Thursday, May 22, 2014

Québec euthanasia Bill 52 is imprecise and open to abuse.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Québec government re-introduced Bill 52 at the stage that it was at before the Québec election.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada will hear a euthanasia case on October 15, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) asks why has the Québec government decided to re-introduce a euthanasia bill and why are they determined to pass the bill so quickly? what's the rush?

Sign the petition: Québec's euthanasia Bill is lethal.

EPC and its Québec counterparts want you to know:
• Euthanasia is defined as homicide in the federal Criminal Code. The bill defines killing by lethal injection as "health care" in order to avoid the Criminal Code prohibition.  
• The bill gave Québec doctors the right to lethally inject their patients for physical or psychological suffering and it does not define psychological suffering. 
• The bill does not limit euthanasia to terminally ill people. It states that a person must be “at the end of life” but the bill does not define end of life.   
• The bill targets people with disabilities. It states that a person must be in “an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” Many people with disabilities fit these criteria. Since the bill does not define "end of life" euthanasia will be extended to people with disabilities.
Bill 52 is imprecise and open to abuse.
Bill 52 is unconstitutional and will be challenged in the court.
Bill is lethal.

For more information contact:
Nic Steenhout (Montreal) Vivre dans la Dignité (438) 931-1233 – info@vivredignite.com
Alex Schadenberg (London) Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (519) 851-1434 – info@epcc.ca
Amy Hasbrouck (Montreal) Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet: (450) 921-3057 – info@tv-ndy.ca
at

5 comments:

  1. RONALD JOSTMay 22, 2014 at 8:06 PM

    i vote against EUTHANASIA I don't believe we have the right to judge life or death who ever is trying to pass that bill must be still alive
    thank you for listening from this side of dirt
    ronaldjost1@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 5, 2014 at 4:45 AM

    Canada has a very sustaining, pioneering and courageous culture, enriched by the cultures of its varied immigrants,and one would expect its citizens to value the elderly and the weak in health, with the latest in palliative care. Permitting euthanasia sets a rotten precedent for its on-coming generations. I have lived briefly in this magnificent country that breathed courage and healthy decisions, but its legal 'euthanasia' drives make Canada look foolish.

    ANN GORDON, Australia

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob JonesJune 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

    Euthanasia is a soft word for murder. Man has taken illegally the sovereign decision to end life and for what ever reason he can "tweek" it to suit his own goals. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from abortion. Another soft term for murder of children. Now they have it all covered from youth to elderly. Our educational systems promote the lie of evolution and these are the end results of having turned our backs on God and His moral laws! Our country is going down to communism and dictatorship. Murder is the straw man for gun control to disarm our country. We condone everything God condemns! Can anyone tell me what is left? Subjectivism replaces truth! All evidence of the coming end and our Lord's return! As in the days of Sodom & Gomorah! Matthew 24-25 etc. Romans ch.1. II Timothy ch's 3-4.
    Proverbs 14:34 - Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. What our country is seeing is the results of turning our backs of God! We are reaping what we have sown.
    Wickedness exalts wickedness and this is what we are witnessing in our country today. Judgment will come! Bob Jones

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian RushfeldtJune 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    we refuse to allow capital punishment on the principle that one human does not have the right to kill another human.

    So on what principle is this justifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alex SchadenbergJune 9, 2014 at 2:40 PM

    Dear Brian:

    Your point is correct. If we decide that one human, or the state, has the right to kill another human, then the only question is who can be killed and under what circumstances.

    Who knows what would become of it?

    ReplyDelete