By Alex SchadenbergEPC Executive Director
On February 6, the Supreme Court made an irresponsible and dangerous decision by decriminalizing assisted death. The EPC Board wants the Federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect people with disabilities, elders who live with abuse, depressed and suicidal people and others. It is not safe to enable one person to be enabled, by the law, to kill another person.
Please write a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, or Justice Minister Judy Wilson-Raybould or your Member of Parliament, sign the online petition or send a post-card calling for the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.
Letter writing is effective, but if you only want a message sent to the government then please sign the online petition.
Letter writing: Your letter should state:
To the Hon... or (Member of Parliament):
Parliament must continue to protect people with disabilities, elders, people who live with depression or suicidal thoughts, and other people from assisted suicide.
This needs to be done through the use of the Notwithstanding clause to protect Canadians from assisted death.
I am concerned ... (add a comment related to one of the 8 talking points articles).
Yours Sincerely (Name).Talking Points:
- People with disabilities oppose assisted suicide.
- Assisted suicide debate masks disability prejudice.
- Assisted suicide has devalued the lives of the elderly in Washington State.
- United Nations: Abuse of older women overlooked and under-reported.
- Depressed mother died by euthanasia in Belgium.
- Supreme court allows assisted suicide for depressed people.
- Suicide rate in Oregon continues to increase faster than the national average.
- Suicide prevention at odds with assisted suicide.
Prime Minister Rt Hon. Justin Trudeau
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 (No stamp is necessary)
Justice Minister Hon Judy Wilson Raybould
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 (No stamp is necessary)
Your Member of Parliament (Name) MP
(Link to list of Members of Parliament)
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 (No stamp is necessary)
9 comments:
Another important "talking point" is that the ruling puts an obligation on others to kill a person who asks to be killed. That's a particularly nefarious result of treating "assisted suicide" as Charter right--one person's right is always somebody else's duty.
Elmer, you are completely correct. I guess I assume that point. I will adjust the article.
We should not use the term assisted death. Call it what it is, assisted suicide or murder, (this is an important point-this will be used to cover up murders)
Call it assisted suicide or murder (an important point because this will be used to cover up murder)
I agree, but in this case I used the language of the decision.
Right to Life, Right to Die?
A person's right to freedom is violated when they are put in jail. They may have forfeited that right by committing a crime or they may be unjustly jailed, but it is complete nonsense to say that the right to freedom includes the right to be jailed.
A person's right to life is violated when someone kills them. In Canada people cannot forfeit their right to life by committing a crime, but it is complete nonsense to say that the right to life includes the right to die.
That is nothing but a cover for people forfeiting their right to life by suffering.
Thank you Alex. Your site is the best news I've heard all day - or more!
I am an RN who provides Palliative Care. Where Palliative Care is properly provided euthanasia is rarely thought of by the patient.
I know the intent of those pushing for the Bill was not to be an insult but they have grossly insulted all physicians and nurses across Canada who provide real palliative care.
The answer to the suffering is not to kill them - it's to provide proper palliative care. That's true death with dignity.
If I were a Canadian I would write to my MP to ask him or her to propose a Joint Address to the Queen to remove all the members of the Supreme Court. This has never been done before in Canada, but the Constitution does provide for it. A majority in each house is all that is required. With new judges in office, a petition could be submitted for rehearing of the case so egregiously mis-decided.
I agree completely with John Wills, we need to remove these judges, in particular Beverly McLachlan. She is an affront to our democracy. I wasn't aware the constitution allows this.
D.M. Spencer
Post a Comment