Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing disabled people

(LifeSiteNews) — In Canada, we kill the disabled. Over 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted; pre-born children diagnosed with other disabilities usually meet the same fate. But for decades, our Nazi-style lethal ableism was limited to those not yet born.

With the expansion of euthanasia eligibility to those suffering solely from disability or mental illness scheduled to come into effect in 2027, that is slated to change. Disability groups have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of this plan, which has been delayed twice by the Liberal government due to pushback from across Canadian society – but not cancelled entirely.

READ: Liberals outraged that Supreme Court protected parents’ rights over LGBT indoctrination

Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, examining Canada’s compliance with the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities earlier this year, concluded that Canada was embarking on “state-sponsored eugenics” and called on the Canadian government to scrap these plans and roll back the expanding euthanasia regime. The disability rights group Inclusion Canada, as well as several others, had written to the body to sound the alarm about Canada’s euthanasia policies.

Canadians with physical disabilities have been attempting to get the government’s attention for years, with stories of those who seeking euthanasia because they cannot get the support or care they need periodically dominating international headlines. (This ugly reality is best encapsulated in a famous cartoon showing stairs leading to a healthcare provider, with the only wheelchair ramp leading to “euthanasia.”) These stories have not yet been heeded by the government.

A story recently posted to X by Samantha Smith, a victim advocate and survivor of the grooming and rape gangs in the U.K., highlights Canada’s grim slippery slope. It is worth reading in full:

A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada. They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue. In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised. He didn’t want to die. But my family member was legally forced to end his life. They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty.”

That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily. He wasn’t terminally ill. He wasn’t particularly old. He wasn’t dying. He didn’t want to die. But he didn’t have a choice. Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.

And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures – that their conscience wouldn’t allow it – they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse. They still refused. But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to. It starts with “choice” and “dignity.” But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it.” And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality. In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid. If it can happen there; it will happen here. People will be killed against their will.

READ: UN women’s rights adviser slams gender ideology, urges governments to define sex by biology

When asked for public corroboration, Smith stated: “No, my family member will not ‘go public.’ Yes, I trust his testimony. No, he is not a horrible, awful person. Yes, this is really happening. The black letter law vs. the grim reality are two very different things. Just because the law was supposed to protect against coercion or non-consenting procedures … doesn’t mean it is.”

I wish I didn’t believe her, but I do. I believe her because euthanasia providers have ended the lives of people like Alan Nichols, who was taken to the hospital by family members after a psychiatric episode and euthanized days later. I believe her because leaked documents show that Ontario’s euthanasia providers have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single case being referred to law enforcement. I believe her because Canada’s medical establishment already embraces lethal ableism, and our government does too.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or relief the sick by a killing medicine, it is one the of fruit of the culture of death, in a society and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable. (Evangelium Vitae)

The victim is usually, though not exclusively, a chronically terminally ill patient, not necessarily Imminently dying. The person performing the act of euthanasia is often, but not exclusively, a health care professional. The participation of the medical profession in these acts has led to the use of the term-medicalized killing.

It is important to be clear as to which medically based decisions at the end of life should not be classified as euthanasia. Allowing a terminally ill person in the last stages of life to die a natural death is not euthanasia. Where the situation is medically hopeless, a decision not to provide or continue extraordinary or heroic measures where such no longer offer any hope for healing is ethical, legal and consistent with standard medical practice. It is also consistent with thousands of years of religious belief and practice.

-Euthanasia is sometimes classified according to the presence or absence of a request by the patient:

Voluntary Euthanasia

Is carried out at the request by the patient with his or her will without any pressure.

Non Voluntary Euthanasia

Occurs when the patient is incapable of understanding the choice between life and death.

Involuntary Euthanasia

Is the term used when the individual is capable of consenting to death but does not do so, either because he or she is not asked, or because he or she is asked and choose to go on living.

Mercy Killing

The word killing is for the evil one, and Mercy is for the loving one and for God. But mixing the two together to justify a killing act of human being mixes the interior feelings to make the evil look as a good deed. And the result is a killing of a spirit and an offense against life in its beginning (abortion) or in its stages or at its end (Mercy Killing).

A large number of doctors (in Netherlands) admitted and openly that they gave a lethal injection to some of the terminally ill patients and they lied in the death Certificate, as we know Doctor Kevorkian in the U.S. had killed over 150 persons in what is called physician assisted suicide.

The descendants and the relatives must be aware of this danger, which threaten them personally and threaten their parents and relatives, and never fall into the deadly trap by the psychological and financial pressure that the hospitals and Doctors puts on the families. To avoid financial burden on them and the health care system and here the patient gets into a hesitation between staying alive and a Voluntary Euthanasia decision, to avoid his or her family this pressure, which make the trust diminish between the patient and the family and the doctor.

Even if they ask to leave this life in unnatural way we should not let them or let the doctor to do so, if the medical treatment does not help any more. We let the natural way of death to take effect, and take care of them for the last moment and never declare them in a Vegetables state, and never get trapped under the phrase “brain dead”. Because some of the doctors may quick to declare this situation to get rid of the patient or to harvest and sell his organs to who ever deed it, as it is happening in the third world.

Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is term used when a mentally competent person has formed the desire to end his or her life, but requires help to perform the act, usually because of physical disability. When the help requested be given by doctor, the act is called physician assisted suicide. A common form of assistance might be providing a lethal dose of drug for the person to administer.

Historical Roots

In 1920, a book was published in Leipzig, Germany entitled “the release of the Destruction of life Devoid of life”. The authors, jurist Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche believed that were many lives in Germany that were not worthy living. Thus they set out proposals to justify the “destruction” of these lives. The intelligentsia of the day and spread throughout the German medical profession took up this justification.

The Nazis adopted this thinking, and by the end of the Nazi euthanasia program, the number of innocent human being killed included more than 300,000 mentally handicapped children and adults, and hundreds of thousands of elderly, all who were deemed worthless, Hitler further adapted the system of “ destruction” to rid Europe of the Jews, the Gypsies and anyone not considered “ useful”.

Dr. Leo Alexander, an Austrian born psychiatrist and an expert consultant to the Nuremburg War Crimes trial, published “ Medical Science Under Dictatorship” in 1949 in the New England journal of Medicine, He pointed out that the holocaust was made possible through a massive public propaganda campaign to undermine medical ethics. The chronically sick, the mentally or physically disabled were, he observed, the first victims. “It started”. Dr. Alexander wrote, “with the

Acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived”.

Proponents of euthanasia

The voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society was formed in 1935, but because of the bad name euthanasia had received during the war, the movement went underground, to reappear later under a variety of titles. Similarly, the Euthanasia Education Council, formed 30 years ago in the U.S., is now named Concern for Dying.

In 1989, Dr C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the U.S., commented on the language of the euthanasia movement:

Like many other areas of the reform, euthanasia has undergone a change our vocabulary that is in part inspired by the political aims of some of the participants in that debate. For example, the Euthanasia Society if America founded in the 1930’s, changed its name the mid-70’s to the Society for the Right to die. The society acknowledged that the intent to avoid the controversy engendered by the term ‘euthanasia’ played a part in this decision. ‘Right to die ‘ has become a catchword in this debate, but one that is not well understood. Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 5, No.2, 1989.

Most pro euthanasia groups belong to the World Federation of Right to Die Society, which claims members in 18 countries, at its 1984 meeting, Helga Kuhse of Australia outlined the strategy to be used to gain public acceptance of euthanasia:

If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care especially the removal of food and fluid they will see what a painful way this is to die, and then, in the patient’s best interest, they will accept the lethal injection.

for more on Euthanasia :

DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith May 5, 1980

http://www.priestsforlife.org/euthanasia/euthanasia.html

They Built a Death Chamber in a Catholic Hospital. You Paid for It