By Wesley J. Smith
A Canadian man disabled by ALS didn’t want to die now. He wanted to be cared for at home so he could be with his son.
Nope. The government’s socialized health-care system refused to pay for all the care he needed. But it sure paid to kill him by euthanasia. From the story:
Relocation was not an option as that would have taken him away from his son, of whom he had partial custody. . . .
“Ensuring consistent care was a constant struggle and source of stress for Sean as a patient,” read the Facebook post in his honour.
“The few institutional options on hand, Sean pointed out, would have offered vastly inferior care while separating him from his family, and likely would have hastened his death,” the post read.
Tagert pieced together a suitable care facility in his own home, which included an expensive saliva-suction machine that was needed to prevent him from choking, according to the post.
“We would ask, on Sean’s behalf, that the government recognize the serious problems in its treatment of ALS patients and their families, and find real solutions for those already suffering unimaginably,” read the post.
Because euthanasia is about “choice.”
Those with eyes to see, let them see.
Editor’s note. Wesley’s columns appear at National Review Online and are reposted with his permission.