the least surprised he’s in favor of death-on-demand. It’s a small step from “You will own nothing and be happy” to “You will have no rights even over your own life.” ‘
Indeed.
And—whaddayaknow—right on cue, the WTF’s Dear Leader is now spewing TRUTH (for a change)!
(I.e., spouting its TRUE raison d’etre….)
‘WEF’s Klaus Schwab Gives Speech To G20 On The “Need To Restructure The World” ‘
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wefs-klaus-schwab-gives-speech-g20-need-restructure-world
No doubt, euthanasia will figure large.
Make that, “huge”.
AesopFan– If the Netherlands continues to implement their ruinous “climate change” laws favored by the usual suspects, Dutch farmers will leave en masse, the country will starve, and euthanasia will be unnecessary. News item from July: “Dutch farmers turned out in their thousands to speak out against the World Economic Forum (WEF) climate change policies of their government.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/07/dutch-farmers-in-tractor-blockade-protesting-climate-change-restrictions-that-threaten-farms/
Klaus Schwab is 84 years old, an obvious euthanasia target.
Question to any that may support this; how it is it not cruel and unusual?
Since TimK has noted a reason to support, which I used to disagree but no longer do; my point in asking the question ought to be obvious. If it is now ok to help the mentally ill commit suicide, then what then is the argument against capital punishment (unless you are against the government having that power generally, in which case, don’t blame cruel and unusual).
Kate:
The infamous Zeke Emmanuel had a thing called the Quality Life Matrix IIRC for allocating “resources” based on your age, skills, education, “value to society,” and if your score was at some level, the state would be justified in giving you a final prescription. Only so much oxygen to go around? Anyway, Zeke and Klaus are past their expiration date in the socialist utopia, except that in such a paradise there are always special rules and exemptions for them. Some are always more equal than others.
So all those people found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial for a criminal offense are suddenly competent to agree with someone talking them into assisted suicide.
Got it.
Posted on Powerline’s Picks today.
The article includes a short history of the increasingly easier procedures for doctor-facilitated suicide — short, since it was first legalized in Canada in 2016.
Highly recommended.
https://lawliberty.org/canadas-orwellian-euthanasia-regime/
@ Leland > ” If it is now ok to help the mentally ill commit suicide, then what then is the argument against capital punishment ”
Looking for consistency on the Left is like looking for snowflakes in Hell (oh, wait..)
It’s been long noted that the pro-abortion and anti-execution stances are mutually contradictory.
Footnote: I support capital punishment only for truly heinous crimes with no doubt about the perpetrator’s guilt, but the Left seems to champion those cases with as much fervor as they do relatively-lesser crimes, which makes their support for the execution of the absolutely innocent by abortion even more perverse.
What’s even more puzzling to me, because the former contradictions are amply explained by the Leftist Rule to oppose anything valued by conservatives or religious people, is that abortion and euthanasia have the effect of disproportionately reducing numbers on their own “side,” and now they are enacting policies to eliminate some of the anchor babies that are arguably Democrats-in-utero as well as socialist-welfare-state magnets.
https://notthebee.com/article/biden-is-using-your-tax-dollars-to-pay-for-access-to-abortion-for-immigrant-minors
Welcome to Ontario, Senator Fetterman.