By Wesley J. Smith
That didn’t take long.
When Parliament legalized euthanasia for people with medical conditions leading to “foreseeable” death, many in the media and among the “experts” yelled that it was too restrictive.
And unconstitutional. Based on the Supreme Court’s forcing of Belgium-style euthanasia into the country, they are probably right. Let the lawsuits begin.
In a test case on the highly charged issue of whether the right to a medically assisted death should belong only to those who are already dying, a 25-year-old woman with a muscle-wasting disease is claiming the constitutional right to be protected from suffering that could last decades.
Julia Lamb of Chilliwack, B.C., filed a constitutional challenge to the Liberal government’s assisted-dying law in B.C. Supreme Court on Monday, just 10 days after Parliament passed the law. She does not wish to die now, but says the law denies her the peace of mind of knowing that if her suffering becomes intolerable, she has a way out.
But here’s the thing. If she gets depressed because of a personal loss of some kind unrelated to her disease, she would still be able to be lethally injected, without the bother of being provided suicide prevention.
Is it any wonder that disability rights organizations believe–correctly in my view–that they are now targets?
I find it quite interesting that the USA media are downplaying the coming of lethal injection euthanasia to Canada. Could it be that they know it will prove the lie of the supposed “terminal illness” limitation?
My prediction. The Supreme Court will overrule Parliament.
Even if it doesn’t, the gravitational force of popularly-approved euthanasia will see disabled and mentally ill people killed at the speed of injected muscle paralyzing poison hitting the heart. And the actual reason for wanting to die–and the potential that if kept from being killed many would later be glad they were still alive–won’t matter a whit.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.