Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Andrew Coyne: Canada's slippery assisted suicide slope.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Andrew Coyne
Andrew Coyne is a well known Canadian columnist with the Globe and Mail and is a past editor of the National Post. Coyne has commented on assisted suicide on several occasions but today, in the Hub, Coyne clearly states his concern with Canada's MAiD euthanasia law. Coyne states:
I think in particular, though, with assisted suicide, it was how easily the slope became slippery. You know, undergraduates are all taught, “Slippery slopes, it’s just a fallacy.” Well, no, it’s not always a fallacy; some slopes are indeed slippery. And when you see the progression of how that came to pass, where it was initially pitched as people who were in the last agonizing stages of a terminal disease; who were physically unable to end their own lives. I mean, nobody wants to ban suicide, but in this case, they were physically unable to do it, and therefore the argument was, “Well, they have, you know, somebody has to help them to put them out of their misery.” But that’s a very, very narrow case; it was the Sue Rodriguez type of case, and it was almost instantly, instantly elasticized.

First, it was to people who aren’t in that stage now but might be in the future, and therefore, they need to be able to avail themselves of assistance now, because, you know, when they’re in the last age, they wouldn’t be able to do so. Or it started to include not just physical pain, but psychological pain, which is a much more elusive thing to define. And when you started to sort of burrow into the underlying rationale for it, it really didn’t allow for any constraint, as we’re starting to see. Once you accept this idea that this is actually just a basic human right to have somebody else kill you, then are you going to prevent the mentally handicapped from availing themselves of that? Are you going to prevent children from doing so? And of course, when that was first raised, people said, “Slippery slope; this is alarmism,” and they were perhaps unaware that people even then we’re arguing precisely that, and were going to continue to argue precisely that.

So, I think the nature of that I found very disturbing, and it was, at the same time, kind of interesting to unpack it as an intellectual puzzle. How did people go down this road? How do they allow themselves to lose their bearings so much that we could start advocating a society for basically killing disabled children?
Coyne is correct, that Canada has quickly slid down the slide from discussing assisted suicide for difficult cases to accepting euthanasia for psychological suffering and mental illness and now considering child euthanasia.

Previous articles by Andrew Coyne


Patricia said...

The slippery slope was foreseen
by EPC and all pro lifers. Compassion was redefined to resemble parents who spoil their children. They think it’s live but it’s a laziness and misunderstanding of what true love is.
This slippery slope was acted out with Canadian abortion laws or the absence thereof. Politicians could not grab a line at 20 weeks or 16 weeks. Of course you cannot draw a line, once you enter that realm whereby murdering a child is acceptable - everything is permissible. Canada has lost her moral compass. It is a moral relativists’ dream.

John said...

We need to get the idea out there, that erring on the side of life is nothing compared to erring on the side of death. The fact the dead cannot reproach us in words is very conveniently wrong. Only the living can make such reproach, and reproach the advocates of death is something they must do. The cannot see how they themselves could become the next victim of this monstrosity.