Canadians have until tomorrow evening to respond:

This consultation closes on Monday, January 27, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. (PST)

But I recommend carrying on the opposition regardless of this survey deadline, speaking to your M.P., submitting briefs to parliamentary committees and communicating with others about your objections.

www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html
“Medical Assistance in Dying [MAID]: Share Your Views Online”

In the context of a Quebec Superior Court ruling coming into effect in March, this is a government survey on expanding the Canadian government’s euthanasia regime, which was a relatively recent “progressive” Brave New World policy innovation, legalizing what used to be a criminal offence.

Context from the government’s introduction:

Medical assistance in dying (MAID) became legal in Canada in June 2016. Canada’s Criminal Code now exempts doctors and nurse practitioners who provide, or help to provide, medical assistance in dying. . . .

So one day it’s murder and the next day it’s not. It’s amazing how the law can be changed for oligarchs who have an agenda.

Since MAID has been legalized, more than 6,700 Canadians [disputed] who were suffering unbearably chose to die peacefully with the help of a physician or nurse practitioner. Over the past four years, our health care systems have become more familiar and comfortable with providing MAID . . .

They color the wording to make it sound reasonable. These are subjective terms and their validity is unverifiable to me, case by case. How do I know what’s going on unless I am involved? Maybe there are some contrary stories to tell out there–are they suppressed?

My responses are copied from the Campaign Life Coalition’s (www.campaignlifecoalition.com) recommended responses to this survey (via their newsletter). These statements are a way of expressing my clear dissent and a way of clearly expressing my positions–to whoever is reading the survey. I don’t mind explaining the details of why I think this way but that’s in the discussion below at the end of this post. Note that I don’t give blanket endorsements to any group.

Related links:
alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2020/01/participate-in-canadian-government-maid.html

Section C: Safeguards to protect against misuse or abuse of medical assistance in dying
 
1. Do you think the current safeguards would prevent abuse, pressure or other kinds of misuse of MAID after eligibility is broadened to people whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable?
 
SELECT: NO
 
2. The following list contains potential safeguards that are not currently in place in Canada, as well as potential revisions to some existing safeguards. These are safeguards that apply under the MAID laws of some other countries.
 
In your opinion, when a person is not at a point where their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, how important is it to require the following safeguards for those who meet all other eligibility criteria for MAID?
 
a) A different reflection period (currently a 10-day reflection period) between the submission of a person’s written request for MAID and receiving MAID.
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
c) A mandatory psychological or psychiatric assessment to evaluate the person’s capacity to consent to receiving MAID
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
d) Making sure the person requesting MAID is aware of all the means available to potentially relieve their suffering, including health and social support services (for example counseling, disability support, palliative care)
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
e) Mandatory consultation with an expert in the person’s medical condition and circumstances (for example a gerontologist, psychiatrist, or social worker), in addition to the already mandatory 2 medical assessments
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
f) Retrospective review of MAID cases by a committee to verify that the eligibility criteria and safeguards were satisfied and in place
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
g) Special training and tools to assist physicians and nurse practitioners to assess areas of potential vulnerability (for example mental health issues, or potential outside pressures or influences)
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
h) An obligation for the physician and nurse practitioner to offer to discuss their patient’s situation with their family members or loved ones with the patient’s consent
 
SELECT: Very Important
 
3. Do you have any other comments you want to share about possible safeguards for people who are eligible for MAID, but not at the end of life?
 
COMMENTS: People who are sick, suffering, and/or disabled need to be actively encouraged to embrace life – even amid all of their challenges. They must be offered the very best life-affirming treatments, palliative care, counselling, resources, and options first of all. They need compassionate care and support that respects the inherent dignity and value of their lives at all stages and in all circumstances. If we, as a society, did a good job in this respect demand for MAID would vanish.
 
Section D: Advance requests for MAID
 
1. Imagine that a person makes a request for MAID, is found to be eligible, and is awaiting the procedure. A few days before the procedure, the person loses the capacity to make health care decisions, and cannot provide final consent immediately before the procedure. In your opinion, should a physician or nurse practitioner be allowed to provide MAID to a person in these circumstances?
 
SELECT: NO
 
2. Imagine that a person is diagnosed with a medical illness that, over time, will affect their mind and take away their decision-making capacity, such as Alzheimer’s disease. The person prepares a document that says they consent to receive MAID if specific circumstances arise at a later date, after they no longer are able to consent.
 
In your opinion, should a physician or nurse practitioner be allowed to provide MAID to a person in this situation once the circumstances in their document have arisen and they otherwise meet the MAID criteria, even if they can no longer consent?
 
SELECT: NO
 
3. Do you have any other comments you want to share about allowing MAID to be provided to a person who has an advance request but is not able to consent to MAID at the time of the procedure?
 
COMMENTS: An advance request does not permit a person to change his/her mind, even at the last moment. Every human being has the right to change his/her mind. Even a mentally incompetent person has human dignity and human rights and could decide at the last moment that he/she does not want to die. Advance consent robs that person of his/her rights and eliminates absolutely necessary safeguards to prevent abuse.
 
Section E: Additional Comments
 
1. Do you have any other comments you want to share that have not been covered in the discussion so far?
 
COMMENTS: MAID is a euphemism for murder. Prior to June 2016, acts of euthanasia and assisted suicide were acts of homicide. This is still the case in most countries of the world. It is never acceptable to purposefully hasten or facilitate the death of a human being, no matter how sick or disabled. Human dignity demands we value and respect their lives and provide compassionate care up to the point of their natural death, even when there is great suffering. The sick and disabled are particularly vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, and the law should afford special protection to them. In addition, sick children or those with mental illness or dementia are incapable of giving fully informed consent, which means that providing euthanasia for them is tantamount to execution.

Further Comments

If you disagree with me, expressing yourself in the comments below might actually help you figure things out about the nature of your own beliefs, where they came from, how they were induced, etc. I don’t mind talking things through as I perceive that many people get their beliefs from propaganda-loaded movies and television programs. For example, I have seen a Clint Eastwood movie, Million Dollar Baby, about this. I have also seen a life-boat situation ethics instruction in an Ontario high school correspondence course.

Nobody allowed me to vote on whether it was acceptable to teach this evil doctrine to students and nobody ever asked me to vote on euthanasia.

Probably most people have no idea that a new (or I should say different) value system has replaced the older value system in Canada over a long period of decades. People like Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell and George Bernard Shaw advocated and wrote about a system that would replace the older Christian model with a model that decided whether people should be kept alive or not.

I believe that having a certain positive attitude towards human life is absolutely necessary in order to have a healthy society where life is tolerable. Everything is at stake already. I don’t believe it’s a matter only of tradition and going back to the past and I don’t believe that any particular religion gets everything right. It’s a matter of being consistent and understanding actual principles because there has always been a class of people who use and abuse people. Systems of euthanasia are not new either and have been practiced or advocated since the days of Plato’s Republic. This is part of the elite’s agenda. Also, it is always going to be portrayed as something idealistic. The technique of using extreme cases in the news media and in the entertainment media has been followed to the letter in order to justify systematic, institutionalized homicide.

I don’t necessarily have any desire to physically stop someone from ending their own life in an extreme case if it’s their choice–although I am highly skeptical that people are being given proper medical treatment–but I refuse to directly or indirectly sanction their action via taxes (since I’m not involved) and I refuse to pay for it, and I refuse to approve of hospitals, doctors and nurses and governments and drug/chemical companies and company workers participating in this as a part of an approved, official practice as if it’s acceptable morally speaking–in general. It is not. When people are suffering, it’s a sign that there are real problems. People need to figure out what the real causes of their problems are and they are not given the chance to do that because of medical and information monopolies.

This is part of our collapse. This is a bad ending to a bad movie. It’s someone’s genocide and slave agenda. It’s spelled out already as I explained. A lot of these scenarios have already been presented in the media for over a century by propagandists–to prepare the way. I believe it is clearly linked to other practices that turn human beings into resources and commodities. All of these things you need to start getting your head around now and stop buying in to the agenda. Either human life is sacred or it’s not. If it’s not, guess what kind of world this becomes . . .

Note as of September 15, 2020 (during COVID): it’s easy to be naive about these things. Actually for people to not suffer, they need the best and proper treatments–and diet. There are actually better treatments–and diets–already that are suppressed. Is “palliative” care always “palliative” (relieving)? And are “care” homes always about care considering what happened in spring 2020? Some of us know there is a long-term agenda to create a different kind of world with different kinds of values. This is the world coming into view as George Bush Sr. said. And it’s outlined in Brave New World.

Share on Facebook

Tweet