Simons says 'Soylent Green' new reality.

By Charles Lewis

Soylent Green

In the early 1970s there was a movie called Soylent Green. It starred Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson. It was the first film I saw that was a dystopian vision of the future. It took place in a New York City in which the population has exploded to the point of anarchy. In response, the state came up with a voluntary suicide program to lessen the crowding.

When citizens did their civic duty by opting for death, they were placed in a room in which beautiful music played and a film of stunning scenery was projected onto a giant screen. It was a kind of farewell card to the soon-to-be deceased. It was painless and peaceful. The film was euthanasia as an art form.

Now a half century later suicide has again become an art form. It came in a video called All Is Beauty. It was produced by Simons, a major department store based in Montreal. It concerns a young woman named Jennyfer Hatch who has decided to end her life via MAID. 

Link to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition boycott of Simons (Link).

Jennyfer Hatch

It opens with a picture of a sterile hospital room filled with machines. Jennyfer says in voiceover: “Dying in a hospital is not what’s natural, that’s not what’s soft. In these kinds of moments you need softness.”

Jennyfer then proceeds to go through a series of lights and emerges on a beach. There she reflects on beauty, music the ocean. She talks about comfort in knowing the things she cherishes will continue after her death. Then the beach becomes a party… a pre-death party.

On the same website there was a very peculiar interview with Peter Simons, the former CEO and now chief merchant, about the making of the film. Unfortunately, that interview is no longer available.

It’s still worth noting what Simons said about why this film in support of euthanasia, MAiD, was necessary. In the post-pandemic period, he said, there was a need to “reconnect with hope and optimism.” I’ve watched All Is Beauty several times and I’m not sure what he was talking about.

Simons said he hoped Jennyfer’s story would help people “reconnect.” And this I really don’t get: “Build the spaces we want to live in.”

He told the CBC: “This isn’t about MAID, it’s really a story. It’s a celebration of Jennyfer’s life, and I think she has a lot to teach us.”

Simons is right, but the lesson may not be what he thinks it is.

The film is cinematically beautiful even if it is a cornucopia of New Age tropes. I agree with Jennyfer that a hospital is not a comforting place to be at the end of life and there is a need for softness. I know this because I volunteer at a very good hospice and I see what compassion and comfort bring to the dying.

I don’t in anyway mock Jennyfer. That would be awful. No one can really know what’s in a person’s mind as they face the end. I’m not saying she was brainwashed but in a society in which euthanasia has become normal the most normal thing is to end one’s life at the point of a needle.

For all its beauty the film to my mind is ultimately a failure. It assumed there are two choices: a sterile hospital bed hooked up to machines or euthanasia. This is where I would have hoped Jennyfer or Simons would have said that the pity in all this is that there is inadequate quality palliative care in this country.

They likely didn’t because we live in a society in which euthanasia is normal. That’s the pity of it all. We have no more moral imagination. The best we can come up with is kill…except polite people don’t say kill. This is the result of what happens when good people shrug their shoulders and say, “What am I supposed to do?”

When I saw Soylent Green years ago it left me with an odd feeling. I knew it was make-believe but at the same time a part of me wondered whether this could happen. Then I forgot about it till I watched All Is Beauty. It’s happening.

Article: Woman in Simons euthanasia ad wanted to live (Link).

Charles Lewis is a former editor with the National Post.

This article was published by the Catholic Register on December 7, 2022.

Imagine a world where every hour counts.

This article was published by the Catholic Register on June 30, 2021.

By Charles Lewis

I have thought a lot about euthanasia over the years. I have thought about it too much.

I was at the National Post covering religion and ethics when I first read a story about assisted suicide in Oregon, one of the first jurisdictions to offer such a service. That was about 12 years ago. At the same time polls in Canada were showing a majority of Canadians wanted something similar.

My faith aside, the idea of putting down human beings struck me as something out of the Third Reich. I sensed that if Canada legalized state-sponsored death there would be a huge slippery slope. Unfortunately, I was right.

But one element of this just recently crossed my mind: Legalized euthanasia reveals a society that lacks creativity, imagination and courage. Killing patients is the lazy way out. Because of our own aversion to suffering and death we conclude it’s best handled through a syringe filled with poison. Problem solved.

For centuries medicine was intent on getting better at curing and comfort. And those efforts bore fruit. In the early 1970s, a system of care was developed to deal with those who were terminal. Dr. Balfour Mount of Montreal coined the term “palliative care.” His intent was to provide quality of life up until the moment of death.It affirmed that every hour of life, even the last hours, was important.

What we have now instead is a belief that life in the days, weeks and months before death is meaningless. Instead of finding better ways to help the sick and the dying, we now prefer to snuff out that life before things get messy.

It is easy to blame those politicians who brought in the legislation that made killing patients legal. I’ve done that many times. However, they are able to get away with it because most Canadians think it’s a great idea.

In the five years since the first euthanasia bill was passed it has evolved from a system meant for those near death to one in which pain alone is requirement. In two years, it will be available to the mentally ill. Beyond that my guess is teens will be next.

All of us are going to die. It sounds ridiculously obvious to say that but it’s an absolute reality that most of us never want to give a thought to. To talk about death is considered morbid. Yet, I believe that it is death that haunts all of us. Not so much the act of dying but the fear of what might come first — pain, the lack of independence and loss of dignity.

Over the years I have talked to palliative doctors who have said that it’s the fear of pain rather than pain itself that worries those who are dying. I have dealt with severe and at times crippling pain for years. I’m no hero but I amazed myself in my ability to handle it and even learn from it.

The worry about losing independence and dignity, to me, is off. Many of us will take care of family and friends when they need us most and never judge them because they are no longer as independent as they once were. Nor would most of us think they now lack dignity. So then why is it when we are gravely ill we think we’ll be a burden or lose our dignity if someone helps us?

Those who support euthanasia argue it is their choice and the rest should keep morality out of it. They say they are autonomous but they forget that when they go they will leave behind others who will miss them terribly. And those friends and family left behind will ask themselves whether they could have done more. They will feel guilt.

The truth is, we could have done more. We could have demanded of our leaders first-class palliative care, rather than death as a solution. Why in a rich country is palliative care only available to 30 per cent of those who want it?

Imagine a system in which state-approved suicide would be a last resort not the norm. Imagine what it would be like to know that when our time comes we would be well taken care. In that world we would eventually lose our fear of death. We would see those who are going before us cared in a way that would give us comfort too.

In the meantime science can develop better pain medication. Cancers that once were lethal will more easily go into remission or be cured. The last hours of our life would be just as important as the first hours. Life would be viewed once again as sacred.

Imagine that world.

 

Charles Lewis: A smile said it all.

By Charles Lewis

This is about a single newspaper photograph. The Canadian Press took it on Dec. 10 on the day the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, which expands euthanasia to include more victims.

The bill has yet to pass the Senate, and the federal government was given a two-month extension on its deadline to do so on Dec. 17 by a Quebec Superior Court judge. But the gist of it is that dying is no longer a requirement. What is deemed to be suffering, a subjective notion, will be enough to get a lethal dose of poison. It will also allow those who are suffering and also have mental illness to be included.

*Article: Euthanasia Bill C-7 is delayed by the Senate until February 2021 (Link).

I saw the photo in question in the National Post over breakfast. I felt like retching, so offensive did I find it. It was truly obscene.

The picture showed federal Justice Minister David Lametti, grinning and giving himself a big thumbs-up after the passage of Bill C-7.

Why was Lametti smiling? What was there to be happy about? Why are some of his Liberal colleagues seen applauding as if they just watched a clever magician?

The photo told me everything I needed to know about the culture of death our federal government is promoting. It confirmed for me how easily Canadians are fooled in the name of secular progress and how cheap life is becoming.

Last year I met someone who was involved in writing the original euthanasia legislation that was passed in June 2016. I was not thrilled by what he had done and let him know it. But what he said was worth noting. He believed that certain Canadians, those dying and in pain, should have the right to die. Then he added this: Every time euthanasia is used it is a failure.

This was not the last time I heard this sentiment expressed. I have spoken to palliative physicians who have said much the same thing: euthanasia is a failure of our health-care system.

The government was pressured by some to allow for mental illness alone as the sole issue but Lametti decided to wait on that … for now.

On Nov 24, as reported in the National Post, the justice minister assured Canadians it will happen:

“Lametti also said he hopes the medical assistance in dying (MAiD) regime will eventually be further expanded to people who are suffering solely from mental illness, but the government doesn’t have enough time to do it before a court-ordered deadline of Dec. 18 for this bill to pass.”

He added that a study would be launched soon.

There are already those who believe that denying mental illness as the sole reason for euthanasia is unconstitutional. They say that with proper safeguards killing the mentally ill could work.

Safeguards? Like what? Making sure the person who is mentally ill is actually of sound mine? Who will decide this?

A fundamental tenet of the original 2016 bill was that the person requesting death must be capable of making such a grave decision and whose death is reasonably foreseeable. Those promises have gone up in smoke.

There are some who say I am being extreme when I compare what is happening in Canada today to Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. But this is not hyperbole.

To be clear, I am not saying the members of this government or Lametti are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.

However, in the 20th century it was the Nazis who made euthanasia a significant part of its way of governing. They billed it as ending unnecessary suffering of the patient as well as ending the burden on the family who must take care of such a person.

Of course, the Nazi euthanasia program eventually expanded to all kinds of people who were not considered “whole.” Little children were often murdered for having birth defects or handicaps.

No, we are not in Nazi Germany but in many ways we are emulating those policies. And that is a disgrace.

Now the worst part of all: We let this happen. Not just secular society but religious society too. We were too passive and we are now seeing the fruits of that passivity.

So now ask yourselves: Are you OK with killing the mentally ill? The government said it would soon study the killing of teens. Are you OK with that, too?

If not, then for God’s sake do something. Not tomorrow — now. Let your MPs know. Let the prime minister know. Let your priest and those in your parish. Let your neighbours know and your relatives and friends. Get angry.

Stop hiding your heads in the sand. It is killing us.

This article was published by the Catholic Register on December 24, 2020.

How crazy is it to encourage the mentally ill to kill themselves?

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In his article published today in the National Post, Charles Lewis makes the point  - It would be sick to give someone who is depressed and wants to end his or her life the encouragement to jump. But Canada may make such suicide legal.

Lewis begins the article by considering the recent tragic celebrity suicide deaths:

Two celebrities take their lives, two people who appeared to have everything to live for. Though clearly, Anthony Bourdain, a globetrotting chef for CNN, and Kate Spade, the handbag maker who made millions ooh and ah, did not see it that way. 

The reaction in the media was predictable: sadness, regret and questions about why. On Sunday, The New York Times ran an information piece for readers who worry that someone close to them might be suicidal. It was called: “What to do When a Loved One is Severely Depressed.” 

Not one of the many suggestions mentioned helping the person commit suicide or putting them out of their misery in a humane way. 

The Times article was intended to prevent a needless death. That is as it should be. It would be sick to give someone who is depressed and wants to end his or her life the encouragement to jump. 

Imagine if the article said: “When confronted with someone suffering from mental illness, you might suggest they sit in their car, in the garage, and rev the engine till the gas puts them out of their misery.” 

But for how much longer will the idea of abetting a suicidal person like Bourdain or Spade be seen as sick and immoral — especially in Canada?

Lewis then examines the question of euthanasia for the mentally ill

In December 2016, Health Canada struck a committee of experts to look at extending our current laws on euthanasia to teens and the mentally ill. Currently, MAID — Medical Aid in Dying — is limited to those over the age of 18 whose physical health ailments mean that their natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.” The committee is supposed to report back at the end of this year. 

Somewhere in 2016 a group of people in the government debated this and there were enough people in favour of extending euthanasia that they thought it was worth studying. That should be the first alarm. 

I think even 10 years ago these types of suggestions would have seemed insane. Even in 2016, the year euthanasia in this country became legal, anyone who worried about the law expanding would have been accused of fear mongering. There is no danger of a slippery slope, we were told.

Lewis then examines the debate concerning euthanasia based on mental illness in Canada.

I would have hoped that even today this type of suggestion would have seemed repugnant. But then last year, in The Globe and Mail, there was a column that made me realize nothing is off limits. 

In 2017, a 27-year-old man named Adam Maier-Clayton took his own life. He suffered from mental illness. The young man had written about wanting a legal way to end his suffering and his life in a Globe essay months before his death. 

André Picard, The Globe and Mail’s health reporter, wrote a column that urged lawmakers to heed to Maier-Clayton’s wish in honour of his tragic death. 

“Other Canadians who want to avail themselves of assisted death shouldn’t have to wait either for legislation to catch up with the court ruling and public sentiment. Most people accept that if someone’s dying anyhow, it’s OK to hasten their death, especially if they’re old,” Picard wrote. “But cases such as Mr. Maier-Clayton’s make us distinctly uncomfortable. He was young, healthy-looking and not suffering from any obvious physical illness. 

“We should not discriminate or deny people rights because it makes us queasy or because of our prejudices. This case reminds us just how severe mental illness can be.” 

The Netherlands and Belgium already dispatch the mentally ill, so Picard’s suggestion is not without precedent.

Lewis concludes his article as it began

In the first 12 months of legal euthanasia, from June 2016 to June 2017, 2,000 Canadian died via lethal injection. To me this is tragedy enough. But I would have thought that there were Canadians who, unlike me, are in favour of euthanasia, but who would balk at killing the mentally ill.

Depression and other mental illnesses should not be a death sentence. As time has gone on, with improvements in medicine, they have become easier to live with. Many people so afflicted can grow out of their illnesses. What it takes is for those of us who are around these people to offer whatever aid we can. We need to ensure they are seeing a doctor. We need to listen carefully to what they have to say, to look for hints that they might go the way of Spade and Bourdain. 

How crazy would it be if we were to encourage them to end their lives? 

How crazy would it be if our government decided that death is a medical option for those who suffer mentally? 

How crazy indeed.

Thank you Charles for your logical response to a crazy idea.

• Kevin Yuill: Assisted dying - A failure of psychiatry.
• How many botched cases will it take to end euthanasia for psychiatric suffering.

Euthanasia: The stakes are insanely high.

By Charles Lewis

Most people reading this article are probably opposed to euthanasia. Your involvement maybe nothing more than talking to friends and neighbours about the dangers of our new world. You may have spoken about euthanasia, signed petitions, sent the letters or supported conscience rights.

Whatever you do helps. But in the not-too-distant future we are all going to have to ramp up. As many of you know Health Canada has struck a committee to add "mature minors" and those with mental illness to the categories of people who can legally be killed by their physicians. They are also considering allowing Canadians to put their death requests in a living will. The committee will report back by December 2018.

I wondered why so long to wait. The only answer I can come up with is that by then more Canadians will have simply become used to living in a death-mad country.

On April 17, a story appeared in the Globe and Mail about a tragic young man who lived with mental illness. He could not access euthanasia so he killed himself by suicide. The point of the story as I can best tell was not his tragedy but more about the need to extend euthanasia to people with mental illness.

I will bet that the recommendations will be accepted and likely by 2019 those categories will be included. Interesting that they are not looking at chronic pain -- something of a hobby of mine. But really they don't have to. Chronic pain can create great emotional stress which can easily turn into depression. But I won't be surprised that after Trudeau and his pro-death friends get teens and mentally ill in they will expand to chronic pain and perhaps even a category of just dying for the hell of it.

This is an awful future to contemplate but believe it or not there maybe a reason for optimism. Maybe, just maybe, this new move might worry many Canadians who have shrugged their shoulders at legalized euthanasia. Maybe when they start to think of their 20-year-old sons or daughters killing themselves because they are depressed about being dumped by a someone they love or failing to get into medical school might start to alarm otherwise passive Canadians. Maybe their son or daughter lives with chronic depression?

We are going to have to increase our efforts and make this spectre known, to prove to others, who do not feel the way we do, that maybe it is time to scream NO.

It will also mean that we are going to have to make sure that religious institutions do not dawdle. Warnings from the pulpit are going to have to come early, not one month before the committee reports.

This maybe our only real chance to stem the tide. We must not blow it. The stakes are insanely high.

Charles Lewis is a former editor with the National Post. He is currently a columnist with the Catholic Register.

Charles Lewis: Join us in opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

By Charles Lewis, EPC board member.

Last June, I was invited to speak to a Catholic parish north of Toronto. It was my 56th talk though this one turned out to be different. First off, it was the largest crowd I had spoken to – close to 400 showed up. It was heartening but also bitter sweet.

The day before my talk, Parliament did what I always hoped would never happen in this country: it made euthanasia legal. I felt a combination of anger and nausea.

Then I realized that I had to suddenly come up with a new talk. The law was now a reality but up until that point I never thought of what I would say once euthanasia became a reality.

Every talk prior that summer morning had been intended to push the government to delay making euthanasia legal through the notwithstanding clause – a constitutional safety valve to delay controversial Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

So I told the crowd that we were in new territory -- that from here on in we would have to realize that no political party was going to save us. We were on our own and that would be the reality we would have to deal with. I also said that no matter how safe the pro-death side claimed the law to be it would be loosely interpreted and eventually formerly expanded. I spoke about the lack of good palliative care in Canada and the need to keep lobbying for more.

After that talk I decided to take a break. There was something about speaking about euthanasia day after day that effected my soul. I also wanted to deal with personal health issues and to start to think seriously about what I would say now. Most of us who do this work are learning as we go.

I continued to write about the issue and when anyone would ask me about my opposition I would gladly explain it; and when someone asked me whether I thought the battle lost I would say no.

Then a few months ago I realized it was time to jump back into the fight. I wanted to make sure I learned from the past few years in order to make these life-saving talks more effective and to reach the maximum number of people.

So I created a group of eight people utterly committed to the cause of warning people of the dangers of euthanasia. I say “I” created the group but we are all equal partners in this. Some, like Moira McQueen, the director of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute have been doing this long before I came on the scene.

Anyone who wants a speaker in the greater Toronto area should email Charles Lewis at: charleslewis@rogers.com"

We had our first meeting in early January. The only qualifications for joining were an absolute opposition to euthanasia and a desire to help people opt for life instead of suicide. While speaking is important there was the other main duty of letting everyone each of us knows that there are now speakers available and arranging an event is easy.

You can also join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Since I am semi-retired and have the greatest free time of others in the group I became the hub. Each person in the group lets me know when they are speaking and I in turn let the others know. This means we are all not lobbying the same parishes and groups. It also means we can attend the talks of others. I am convinced this is important because each person brings something new to the anti-euthanasia argument. And none of us should be above using effective arguments that we had not thought of before.

I am in charge of gathering literature and delivering it to others to distribute at their talks.

The group is already bearing fruit. Ephraim Radner, a professor at Wycliffe College and a group member, has already organized a seminar for students and St. Augustine students on the afternoon of Feb. 8 at Wycliffe.

We are also helping Alex Schadenberg set up an evening at St. Michael’s College, at the University of Toronto campus, at which the film The Euthanasia Deception will be shown followed by a panel discussion. The date is to be announced.

In terms of arguments we are making that still is up to the individual and for some of us a work in progress.

Last week I gave my first talk since last June. I gave my audience a brief background about how we go here. I then talked about how the law as written is not safe but open to interpretation and that from June to the end of the year 784 Canadians have died via the needle or some poison cocktail. I also noted that in December Health Canada struck a committee to look at expanding the law to include teenagers and those suffering from mental illness.

Finally I gave some ideas of what each person needs to do. Since I was speaking at a Catholic parish I suggested that a point person, or two be in charge of finding out whom in their faith community was struggling with severe illness. Then to ensure those people, especially those suffering alone, received visits and help with such things as meals, picking up drugs at the pharmacy and medical visits.

I’m of the belief that someone who feels loved and taken care of is less likely to take the euthanasia route.

I also said it was time that everyone begin to understand the dangers of euthanasia. And that it was important to fully understand the position of the pro-euthanasia side in order to more effectively respond.

I hope other communities will follow our model. It is never going to be enough but as the Jewish Talmud declares so wisely:

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”

Charles Lewis is a Toronto speaker and writer. His columns appear twice a month in the Catholic Register.

Book: The Lion of Münster: The Bishop Who Roared Against the Nazis.

This talk was delivered on November 23, 2016 on the occasion of the launch of a new book, “The Lion of Münster: The Bishop Who Roared Against the Nazis,” by Fr. Dan Utrecht, an Oratorian

By Charles Lewis

I’m very honored to be asked to say a few words tonight. Not just because I know author Fr. Dan Utrecht and I’m a parishioner here but also because I have always had a deep admiration for the Germans who refused to buckle under the mass hysteria of those times, especially from 1933 when Hitler came to power until May 1945, when the war ended and Nazism was defeated.

I will never be able to fully comprehend how much courage it took to speak out against one of the most ruthless regimes in modern history.

One German, Bishop of Münster Clemens August Graf von Galen, we are celebrating tonight, thanks to the great work of our Fr. Dan.

Order the book: “The Lion of Münster: The Bishop Who Roared Against the Nazis,” for $29.95 through Tan Books.

Those who refused to go along with the Nazis, who dared to speak out, were few. To go along was relatively easy. March with the others, say the Heil Hitler with a bit of enthusiasm and for the rest, including pretending your good Jewish neighbor of many years was not really being hauled away, would allow you a form of peace or at least safety. I say this not with contempt. Not only did you risk your own freedom and even your own life for objecting but the Nazis made sure that dissenters knew their families would also suffer terribly.

For devout Christians, who believed in the Truth of Christ, the torment of the times was horrific as they knew they were becoming an ever-smaller, irrelevant minority. Even clinging to basic human decency, was to enter a most frightening place – especially if one decided to speak out or write about their views.

That is why the names of those who refused to stand by, still shine so brightly, for they were beacons while the world around them fell into the pitch black of unmitigated evil.

I

Hans & Sophie Scholl

am sure Blessed Clemens von Galen would not mind being mentioned among some of the other Germans whose public acts of defiance, and just simple decency, led to their deaths: The White Rose, young students from Munich who were executed for their anti-Nazi beliefs, including Sophie Scholl and her brother, Hans. There was the Protestant Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Fr Alfred Delp, who also railed against euthanasia, and the lesser-known FRANZ JÄGERSTÄTTER, an ordinary man who refused to put on the military uniform of a godless state and paid the ultimate price. He was declared a martyr.

It’s worth remembering, even briefly, what happened during the time of the Nazis. We all know about the camps and the catastrophic loss of life both military and civilian. These things did not come out of thin air. Rather, it started when men decided they could replace God or that their perverted ideas made them into a kind of prophet.

Human life was valued on a person’s utility. The idea of all of us being respected as children of God, worthy of love and respect, regardless of one’s physical or mental state or age, was an idea that offended the Nazi agenda. It was a sign of weakness and weakness was considered a stumbling block to world domination and extermination. I’m not sure how those who continued to pretend to be true Christians, while being in step with Nazi marching songs, ever read the Sermon on the Mount without feeling profound shame.

Those considered unfit to contribute to the national program were called Useless Eaters, probably one of the ugliest terms ever invented but effective when the Nazis were pushing their euthanasia program — which you will learn more about by reading this important book being launched tonight.

The Nazis came up with insane racial theories in which there was a master race and subhumans. These untermenschen were not considered actually human. They were biological mistakes something like lab rats or beasts of burden: subjecting these subhumans to every form of degradation, to torture, to medical experiments or simply worked to death.

Those who were opposed to the Nazis were almost all Christians. What they all understood was that Hitler was a pagan and Germany was destroying itself on his behalf. God was being blotted by men in brown and black shirts with thumping boots who gave full rein to their worst impulses.

The Nazis believed that Christianity was at its root a Jewish, decadent religion and that Jesus was a Jew and anything Jewish was corrupt. Christianity was unmanly. It felt too much. It cared too much for those in need. It contained compassion – the last thing the Nazis needed to carry out their goals.

How can someone euthanize a child because they are not perfect when they feel compassion? Better those pagans, not bogged down by Christian love, to do the job.

They saw Christians as a degenerate faith that put its stock in an invisible God rather than the power of the State. There was even an attempt to form a German National Church. It got rid of the Old Testament, too Jewish, and erased all signs of Judaism from the new, except as the killers of Christ. Their Christ was a blonde Aryan god sent to destroy the Jews.

But True Christians never lost sight that what was happening around them was the corruption of all that was good. Somehow they never forgot that truth is eternal and would one day outlast the horrors around them. Even to have that kind of faith in those times was miraculous.

Cardinal von Galen

This past August 3rd , marked the 75th anniversary of when Blessed Clemens condemned from his Cathedral’s pulpit the Nazi euthanasia program. He said: 

“If you establish and apply the principle that you can ‘kill’ unproductive human beings, then woe betide us all when we become old and frail!. . .  Do you, do I have the right to live only as long as we are productive?. . .  Nobody would be safe anymore. Who could trust his physician? It is inconceivable what depraved conduct, what suspicion could enter family life if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, adopted, carried out.”

He also said: 

“The dear God placed me in a position in which I had a duty to call black 'black' and white 'white'.”

In speaking out he risked death. One Gestapo leader wanted him hanged. Other Nazi leaders, fearing his popularity, said wait till we have won the war.

He also spoke out against racial programs — something else that angered the Nazis and drove them to homicidal anger.

You should not only buy this book because our Fr. Dan wrote it, but because we all need men like Blessed Clemens in our heart and in our lives. He and others like him are whom we should turn to when we fear the mockery of the secular society because we stand up for life.

Order the book: “The Lion of Münster: The Bishop Who Roared Against the Nazis,” for $29.95 through Tan Books.

We have nothing to be afraid of. No one will hurt us. We have each other. We still live in a democracy.. at least the appearance of one for now.

The next time you feel constrained to speak the truth about euthanasia …. please, please, remember Blessed Clemens von Galen who knew the risks of speaking out but did it anyway because there is nothing, absolutely nothing more important than the Truth.

Charles Lewis: Unbiased and ethical journalists exist.

By Charles Lewis

I attended the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 2016 Symposium in Windsor, ON., recently. I am writing this to address something that deeply concerns me about what I heard, over and over, about the media.

Speaker after speaker blamed the media for much of the misinformation about euthanasia and a general hostility towards our cause.

The media is not perfect. But nor is any profession perfect. We all have encountered bad dentists, indifferent doctors, inept lawyers and lax government officials. Though the difference is most of us do not condemn the entire profession.

I will go as far to say that there are journalists whose biases get in the way of their reporting. I think this is especially true of the CBC.

I worked at the National Post for 15 years. I was an editor for half that time I was an editor and the rest I reported on religion. Many people saw my bias as a conservative Catholic come through, though I always tried to balance my pieces. But my audience, mainly conservative Canadians, applauded my point of view. In other words they did not mind my bias because it fit with their world outlook but they might condemn someone else with a liberal bias.

At the Windsor Symposium I stood up at one point to try to make the point that some of the country’s most prominent columnists — Margaret Wente of the Globe, Rosie DiManno of the Star, and Rex Murphy and Andrew Coyne of the National Post all raised serious questions about euthanasia.

But I soon realized that many in the audience had never heard of these fine journalists. Which made me wonder how anyone can judge the media when they are not aware of some of the prominent people in the profession.

I think something else needs to be explained — and this especially applies to print journalists. Over the past 15 years most newspapers have seen their newsroom staff gutted. Meaning for those left behind there is more work to do.

Even in good times putting out a newspaper is a monumental task. Every day there is a firm deadline. I wrote several thousand stories in my career. Some were features in which I had a week or several days to write. But most stories are done in a single day. More often still they are done in a matter of hours.

An editor will turn to a reporter at 2 p.m., four hours before deadline, and say she needs 800 words on something that just took place. That means that the reporter must get interviews lined up at lightening speed. If the reporter is luck, he finds the best people. If not he finds whom he can. In newspapers there is no arguing with the clock.

But here is the important point. No one should read a newspaper story as being definitive. A story should be read for the information it contains. If the story is about conscience rights for doctors, for example, what is important is what is new in the story: Did a court just rule against conscience rights? Is there a proposal to limit those rights?

At that point readers who really care about the issue need to do their own research. That is the beauty of the Internet. You can plug in key words and get a raft of information, much of it provided by conservative and religious sites. In other words, let the newspaper article, or the item on radio or a televised newscast, be your starting point.

Finally, and this applies mainly to newspapers, editorials and news are separate spheres. Editorial boards are supposed to reflect the views of the owners. For the most part reporters and editors, who produce what fills the rest of the paper, are not guided by editorials.

Let me now give you a list of some great websites where you will find great information that conforms more to what most of us see as the truth. However, one caveat: It is a big mistake to read only what you agree with. First off, by never reading the other point of view you will have no idea of the arguments they use. And if you do not know, how can you combat it? Also, even in those articles and editorials that seem to oppose us, there is often something that indicate the doubts of the writer. This could be an opening for dialogue.

Most writers like getting emails. The key is to be polite and not start off with accusations. Treat these people with the same dignity we afford each other.

So here are some sites to bookmark on your computer. Many of these will send you daily newsletters. They have good information and go through a process of rigorous editing — something important to make sure writers tell the truth or at least do not stretch it beyond all credibility.

Here they are: The National Review, National Catholic Register, Christianity Today, The Rebel Media, The Acton Institute, Catholic Civil Rights League, The Atlantic (at times) and Mercator Net, and The Wall Street Journal. This is partial list. Find your own sites and share them.

Finally, two of my favourite columnists work for the dreaded New York Times: David Brooks and Ross Douthat. These are highly ethical and conservative men and can be read for free. You would be wise to read them.

We all have a role to stop euthanasia. But the task is monumental. Be ready.

By Charles Lewis

Over the past few years many of us have written and spoken about the evils of euthanasia. Part of me always has wondered why this was such tough sell. After all, our basic instincts tell us that those who are hurt and sick should be cared for.

There is nothing radical in this. Even in war enemy combatants will often tend to the enemy's wounded out of a sense of some basic decency.

Those healing instincts are born of morality. It does not have to be religious morality but some code that is ingrained that, like a compass, always points in the same direction.

So perhaps the problem is that we are becoming immoral. Whatever foundation was there is crumbling under the weight of cynicism.

A moral society assumes certain things: When we talk to each other we are more or less speaking the same language based on the same basic ethos of our community. Anyone who has tried in the past few years to argue against euthanasia, even among religious people, will know that this commonality is fading fast.

In most of the discussions I had ended I ended up feeling as if I was speaking in a strange tongue. This was not a case of simple disagreement but something far beyond that. It was as if two separate conversations were going on with nothing linking the participants except animosity and confusion.

In other words it was two people coming from different cultures without either side being able to relate to the other.

For those of us of a certain age and persuasion it is akin to feeling lost. I ask myself all the time how did we slip so far into an abyss in which basic morality, a clear definition of what is right and what is wrong, has become so muddled.

When I was growing up, in the 1950s and 60s, there seemed to be some things that were considered wrong: these were premises agreed on by people who were Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and even those thoroughly secular.

The idea of killing someone who was sick would have seemed barbaric. All these were seen as failures against the common good. There was a sense of a community standard that everyone had a stake in. No doubt this could turn judgmental and possibly even cruel but those attitudes were the extreme.

My own view it is the decline of religion and a belief in God. That cannot be the only answer, however.

We grew up in Brooklyn. Their history was typical of the people I grew up with. Our grandparents and parents lived through the Depression. Our fathers fought in the Second World War. In the 1950s they were happy to be alive and enjoyed a success that in the midst of the 1930s or at the height of the war were impossible to imagine.

Those experiences forged comradery. People were pro-life, in the broadest sense of the term because they knew what misery looked like especially those who survived the war. Everywhere there were European refugees; many with numbers on their arms who were simply thankful to not have the state classify them as subhuman and unworthy. And many families, like mine, had relatives that did not come back from the war, a constant reminder of sacrifice for all.

Now we have a society, in general, that has little time for religion. It sees morality as artificial and a hindrance to freedom. We live in a culture that has more gadgets that is causing isolation. We are bombarded with tons of information that is essentially useless for leading a good, moral life.

Try to be serious and someone makes a joke because being serious gets in the way of fun.

Of course, there are many people who are the exception to what I have described and thank God for them.

For those of us who believe the battle against euthanasia is not over, as I do, I write this as a reminder of what we are up against. It is not just a matter of disagreement over an issue. If only it were so.

We can still stop people from being abandoned to death by assisted suicide and euthanasia. We must see each person who opts for the needle as a personal defeat. Nothing is in isolation. A man who is killed with the help of a physician will have sent a message to friends and family that medical murder is fine.

We all have a role to stop this. But the task is monumental. Be ready. Otherwise you will be speaking into the wind.

Charles Lewis is an anti-euthanasia speaker and writer. He writes a column twice a month for Toronto’s Catholic Register newspaper.

Euthanasia: The conversation has become too quiet.

By Charles Lewis

Perhaps it is just me who has noticed but the conversation around euthanasia has become far too quiet. In my own case, as someone who spent a few years speaking out against euthanasia, as well as writing anti-euthanasia essays, I could count on someone from time to time to comment about the issue and usually commiserate over our mutual opposition.

A few weeks ago, while waiting for mass to begin, a priest offered his condolences. At first I did not get what he meant. But I soon realized it was over the final legalization of euthanasia in Canada.

I really did not react. Was not sure what to say. No one can spend every waking moment thinking and talking about euthanasia. It takes too much out of you.

I am sure the priest meant well. But what he should have said is something like this: 

“What a shame they have made this legal. We are really going to have to redouble our efforts to make sure our friends do not avail themselves of this evil.”

My abiding concern is that the vast majority of people have lost interest. They are going to be fooled because the final legislation was not as odious as what the special committee recommended and nor what the Supreme Court laid out in Carter decision.

To me this is a trap. It is like in the old Westerns when the sheriff says, “I don’t like it. It’s too darn quiet.”

But this is not over. I have said the before and I will risk repeating myself: Legalized euthanasia is a travesty and no one need avail himself or herself of it. It is a law to be spit on.

We can still do what we can to educate people and continue to lobby for greatly improve palliative care – which is sorely lacking in Canada. At the moment only 30 per cent of Canadians who need that care can get it.

We can also personally care for others and help people live when they are feeling drawn to end their lives. We can also support the Compassionate Community Care Service that is being promoted by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

We will continue resisting euthanasia.

By Charles Lewis

There may be a tendency to give up now that the fight against legalized euthanasia has ended. We now have euthanasia in this country. With or without a law it's here. We tried to stop it and so we lost that battle. Notice I wrote we lost the battle and not the war.

Bill C14 as is or whatever warped form it takes on is an evil. It's not a bit evil, or somewhat evil or even mainly evil. It's fully evil. There is nothing good about it. It offends human decency. We know this. That's why we've been fighting. So on that score nothing has changed.

At the end of the day it can be resisted. The worst thing anyone can do now, anyone who has been involved in the anti-euthanasia cause, would be to give up. This law does not have to be respected. And just because it offers and supports medical murder that doesn't mean we have to avail ourselves of it. Nor should we sit by while those we know decide to end their lives in such a barbaric manner.

Here is the problem as I see it: There is a strong core of us who will never accept euthanasia. We refused to cooperate with the government in the law's development. Our hands our clean. But we have inherited a huge responsibility.

Let me put this in terms of a parish. I know not every reader is religious but think of it as a model for small-scale resistance. The Catholic Church has always taught that the most effective way to change minds happens at the local level. This makes sense, as it's easier to get things done in a small group then say nationally or globally. A few can do that but most of us have limited time and other duties.

In any parish, there are those who think euthanasia is a good idea. The polls bear this out. So our aim should be to find these people and try to change their minds. In a religious context it's easier than a secular context because there is more common ground. Even the worst Catholic who attends mass knows that certain things are wrong, though they try to run from that truth.

Also the people we know at the local level are familiar faces and often friends. There is a level of trust there that a stranger won't assume.

These are the people who need formation and need our help and wisdom.

We must also recognize the importance of caring for and others. People who we know will experience difficult circumstances and we need to be caring friends and recognize that we are capable of saving a life by caring and supporting others in their difficult circumstance. 

Let's say you change one person's mind. You may say, So what?

You never save one person: you save a whole group of people each time you save one. You save this person's spouse, children, relatives and other close friends. Every time someone chooses legalized suicide it sends a message that it's okay.

On the other hand every time someone says no it will send a powerful message. We should choose life.

It will also mean local groups can come to the aid of physicians who find themselves at odds with the requirement to refer patients who want to die to doctors who have no qualms of ending someone's life with a syringe. It's going to mean moral support and financial support. It will mean raising a stink to high heaven because the stripping of conscience rights is a moral outrage.

We are going to be true rebels. We will fight endless skirmishes. We will be odd to others. The ones who won't accept defeat. That's fine. We're not in high school. Being popular is not the goal. Fighting for Truth and Justice is.

Some thoughts on a drive through traffic hell to rail against euthanasia.

By Charles Lewis

Many of you know I have been doing speeches against euthanasia since retiring from the National Post in January 2014. Most also know that I have a very painful spinal issue that limits my activities.

So it was with some trepidation that I agreed, many months ago, to speak at a dinner in Cambridge Ontario. I figured by the time it rolled around I would be feeling much better.

I was so wrong.

But a promise is a promise so on a recent Thursday I headed out to Cambridge west down the dreaded 401. What should have taken 70 minutes with no traffic or two hours with some traffic turned into three hours of misery. Then to add to the fun I got lost. Urbanites like myself do not do well with regional roads.

So at some point, in pain and with a throbbing headache from said pain, I ended up in a nearby city. I don't own a cell phone but I figured I'd be able to use a phone at a gas station or find a pay phone. Guess what? No one likes to let you use his or her phones for fear you'll call your Oma in Berlin or you favourite Aunt in Hong Kong. And, as I discovered, there are no pay phones.

Finally some good soul took pity on me and lent me his cell phone. The connection was so bad that I couldn't hear what was being said so I finally broke down babbling and yelling that I would never make it. It wasn't one of my proudest moments but every once in a while I cut myself a break.

Someone standing by where I was yelling heard me mention the conference centre. He gave me simple directions and miracle of miracle I did find the right Canadian Tire at the bottom of the right hill.

By the time I arrived at the conference centre I was in massive pain and sweating. As I got out of the car, hobbled, I thought that there was no way I can pull this off. Though I did.

I had enough personal fury to carry me through. For as angry as I was for getting lost and being in severe pain it could not match my disgust with what is happening in Parliament and how we are being kicked down the road to perdition.

It didn't help that CBC radio was doing endless stories of what some dim light named "elbowgate" — the ridiculous event in Parliament when our illustrious prime minister ran across the floor and grabbed the Tory Whip (very kinky sounding to an American) and in the process elbowed a NDP MP by accident. I nearly punched the dashboard when I heard that some Tory MP accused Justin Trudeau of molestation. Oy vey!

The CBC report kept replaying the endless "profound" apologies of Trudeau's. Then there were the endless discussions about what his misbehaviour meant for his future and the future of the House of Commons.

I'm not a wise guy but I knew the answer: Nothing.

But barely mentioned on CBC or in the newspapers following the “incident” was what drove Trudeau across the floor. He was attempting to close debate on Bill C14, the euthanasia bill.

Two things here: We know that Trudeau, despite his claims otherwise, is anti-democratic. This was the same man who banned pro-life candidates from the Liberal Party. Then this motion to limit debate also showed a strong authoritarian streak. What is the purpose of Parliament if not to air important issues? Though as many of us who oppose euthanasia know that this is not really an important issue. Just another bill in the business of Parliament.

It's shameful enough that there was no debate during the federal election concerning euthanasia but now it's barely taking place in Parliament. That is what was driving my fury. Shouldn't the media in this country be outraged at that? I understand procedure and the need for it to be followed but walking across the floor of the House is not exactly a nuclear attack or molestation.

I don't remember much about my talk in Cambridge. It seemed to come out of me without barely looking at my notes. I can only say for certain that I was on fire. It was as if something else took over and I gave way to my disgust and anger about what is going on in our country. Clearly the listeners caught my mood given the number of ovations and the questions that followed.

Let me add one more thing. The last question of the night was from a very thoughtful woman who asked the following: 

"Have we as a nation become complacent?"

I was about to answer but stopped myself. Instead I asked the woman a question: 

"Have you become complacent?"

The question stopped her dead.

EPC needs you to contact Members of Parliament.

The House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be hearing interventions concerning Bill C-14, the bill that will legalize and “regulate” euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Several MP's have said that they are receiving more communication from members of the euthanasia lobby than from our supporters. 

EPC urges you to contact members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with your concerns about Bill C-14.

EPC also urges you to contact the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Resources information:

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC - BC).

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Charles Lewis.

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.

Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet).

Contact information for Committee members:
Committee Chair: Anthony Housefather (Lib) - Anthony.Housefather@parl.gc.ca

Committee Vice Chair: Ted Falk (CPC) - Ted.Falk@parl.gc.ca

Committee Vice Chair: Murray Rankin (NDP) - Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Chris Bittle (Lib) - Chris.Bittle@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Michael Cooper (CPC) - Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Colin Fraser (Lib) - Colin.Fraser@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Ahmed Hussen (Lib) - Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Iqra Khalid (Lib) - Iqra.Khalid@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Ron McKinnon (Lib) - Ron.McKinnon@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Hon. Rob Nicholson (CPC) - rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca

EPC also encourages you to send letters to your Members of Parliament. Link to contact your Member of Parliament.

You can mail letters to Members of Parliament (Postage Free) by sending letters to:

(Name) Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6

Charles Lewis: Resist falling prey to a system of legalized murder.

By Charlie Lewis

Most everyone has heard of the notion that if you put myriad monkeys in a room with typewriters, pens, paper and computers eventually one of our simian friends would produce a work akin to Hemingway, St. Augustine or Judith Krantz.

I think what they would end up with would be closer to Bill C-14, the Liberal government's bill on euthanasia and assisted suicide — or as I call it, killing of patients — released Thursday.

As Kelly McParland wrote in the National Post, the only beneficiaries will be lawyers who should be able to buy a beautiful cottage or two from the legal fees that will be generated by the confusion generated by this bill.

It raises so many questions you wonder whether adults wrote it or their young progeny during a “bring your kids to work” day. The bill is so unclear it leaves open critical questions: Who will be considered terminal? Will a physician have the right to exercise his or her conscience and refuse to refer a patient to someone who would kill him or her? Does it allow for non-medical personnel to administer the poison?

Try to figure this cryptic clue about who is eligible: 

“[N]atural death has become reasonably foreseeable (precise proximity to death is not required).”

No one can define what “reasonably foreseeable means” and nor could anyone of average intelligence or greater even begin to unravel the clause that “precise proximity to death is not required.”

The one good thing we can say about Bill C-14 is that it has upset activists on both sides of the debate. That would normally be good politics because it demonstrates independent thinking on the part of the government and a refusal to pander. But in this case the government does not deserve credit.

This bill is simply inept. It does not follow the odious recommendations of its own fact-finding committee and nor does it follow the Supreme Court of Canada decision of February 2015 which declared our ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia void.

For example, the court decision allowed for the killing of psychiatric patients and those with non-fatal chronic pain. The government follows none of this.

We who have fought against the killing of patients should be happy, right? We appear to have won some battles, right?

For the most part we are not happy at all.

Most of us have said for years that any bill will be a starting point for greater calamity. A conservative, restrictive bill would grow over time as citizens became more used to it, which was the case in Holland and Belgium. A few years ago the doctor who was the architect of Quebec's euthanasia law said the province's effort was just a beginning and over time the law would encompass more ailments and younger patients. It was awful to hear but at least honest.

Now we have been left with a mess. A good lawyer, Supreme Court decision in hand, will easily be able to challenge the "restrictions" in the new law and crush them like a bug.

For those of us fighting the killing of patients our job will be harder. My fear is that even anti-euthanasia audiences will start to think this bill is really not so bad and that the government seemed to have listened to our concerns.

That is delusional.

The bill is the way it is because of incompetence. It leaves a giant legal vacuum in which any "violation" of the bill will easily be contested because the language is so vague.

We are going to have at some point a law that will be much broader than what the government has proposed. It may take a few years but it will happen. In the meantime, many more Canadian will buy into the lie that Bill C-14 is a perfect compromise that is safe and responsible. 

By the time the law allows children, psychiatric patients and those who are simply tired of life to end their lives with state approval and assistance most Canadians will have been lulled into a false sense of safety and simply will not notice as the beast grows.

At least a clear bill would have made it easier to fight. It might have alarmed enough people who would have resisted falling prey to a system of legalized murder. 

Who would have thought this government would have been this sneaky?

Charlie Lewis writes a regular column for the Catholic Register and is a former reporter for the National Post