Jonathan Reggler, a retired Vancouver Island family physician and active MAiD “provider” (Dr who poisons people to death), recently offered a moment of radical honesty in The Atlantic. Reflecting on his discomfort with Track 2 MAiD cases—those involving people who are not terminally ill—he explained how he resolves his moral unease and ill point out that this is how a killers talks.
If life is not sacred, then nothing is off the table. The above quote show’s the world who this “Dr” really is.
That belief that God doesn’t exist and he can take life just as God can not stop at the elderly. It does not stop at the disabled. It does not stop at the depressed and it will not stop at children.
Do you remember when MAiD was sold to Canadians as an act of mercy for the terminally ill. Those already dying, those in unbearable physical pain, those with no alternatives. That frame has collapsed with stunning speed. Lies, all from the start.
Track 2 MAiD now includes people whose sole underlying condition is disability, chronic illness, or mental suffering. The safeguards keep loosening. The language keeps softening. What was once “unthinkable” has become “complicated,” then “nuanced,” then “necessary.”
This is how ethical lines move. Not with alarms, but with reassurances and continued lies that if you say out loud long enough people somehow believe to be true.
Jonathan Reggler did say what most MAiD killers who say out loud: the only way this system works is if you reject the idea that life has intrinsic value. Thats fairly easy when your a Godless human.
You do not need to be religious to understand why that matters.
The concept of the sacred is not about God—it is about limits. It is the line that says: even when something is inconvenient, costly, painful, or inefficient, we do not destroy it. Once that line is erased, the only remaining question is who decides and by what criteria. Right now the “who” is the liberal government and the criteria is slipping into “who ever feels like dying.”
Today, that decision rests with panels, protocols, and physicians who believe they are doing good while redefining death as care. These are the power hungry, killers of Canada. The “Dr’s” who believe killing is the right thing to do no matter what the alternative. These are the people who get paid by YOUR TAXES to kill people instead of help them. These are the people who wake up every single day of there life wondering how much further they can move the goal post and how many more they can kill before the globe catches onto the fact that Health Canada employees serial killers, not Dr’s.
The wild fact that Canada even discusses kid’s as a an option for euthanasia is one thing, but now defensively, beautiful little souls who cannot defend themselves is a different ballgame. Canada is already discussing “mature minors.” The Netherlands and Belgium already permit euthanasia for children, including infants, under certain conditions. These people are just as sick, but they stay fairly quite about it. Canadian Dr’s on the other hand brag about their kill count. The argument is always the same—unbearable suffering, poor quality of life, compassion and mercy. Angels of death is what they really are. They can look in the mirror and tell themselves whatever they want, their serial killers in white coats.
Notice what is missing: consent. A baby cannot ask to die. So someone else must decide their life is no longer worth living.
If life is not sacred, this is not a moral leap—it is a procedural one. This is no longer a slippery slope anymore, although I’ve always believed it’s been a cliff, this is simply looking at patter recognition. Every expansion of MAiD was once dismissed as fear mongering by the pro death cults. Every warning was called alarmist, or even named as misinformation and every boundary has fallen exactly as predicted.
Not because ALL doctors are evil, although Canada employs some of the worst our world has to offer—but because systems that abandon first principles do not self-limit.
Jonathan Reggler quote matters because it confirms the diagnosis: Canada has replaced the protection of the vulnerable with a cost-efficient, ideologically tidy exit ramp.
If life is not sacred, why stop anywhere? Why stop at age? Why stop at diagnosis? Why stop at consent?
And if the answer is “trust us,” Canadians should be very very afraid—because history is brutally consistent about what happens when the state decides which lives are worth continuing.
This is not healthcare reform.
It is a civilizational choice and we are making it with our eyes open now, well at least some of us are. This is a line I’ve personally seen crossed before and is why I am so painfully vocal about it. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve watched institutions talk about human beings the way accountants talk about numbers—assets, liabilities, acceptable losses. That language always comes before the harm, never after it.
War teaches you something uncomfortable: once a system decides a life is expendable for a greater good, the circle of who counts starts shrinking fast. First it’s the enemy. Then it’s the inconvenient. Then it’s the weak. The justification always sounds reasonable when you’re far from the consequences.
What alarms me about MAiD in Canada isn’t compassion for suffering—it’s the quiet confidence with which professionals now speak about ending life once its “value” drops below an acceptable threshold. I’ve seen where that logic leads when it’s backed by authority and paperwork.
You don’t need faith to know this is dangerous. You just need memory.
When institutions redefine human value, violence doesn’t always arrive with guns. Sometimes it arrives with consent forms, softened language, and budgets that quietly benefit from fewer people needing care.
When the state, the system, and the balance sheet all win by deciding a life is no longer worth the cost, that isn’t mercy.
That’s eugenics.
“Once you accept that life is not sacred and [not] something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in — then … some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it’.”This is not a throwaway line, that’s an omission. A Godless Dr, and Godless man. It is a philosophical confession and it quietly exposes the real engine driving Canada’s MAiD expansion—not compassion, not autonomy, but a specific worldview that has decided human life has no inherent worth beyond utility, comfort, or consent.
If life is not sacred, then nothing is off the table. The above quote show’s the world who this “Dr” really is.
That belief that God doesn’t exist and he can take life just as God can not stop at the elderly. It does not stop at the disabled. It does not stop at the depressed and it will not stop at children.
Do you remember when MAiD was sold to Canadians as an act of mercy for the terminally ill. Those already dying, those in unbearable physical pain, those with no alternatives. That frame has collapsed with stunning speed. Lies, all from the start.
Track 2 MAiD now includes people whose sole underlying condition is disability, chronic illness, or mental suffering. The safeguards keep loosening. The language keeps softening. What was once “unthinkable” has become “complicated,” then “nuanced,” then “necessary.”
This is how ethical lines move. Not with alarms, but with reassurances and continued lies that if you say out loud long enough people somehow believe to be true.
Jonathan Reggler did say what most MAiD killers who say out loud: the only way this system works is if you reject the idea that life has intrinsic value. Thats fairly easy when your a Godless human.
You do not need to be religious to understand why that matters.
The concept of the sacred is not about God—it is about limits. It is the line that says: even when something is inconvenient, costly, painful, or inefficient, we do not destroy it. Once that line is erased, the only remaining question is who decides and by what criteria. Right now the “who” is the liberal government and the criteria is slipping into “who ever feels like dying.”
Today, that decision rests with panels, protocols, and physicians who believe they are doing good while redefining death as care. These are the power hungry, killers of Canada. The “Dr’s” who believe killing is the right thing to do no matter what the alternative. These are the people who get paid by YOUR TAXES to kill people instead of help them. These are the people who wake up every single day of there life wondering how much further they can move the goal post and how many more they can kill before the globe catches onto the fact that Health Canada employees serial killers, not Dr’s.
The wild fact that Canada even discusses kid’s as a an option for euthanasia is one thing, but now defensively, beautiful little souls who cannot defend themselves is a different ballgame. Canada is already discussing “mature minors.” The Netherlands and Belgium already permit euthanasia for children, including infants, under certain conditions. These people are just as sick, but they stay fairly quite about it. Canadian Dr’s on the other hand brag about their kill count. The argument is always the same—unbearable suffering, poor quality of life, compassion and mercy. Angels of death is what they really are. They can look in the mirror and tell themselves whatever they want, their serial killers in white coats.
Notice what is missing: consent. A baby cannot ask to die. So someone else must decide their life is no longer worth living.
If life is not sacred, this is not a moral leap—it is a procedural one. This is no longer a slippery slope anymore, although I’ve always believed it’s been a cliff, this is simply looking at patter recognition. Every expansion of MAiD was once dismissed as fear mongering by the pro death cults. Every warning was called alarmist, or even named as misinformation and every boundary has fallen exactly as predicted.
Not because ALL doctors are evil, although Canada employs some of the worst our world has to offer—but because systems that abandon first principles do not self-limit.
Jonathan Reggler quote matters because it confirms the diagnosis: Canada has replaced the protection of the vulnerable with a cost-efficient, ideologically tidy exit ramp.
If life is not sacred, why stop anywhere? Why stop at age? Why stop at diagnosis? Why stop at consent?
And if the answer is “trust us,” Canadians should be very very afraid—because history is brutally consistent about what happens when the state decides which lives are worth continuing.
This is not healthcare reform.
It is a civilizational choice and we are making it with our eyes open now, well at least some of us are. This is a line I’ve personally seen crossed before and is why I am so painfully vocal about it. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve watched institutions talk about human beings the way accountants talk about numbers—assets, liabilities, acceptable losses. That language always comes before the harm, never after it.
War teaches you something uncomfortable: once a system decides a life is expendable for a greater good, the circle of who counts starts shrinking fast. First it’s the enemy. Then it’s the inconvenient. Then it’s the weak. The justification always sounds reasonable when you’re far from the consequences.
What alarms me about MAiD in Canada isn’t compassion for suffering—it’s the quiet confidence with which professionals now speak about ending life once its “value” drops below an acceptable threshold. I’ve seen where that logic leads when it’s backed by authority and paperwork.
You don’t need faith to know this is dangerous. You just need memory.
When institutions redefine human value, violence doesn’t always arrive with guns. Sometimes it arrives with consent forms, softened language, and budgets that quietly benefit from fewer people needing care.
When the state, the system, and the balance sheet all win by deciding a life is no longer worth the cost, that isn’t mercy.
That’s eugenics.
7 comments:
Support for legalization and normalization of Euthanasia and Medical Assisted Suicide is not about belief (or lack thereof) in some kind of supreme being. To frame it in these terms is a huge mistake and an insult to those who are deeply opposed to these practices because they are inherently discriminatory and pose direct threats to the most vulnerable among us who already have to struggle to get the health care and social supports they need to survive and thrive. These practices do indeed have their roots in a eugenics agenda which values human (indeed, all) life only for its usefulness in producing wealth for the few. They have no place in a society which claims (or aims) to organize itself around justice, equality, and fundamental rights for all, or which values a social compact that protects these principles and carries them out. Whether you believe in some kind of supreme being or not does not have any bearing on whether or not you believe in these basic ideals. If someone's religious beliefs motivate them to act for social justice, more power to them. But using "Godless" as a description merely reflects a religious prejudice, and it has no place in the movement to end euthanasia and medical assisted suicide.
Joan Cavanagh, Progressives Against Medical Assisted Suicide
Joan. The article was by Kelsi. She does say that you don't need to be religious, but she is presenting her perspective.
And I am presenting mine. To ascribe support for euthanasia and medical assisted suicide to "Godlessness" is to suggest that if we all believed in a supreme being, these practices would be unthinkable. That's untrue. Plenty of Christians, for example, somehow manage not only to support but to glorify war, the death penalty, denial of human rights, persecution of the "other", and euthanasia/mas. Nations should be governed by the principles of social justice and guided by a strong social compact, not by theology.
We agree that many people who ascribe to a faith belief also support euthanasia.
Track 2 MAiD As With The Original Exception To The Homicide Law That Allowed Any Killing Even For Terminally Ill IS ALL WRONG As NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO REDEFINE "CARE" AS "KILLING/HOMICIDE/POISONING" WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING! ANY NOBODY ESPECIALLY PHYSICIAN AND INSTITUTIONS HAVE NO PLACE TO REDEFINE HUMAN VALUE AND THIS IS VIOLENCE! AND THE KILLERS WHO LIE CANNOT ESCAPE THIS TRUTH THAT THEY ARE PARTICIPATING IN VIOLENCE! IT IS APPALLING THAT SOMEONE LIKE Jonathan Reggler, WHO HAD THE "PRIVILEGE" TO PROVIDE CARE TO PEOPLE AS HIS ROLE AS A FAMILY PHYSICIAN IN VANCOUVER ISLAND OBVIOUSLY INTERACTERACTED WITH VULNERABLE PATIENTS OF ALL KINDS (RACES, AGES, RELIGIONS, ILLNESS, CAPABILITIES, ETC...) AND THE FACT THAT HE PRIDELY BOASTS EXACTLY:
“Once you accept that life is not sacred and [not] something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in — then … some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it’.”
IS UNSOUND! REGARDLESS OF HIS MENTION OF GOD OR NOT, HIS ROLE AS A "FAMILY PHYSICIAN" DOES NOT PROVIDE HIM THE ALLOWANCE TO EVEN THINK NEVERMIND ACT AS HE DOES AS AN ACTIVE "POISON PROVIDER" THAT HE HAS "TO GO FORWARD AND SAY "HE'LL DO IT" AND COMMIT MURDER/HOMICIDE BY KILLING PATIENTS WITH DANGEROUS POISON DRUGS OF MAID AND FURTHERMORE HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO FORCE HIS NEGATIVITY THAT "LIFE IS NOT SACRED" AND STATE THAT BECAUSE OF THIS BELIEF PEOPLE LIKE HIMSELF AND ANYONE ELSE WHO KILLS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED---THIS IS THREATENING, AND YES IT DOES SOUND LIKE A SERIAL KILLER BECAUSE HE IS NOT JUST STATING HIS OPINION, HE JUSTIFIES THAT KILLERS HAVE THE OBLIGATION AND AUTHORITY TO KILL WHICH THEY DO NOT AND WILL NEVER HAVE EVEN IF EVIL AND CORRUPT LAWMAKERS AND OTHERS ANYWHERE AND IN ANY POSITION TRY TO JUSTIFY!
And Again Of Course NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED WITH OUR PAID TAXES (MONEY) TO GO AND KILL/POISON BUT THEY CURRENTLY ARE DOING THAT! Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Canada, United States AND ANYONE ELSE GOING TO FAR WITH KILLING/HOMICIDE AGENDA, LAWS, POLICIES, ADVOCACY NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND SANCTIONED FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST THE INNOCENT-DISABLED-VULNERABLES JUST THEY DO TO OTHER COUNTRIES FOR WRONG-DOINGS!
Good morning. Just checking my inbox and finding this post. Last night I happened to be reading a pro-life article from 2018:
file:///C:/Users/suffi/OneDrive/Desktop/Documents/New%20Rules%20Implementing%20Texas%20Pro-Life%20DNR%20Law%20Officially%20Adopted%20_%20Texas%20Right%20to%20Life.html
As someone whose dad was also killed with morphine by a "DNR" that has been around for a long time, and that, after the murder of my dad in a hospital, I began to research and realize that what I had suspected was indeed true (that it was the morphine that had killed him - also called "comfort" by the medical doctor that ordered it, as well as being called "comfort" in the current national healthcare medicare book for all who are on social security! - I was very much alarmed at the duplicity with which our very pro-life representatives have not really addressed the issue of morphine being used to murder patients, although the article states that there have been many who've tried to get something done to stop this practice. I continue to believe that pro-lifers must be on the offensive and demand that both the biblical commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Exodus 20:13) and our national law that the contitution explicitly states: No citizen can be deprived of life (outside of criminal law that deals with the murderers themselves) must be kept in all healthcare realms. No exceptions. No excuses. No more murders. Period. The article seems to me to verify that this has been a problem for decades, and that the legislators are continuing to let it be done. And that the pro-lifers are still continuing to let it be done. I do praise God for the incremental victories that we've seen and that continue to be fought for, such as the reversal of Roe v. Wade. However, I believe that a battle must be all out for the real victory to be seen that will save all lives that are continuing to be totally and illegally destroyed. We all are aging. Most people are not aware of the DNR true practice of murdering via morphine. Please speak out.
Post a Comment