Friday, February 19, 2016

Liberal Members of Parliament may be ordered to vote for euthanasia bill.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.



The Liberal Party has ordered Liberal Members of Parliament to support their upcoming euthanasia bill, even though many of them may object to the language of the bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), which was not given the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee, recognizes that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the assisted suicide law, but the design and language of the future law will determine who qualifies for and how likely it is that the law will be misused.

In all jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, the system requires two doctors to  approve the death, and then the doctor who assists the death, must send in a report, after the person has died without before-the-death third-party oversight. An after-the-death reporting system allows doctors to self police and self report leading to misuse of the law, under-reporting, and falsified reports.

One of the issues that is being debated is whether euthanasia should be permitted for psychiatric reasons. Canada's euthanasia lobby is pushing for euthanasia for people who cannot consent. Ambiguous definitions could enable a person who requires treatment for depression to die an assisted death.

Last week the Globe and Mail reported that Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc confirmed that the Liberal vote will be whipped to support the euthanasia bill. The Liberals have a majority government in the House of Commons. LeBlanc justified this decision by defining assisted dying as a "Charter of Rights" issue.


As much as LeBlanc, and the Liberal leadership have defined euthanasia as a Charter issue, it simply is not. The Supreme Court struck down Canada's assisted suicide act, but it did not declare that there is a "right to die."

Hon John McKay
Long term Liberal MP John McKay told the Globe and Mail:

“It’s not core to the government’s mandate; it’s a response to the Supreme Court,” he said. “I don’t see this as a Charter issue.”
Robyn Urback, from the National Post challenged the Liberals to be honest with why they are whipping the vote. Urback wrote:
"In claiming the issue is about the charter, rather than how the government meets the requirements of the court, LeBlanc is being both misleading and dishonest... In using the charter as a cape to deflect queries and justify dictating the vote to parliamentarians, no matter what their consciences may tell them, Trudeau is treating Parliament as a rubber stamp for the leadership."
After publishing this article, the Globe and Mail published a new article stating that the Liberals may not order Liberal MP's to support the euthanasia bill. The new article quoted Liberal House leader, Dominic LeBlanc, as stating:
“We decided to delay the decision about whether or not it’s a whipped vote. It’s premature to come to a final conclusion like that,” 
“We’re going to discuss the bill and the committee report in our caucus, and we will make the decision as to how the bill will be handled once the bill is introduced in the House.”
EPC recognizes that by whipping the vote, the Liberals will also control the consideration of amendments to the bill. The Liberal decision to snub democracy will likely impose on Canada an irresponsible and dangerous euthanasia law.

The Conservative and NDP Members of Parliament have been given a free-vote in parliament.

3 comments:

Jeremiah Protege said...

If one cannot vote by one's conscience on the two primary issues of life - that is the beginning of life, and death - then everything in between is up for grabs. The murderer does not have to live by his conscience, nor the rapist, nor the thief, and on throughout the whole of life. Conscience is negated and life is up to the whim of the moment because the only one respected - if that word can even be used - is myself - at this particular moment. When conscience is gone life becomes mayhem. One is free to say that the only thing worth protecting is my status. This is what the so called ‘whip’ voting is - a protections of my status as an elected official! So I am free to take life if I deem that my status, as I perceive it, is being threatened.
We do not live in a communist state yet! No one can force me to vote against my conscience! I do not have to say ‘yes’ to a whip vote knowing that the whip vote is going to declare that the taking of a life is legal. No one can force me to take a person’s life! Yet when I go against my conscience on a vote of life and death – effectively I am saying ‘yes’ to killing another! This has ramifications for all of life. If the Government of our land can use protection of one’s elected position as a reason to vote for killing, then, why should anyone be barred from using the same argument of self protection for any action!
Fear has to become the way of life within the land, as no one can be trusted, and law cannot even be enforced - if it even exists. How can law exist in a conscience - less world! Everyone becomes a law unto himself. No one, nothing is sacred. Nothing has meaning - except as I deem it to be so! If the nation’s parliament can behave that way, it becomes the example to be followed by the citizen’s of the land.

Lorraine Faherty said...

I have written the PM, the Justice Minister and my own MP Mel Arnold, CONS Thompson North Okanagan, stating that to vote for anything but the Right to Life from Conception to Natural Death is UNCOSTITUIONAL. It goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as art of the Constitution of Canada, which were enacted by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Queen of Canada and at that time Prime Minister of Canada , Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Father of the Present Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau. I have not had the courtesy of a reply from ANT of them. So much for upholding Canada's Laws.


February 21, 2016 @3:57 PM

Pat D said...

In insisting that every member of his caucus agree to vote in favour of abortion ( a vote he knew would be highly unlikely to take place in the House) Trudeau stacked his caucus with people who he knew were more likely to be Pro Euthanasia or people who could be convinced to "leave their personal morals" at the door of The House of Commons. Why is it that Prolife beliefs are personal beliefs that must not be inflicted on the general population while those whose beliefs cheapen the value of life are deemed to be quite reasonable in bringing those beliefs with them to form public policy? I refuse to be ashamed of my beliefs and it is time one man stopped enforcing his personal beliefs on an entire country.

Printfriendly