By Dave Andrusko
For me, it’s an axiom that pro-death forces inevitably overshoot the mark. Whether the issue is abortion–and the Biden-Harris promise to spread the abortion plague hither and yon paid for by you and me—or “assisted death,” proponents lull the public to sleep with insincere assurances as they quietly expand the categories of people they will kill, thinking no one will notice until it’s too late.
A key turning point is when proponents of abortion or “assisted death” suddenly discover to their chagrin what they have unleashed. These are people who are not by any means where we are, but they can be instrumental in standing against the most lethal extensions of the pro-death ethos.
I thought of that when I read Alex Schadenberg’s fine blog post about the Toronto Star’s second thoughts on a proposed bill to extend assisted death to people that supporters had been assured would NOT be affected.
The Toronto Star editorial is written in a more in sorrow than in anger style. They tell the reader as far back as a year ago, they were worried that “the right to medical assistance in dying, or MAID”—which they approve of—“was at risk of being stretched far beyond its original conception” to “a so-called ‘death with dignity’”—which the Star editorial board decidedly does not approve of.
Put another way, “We sounded a warning that Canada seemed to be sliding toward what amounts to a system of death on demand.”
The editorial tells us (correctly) that there are aspects to “Bill C-7” that “many doctors, ethicists and even experts from the United Nations find deeply problematic.”
The key is the elimination of the requirement that “a patient’s death be ‘reasonably foreseeable.’” This “opens the door” not only to undermining “the rights of disabled people” (by making “it more likely they will accept assisted suicide rather than be provided with proper treatment and supports”), but also to “extending the right to assisted suicide to people whose only underlying medical condition, their sole reason for seeking death, is suffering due to a mental illness.”
Then comes the first alarming but prescient warning: “The potential for abuse is both obvious and frightening.”
There is much more to this editorial. Let me mention just two more aspects in closing.
#1. Bill C-7 didn’t need to be. It represents a wildly disproportionate and mistaken response by the Trudeau government to one Quebec Superior Court 2019 ruling by one judge which “The government could have, indeed should have, appealed that flawed decision. Instead, it promised to bring the law into line with this one lower-court ruling, launched lengthy consultations on the whole issue of MAID, and eventually came up with a series of proposed changes laid out in Bill C-7.”
#2. “All this is a far cry from what most people accepted as a valid, indeed compassionate, reason for legalizing assisted suicide back in 2016,” the editorial maintains. “And none of it has been as fully aired as it would be — and should be — if the pandemic wasn’t dominating almost every public moment.”
The importance of the absence of a full “airing” cannot be exaggerated. This is how terrible laws often get passed.
Take a few minutes to read and digest “Trudeau government should rethink its flawed changes to assisted dying”
This is what the merciless assisted suicide crew has in mind for the United States of America.
Forewarned is forearmed.