Thursday, October 3, 2019

Trudeau promises further expansions of Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition



On September 11, a Québec court struck down the provision in Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law requiring that a person be terminally ill to qualify for death by lethal injection.
Québec court expands euthanasia law by striking down the terminal illness requirement.
The court decided that requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" was unconstitutional and they gave the government 30 days to appeal the decision, knowing that Canada was in the middle of a federal election.

I have stated that this court decision may also extend euthanasia to people for psychological reasons alone. Canada's euthanasia law states that a person qualifies for death by lethal drugs if their:

illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.
Therefore the requirement that the person's "natural death be reasonably foreseeable" limited euthanasia for psychological reasons to terminally ill people. Since the court struck down this poorly worded safeguard, will this expand euthanasia to people with psychological issues alone?

Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, Blanchet.
In a televised debate on French TV network TVA, between political party leaders Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Lib), Andrew Scheer (CPC), Jagmeet Singh (NDP) and Yves-François Blanchet (BQ), Trudeau stated that he would not appeal the Québec court decision that struck down the "terminal illness" requirement and that he would
craft a more permissive MAiD regime in the 6 months period ordered by the Court.

Similarly, the other party leaders except Scheer stated they were in favour of a more permissive MAiD regime.

Scheer stated he would appeal the decision and would convene the Parliament to craft a revised MAiD regime.


Althia Roj reporting for the Huffington post, confirms my report and also confirms my belief that the Liberals designed the law for expansion:
The law had been purposefully designed initially as restrictive, he (Trudeau) suggested, as said he expected it would keep expanding as time and norms shifted. “We understand that society evolves.”
The recent euthanasia death of Alan Nichols, a physically healthy man who was living with chronic depression, has led one family to ask how he could have died by euthanasia? As the family seeks to find justice in the death of Alan, will this become the new norm in Canada?

Since the deadline to appeal is during the federal election, only Justice Minister David Lametti (Lib) (who voted against C-14 because it was not permissive enough) can appeal the decision.

By not appealing the Québec court decision they are in fact deciding to expand the scope of Canada's euthanasia law.

The Liberal government goes back on a promise.

The government announced that a five-year review of the euthanasia law will begin in June 2020. Trudeau announced, in the French debate, that he will ignore the input of Canadians and impose a more permissive euthanasia regime, soon after the election. So much for democracy.


In March I published an article explaining that, as of December 31, 2018, there had been 7949 assisted deaths in Canada, since legalization. The number of assisted deaths increased by more than 50% in 2018 from 2704 reported assisted deaths in 2017 to 4235 reported assisted deaths in 2018.

I will not tell you how to vote, but the leaders debate in French established a clear indication for Canadian voters.

4 comments:

Pat Goltz said...

We were not supposed to forget the lessons of history. We need to teach our children what happened in Germany. People like Trudeau are not qualified to hold public office because they are criminals against humanity. I don't understand what has gotten into so many people. The demons are winning the popular debate, and that's scary. God alone numbers our days. We have no right to take innocent human life. When we warned that legal abortion would lead to euthanasia, they laughed at us. Now that this is happened, I warn that it will lead to mass extermination. Better not laugh this time. Disabled people cost the government money. It starts with giving the government the job (to care for the needy) that God gave to the CHURCH. Government has no right to usurp this duty. God wants our charity to be done in person, with love, in the name of Jesus. Government permits none of this. Until we return to the authority GOD designated (charity is the job of the CHURCH, NOT the GOVERNMENT), we will continue to have these problems.

Paul Anderson said...

I don't see any "good guys" in this. Mr. Scheer is unlikely to be any more restrictive in regard to MAiD, although possibly for a different reason than Mr. Trudeau. A government dedicated to cost cutting will be very slow to interfere with MAiD. And because the Quebec vote could tip things either way, none of the federal party leaders wants to promise to take action against Quebec's policies, thereby possibly alienating Quebec's voters.

Pat Goltz said...

The world has gone crazy. It has forgotten the lessons of history, particularly those of Nazi Germany. It has rejected the Christian faith, along with the knowledge that God determines our life span, we are forbidden to murder (and euthanasia is murder, make no mistake), and that human life is precious and sacrosanct.

I will not travel to Canada. Too dangerous. If I get into an accident, I might not make it out of the country alive. It corrupts medical personnel. I do not trust any doctor or nurse who has participated in abortion or euthanasia.

My lack of trust saved the lives of three people years ago. The "doctor" I was referred to was an abortionist. It was in the hospital so I had no way of knowing. My primary doctor referred me, even though he KNEW that I would not work with any doctor who is not pro-life. When I asked him why he sent me an abortionist, he said, because he was the only one who could do the procedure. I said, "As far as I am concerned, he doesn't exist." I never went back to that doctor. My baby was still alive, by the way, so it WOULD have been an abortion.

I feel the same about any doctor who takes human life. I even developed a friendship with a judge, and we used to have lunch together, but when she said she thought euthanasia should be legal, because her mother had died in agony from cancer, that was the end of the friendship. Her doctor committed malpractice by first of all giving her treatments that cause intense pain (which do not cure cancer), and then not relieving her pain.

The pro-death mentality also extends to the profligate use of pharmaceuticals that kill. Most are actually poisons used in very small doses. Chemotherapy is by far the worst. Everyone KNOWS it is poison, and they're just hoping it kills cancer cells before it kills normal cells. Until we start respecting human life again, under ALL circumstances, American doctors will continue to kill 100,000 American patients with pharmaceuticals a YEAR. The mentality that allows them to prescribe poisonous drugs is the exact same mentality that allows them to support euthanasia. The only difference is there are some doctors with actual ethical principles that are caught up in the pharmaceutical poisoning act, because they have been indoctrinated into thinking these are helpful. I no longer trust doctors at all.

And you can blame the medical profession for the abortion/euthanasia problem because they SHOULD be stripping "doctors" who do these things of their licenses, but instead, they tolerate them.

Jan said...

Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party, clearly differs from the rest. From past records, he had voted against legalization of euthanasia as did most of the Conservative MPs.

Printfriendly