14 December, 2015

Get ready Ontario citizens. Thanks to Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal minions... soon 'Death Really is Coming to Town!'

Here below are a few of the 'highlights' from the report of committee empaneled by the Ontario government in response to the Euthanasia issue. 

It begins by stating up front that the government should make such a 'service' available to its citizens - a stand in keeping with the recent Supreme Court decision from February 2015 mandating its legalization in the spring of 2016.  Primary among its recommendations is the removal of a physician's conscience rights not to participate in the process by requiring a doctor to refer a patient to another physician who will actually directly kill the patient.
"Doctors, the report recommends, should be able to object to helping someone die, but it would then be their responsibility to transfer the patient to a doctor willing to accommodate such a request."
They then get down to the business of determining who should be able to demand to be killed by their doctor. They suggest it be open to those who have:
"A very severe or serious illness, disease or disability that cannot be alleviated by any means acceptable to the patient." (emphasis added) 
Essentially then, if you think that life is too burdensome to carry on, the State will put you out of your misery at the tax payers expense.

The committee was gracious enough to state that young minors should not have the right to demand to be euthanized of their own volition unless:
"A patient's capacity to make an informed decision should guide who qualifies. Young children, therefore, would be considered incapable of forming a competent decision, though it's possible a "mature minor" could." (emphasis added)
 So I guess it wouldn't necessarily be a kids advantage to be thought of as being mature for their age if such a label opens them up to the possibility of being put down like the family pet or some farm animal or livestock before they can even get their own driver's license!

And I guess the Catholic Healthcare institutions in the province won't be able to count on any right to abstain from being counted as an abattoir of this death fetish either given that the report recommends:

"that publicly funded health institutions not issue a blanket objection to providing physician-assisted suicide."
Oh Canada... I don't think that even the most jaded amongst us ever thought we would so soon sink so deeply into the moral morass that passes as our legal system today when we started down this path of permitting personal autonomy to become the only lens through which we would determine what would be legal or illegal in the 1960's. Death used to be something we strove to push off as long as possible and our healthcare system worked to achieve that end. Soon the right to die will be our only surety guaranteed by the government and we will find ourselves having to fight just for the privilege to live. We've come a long way as a country. I just wish that it hadn't led us to as dark and dangerous a place as we find ourselves today.  


Physician-assisted death should be based on decision-making capacity, not age: Ontario report - Toronto - CBC News

6 comments:

  1. The number of new words being invented seems to multiply. There seems to be a strong desire to turn every noun into a verb. For example, 'impact' used to be a noun. Now just about everybody uses it as a verb. What was wrong with 'affect'? But 'empaneled'? What on earth does that mean?
    Who invents these words and why do people copy them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Highland: Empaneled is a word used meaning to create a jury or like body. It comes from the French language but has been used in English since the 1700's. It's a word I've read and used almost all of my life.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
  2. While I have trouble with this bill and feel it needs careful examination I think think this decision rests more with the personal autonomy of the patient and his or her doctor rather than any institutional authority, be it government, hospital or religious. I may not opt for this, should the need arise, but I would not preclude others from making their choices. It's their life, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael: The problem seems to be with the route the Supreme Court chose to make euthanasia legal in Canada. Instead of basing in expressly within the realm of personal autonomy (something that the Sue Rodriguez case years ago closed off to the justices), they have instead gone the route of protecting physicians who euthanize their patients. The end result is that: a) the only way you can ensure that you are not euthanized against your wishes is to have a lawyer or notary draw up an advanced directive prohibiting it; and b) many folks who do not choose (a) will be killed off for very mixed motives such as preserving cash for an inheritance rather than spending it on long-term care of the disabled elderly or freeing up hospital and long-term care beds rather than the government paying for more. Please don't think that money, greed, and political expediency are not powerful interests that will complicate these end of life issues. Up till now in most cases we have had the protection of the law to ensure that we live. Now that assumed protection will be wiped out by the route legislators and jurists have chosen to use to facilitate doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    2. Why again I agree that this is something that should be of concern to all, one of the main points of the article is consent and how to determine it. It discusses age of patient, number of doctors, definition of grievous illness but at no point does it say or even imply that patients will be killed off without consent.

      Delete
    3. Michael: I guess my experiences are getting in the way of the narrative - at least as expressed in this particular news story. But the fact still remains that the legal manner in which doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia are being brought into force is through legislation that protects the physician from being charged under the Criminal Code rather than by empowering the individual to choose to be killed as a treatment option. This is what the Quebec legislation does. This is what the SCC decision does. This report recommends that Ontario follow the same legal path which couches its intent in the language of personal empowerment but it's going about it in the wrong way. Please understand what I am saying: I oppose euthanasia on religious and moral grounds. But even if I didn't, I would oppose the way this is being brought about in our country. It is leaving us open to a horrible dystopian future, and it isn't worth the risk just to let people live out a fantasy about controlling how they are going to 'check out' of this existence.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics