 |
| Gordon Friesen (middle) |
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Among real events, chaotically unfolding, fast and furious, Canadians are beginning to suspect the true nature of medical homicide. And that is a very positive development.
Up to this point, public opinion has simply been divided over whether people should be allowed to choose their own expiry date.
The goalposts have certainly moved on that question. But such changes have still been seen as variations on the theme of choice, and argued accordingly by both parties to the contest.
The deepening awareness we are now witnessing, however, is something completely different.
One specific point which strikingly illustrates these facts, is the growing realization that doctors (and other medical staff) are not waiting for MAID requests, but are raising the issue themselves.
Understandably, the reflexive reaction to this fact, from a majority of respondents, has been very pointed, as in: "Wait.. What?"
For although many might believe they deserve the right to die, no one (proportionally speaking) ever expected that they might be harassed --methodically, and professionally hounded-- to make such a choice.
But such is the plain fact now percolating through public consciousness.
In the past two months alone, 6 different articles in the EPC blog have featured this problem of doctors proactively presenting MAID. This was not any irritating strategy of repetition. Rather, it has been a necessary response to the same problem being flagged in multiple places at the same time.
Most importantly we have recently had official, dramatic and unrefuted descriptions, delivered before two different Parliamentary Committees:
Kelsi Sheren, combat veteran CEO and influencer before the Canadian Parliament Veteran's Affairs Committee on October 28, 2025; and Krista Carr, CEO of Inclusion Canada, before the Standing Committee on Finance October 8, 2025.
Both spoke of disabled persons, scandalously (repeatedly, and routinely) offered death in the place of that care which they actually require.
At the same time, the Australian State of Victoria is debating the expansion of current euthanasia law, to include precisely the authorization of doctors to make proactive suggestions of euthanasia.
In turn, this last development sparked a passionate reaction from Canadian physicians lamenting the effects of such policy back home.
More practically, Alberta, is discussing a MAID restriction act which would (among other things) curtail this physicians' right (or obligation) even though it is presently enshrined in Federal policy.
Admittedly, it is quite natural that the reader might feel a little bewildered at this rapid description.
However, the presently widespread reaction of surprise is not really warranted, since the definition of death as medical care absolutely guaranteed these results --from day one-- through the application of accepted Standards of Care concerning informed consent.
To this end, patients must be brought to consider all applicable medical remedies. And medical homicide, however grotesquely considered as "care", is logically treated in the same manner.
Nor is this the only distorted obligation caused by the medical interpretation of assisted death.
In keeping with the accepted view of medical care as an essential social benefit, our entire public health care system is now in full transition, towards a new clinical paradigm, where any patient, entering any medical facility, must expect to encounter the practice of medical homicide, enthusiastically promoted by physicians (and support staff) who are fully committed to this cost effective and efficient method (and who will soon dominate a medical culture from which the last legacy generation of Hippocratic professionals is rapidly disappearing).
Clearly, there has been a monumental "bait and switch", between the expected liberty to choose one's destiny, and this emerging veterinary system of managed death.
On the positive side, however, we may eventually anticipate some serious democratic pushback, from that huge majority of typical citizen/patient/taxpayers who have no desire, whatever, to die a minute sooner than necessary, but who may now expect to be cheated of the real care they have so handsomely paid for, through a lifetime of extortionate Canadian taxes.
No. It this not about choice. It is about system.
Nor is it about morality or the "most vulnerable" (which might so easily be ignored).
Now, it is about us.
Wait! What?
(Indeed)
Up to this point, public opinion has simply been divided over whether people should be allowed to choose their own expiry date.
The goalposts have certainly moved on that question. But such changes have still been seen as variations on the theme of choice, and argued accordingly by both parties to the contest.
The deepening awareness we are now witnessing, however, is something completely different.
One specific point which strikingly illustrates these facts, is the growing realization that doctors (and other medical staff) are not waiting for MAID requests, but are raising the issue themselves.
Understandably, the reflexive reaction to this fact, from a majority of respondents, has been very pointed, as in: "Wait.. What?"
For although many might believe they deserve the right to die, no one (proportionally speaking) ever expected that they might be harassed --methodically, and professionally hounded-- to make such a choice.
But such is the plain fact now percolating through public consciousness.
In the past two months alone, 6 different articles in the EPC blog have featured this problem of doctors proactively presenting MAID. This was not any irritating strategy of repetition. Rather, it has been a necessary response to the same problem being flagged in multiple places at the same time.
Most importantly we have recently had official, dramatic and unrefuted descriptions, delivered before two different Parliamentary Committees:
Kelsi Sheren, combat veteran CEO and influencer before the Canadian Parliament Veteran's Affairs Committee on October 28, 2025; and Krista Carr, CEO of Inclusion Canada, before the Standing Committee on Finance October 8, 2025.
Both spoke of disabled persons, scandalously (repeatedly, and routinely) offered death in the place of that care which they actually require.
At the same time, the Australian State of Victoria is debating the expansion of current euthanasia law, to include precisely the authorization of doctors to make proactive suggestions of euthanasia.
In turn, this last development sparked a passionate reaction from Canadian physicians lamenting the effects of such policy back home.
More practically, Alberta, is discussing a MAID restriction act which would (among other things) curtail this physicians' right (or obligation) even though it is presently enshrined in Federal policy.
Admittedly, it is quite natural that the reader might feel a little bewildered at this rapid description.
However, the presently widespread reaction of surprise is not really warranted, since the definition of death as medical care absolutely guaranteed these results --from day one-- through the application of accepted Standards of Care concerning informed consent.
To this end, patients must be brought to consider all applicable medical remedies. And medical homicide, however grotesquely considered as "care", is logically treated in the same manner.
Nor is this the only distorted obligation caused by the medical interpretation of assisted death.
In keeping with the accepted view of medical care as an essential social benefit, our entire public health care system is now in full transition, towards a new clinical paradigm, where any patient, entering any medical facility, must expect to encounter the practice of medical homicide, enthusiastically promoted by physicians (and support staff) who are fully committed to this cost effective and efficient method (and who will soon dominate a medical culture from which the last legacy generation of Hippocratic professionals is rapidly disappearing).
Clearly, there has been a monumental "bait and switch", between the expected liberty to choose one's destiny, and this emerging veterinary system of managed death.
On the positive side, however, we may eventually anticipate some serious democratic pushback, from that huge majority of typical citizen/patient/taxpayers who have no desire, whatever, to die a minute sooner than necessary, but who may now expect to be cheated of the real care they have so handsomely paid for, through a lifetime of extortionate Canadian taxes.
No. It this not about choice. It is about system.
Nor is it about morality or the "most vulnerable" (which might so easily be ignored).
Now, it is about us.
Wait! What?
(Indeed)
Previous articles by Gordon Friesen (Articles Link).
No comments:
Post a Comment