News & Analysis

The federal government of Mr. Justin Trudeau has just launched a “public consultation” on its proposal to drastically expand Canada’s euthanasia regime (euphemistically referred to as “MAiD” or “Medical Assistance in Dying”).

The Liberals are looking to expand euthanasia to those who cannot give consent. They are also considering euthanasia for people who are not even dying.

More than 6,700 vulnerable Canadians have already been killed since legalization in 2016, and if this expansion goes ahead as planned, thousands more will fall victim to this sterilized form of medical murder. Additional groups of people – the elderly, the disabled, the terminally ill, the depressed, sick children – will have their lives dehumanized and devalued, which we believe will only pave the way to greater human rights abuses in the future.

Currently, the practice of medical murder is restricted to those “patients” who meet the following arbitrary criteria:

• they are at least 18 years old and mentally competent;
• they have a serious illness, disease, or disability;
• they are in an advanced state of decline that “cannot be reversed”;
• they experience “unbearable physical or mental suffering”;
• they are at a point where natural death has become “reasonably foreseeable”;
• they make a voluntary request to be euthanized;
• they give informed consent to be euthanized.

Of course, we reject the existing criteria as completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint! Euthanasia is out-and-out murder, which God forbids. Prior to legalization, euthanasia and assisted suicide were defined in our Criminal Code as forms of homicide. No law-abiding citizen should ever have his/her death purposefully hastened or “facilitated” – for any reason.

Having the “option” of medical murder since 2016 has only created a poisoned environment in our culture, and in the health care system in particular. In this environment, vulnerable and hurting individuals are encouraged to consider whether their lives are indeed “worthy of life”. Real pressure is being applied by doctors, nurses, friends, and family members who may have ulterior motives (i.e. saving health care dollars, freeing up a bed, or gaining an inheritance). Health care professionals are standing in the place of God, advising of the “option” of euthanasia, and then either carrying out the deed or referring to some other doctor or nurse who will do it without any moral compunction.

Our present euthanasia regime is an utter travesty and a complete sham. And it will only get worse if Mr. Trudeau has his way. Soon we will be at the point of "euthanasia on-demand"! This is why we need your help!

There is a very short public consultation taking place as we speak, which ends on January 27th. In this consultation, the public has been granted the opportunity to fill out a brief online survey offering their views on expanding euthanasia.

We would urge you to please fill out the survey ASAP, stating your opposition to euthanasia expansion in the strongest possible terms. Here is the link to the survey: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html

To make filling out this survey easier, I have listed the questions below, along with our suggested responses. Just be aware that these government questions are highly skewed in favour of expanding euthanasia.

Thank you for helping to stop the spread of this evil in our country.

Yours for Life,
David Cooke
Campaigns Manager
Campaign Life Coalition

P.S. Please complete the survey using this link: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html

P.P.S. The suggested answers below are designed to help you complete the survey. Please be sure to personalize them by changing or adapting them as you see fit.

P.P.P.S.  Our good friend, Alex Schadenberg, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has compiled some excellent articles on the dangers of expanding euthanasia. These articles could help you provide additional comments as you fill out the survey. You can find the articles here: https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2020/01/participate-in-canadian-government-maid.html

---

Section C: Safeguards to protect against misuse or abuse of medical assistance in dying

1. Do you think the current safeguards would prevent abuse, pressure or other kinds of misuse of MAID after eligibility is broadened to people whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable?

SELECT: NO

2. The following list contains potential safeguards that are not currently in place in Canada, as well as potential revisions to some existing safeguards. These are safeguards that apply under the MAID laws of some other countries.

In your opinion, when a person is not at a point where their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, how important is it to require the following safeguards for those who meet all other eligibility criteria for MAID?

a) A different reflection period (currently a 10-day reflection period) between the submission of a person’s written request for MAID and receiving MAID.

SELECT: Very Important

b) MAID should be available only when the practitioner and the patient both agree that reasonable treatments and options to relieve the person’s suffering have been tried without significantly improving the person’s situation

SELECT: Very Important

c) A mandatory psychological or psychiatric assessment to evaluate the person’s capacity to consent to receiving MAID

SELECT: Very Important

d) Making sure the person requesting MAID is aware of all the means available to potentially relieve their suffering, including health and social support services (for example counseling, disability support, palliative care)

SELECT: Very Important

e) Mandatory consultation with an expert in the person’s medical condition and circumstances (for example a gerontologist, psychiatrist, or social worker), in addition to the already mandatory 2 medical assessments

SELECT: Very Important

f) Retrospective review of MAID cases by a committee to verify that the eligibility criteria and safeguards were satisfied and in place

SELECT: Very Important

g) Special training and tools to assist physicians and nurse practitioners to assess areas of potential vulnerability (for example mental health issues, or potential outside pressures or influences)

SELECT: Very Important

h) An obligation for the physician and nurse practitioner to offer to discuss their patient’s situation with their family members or loved ones with the patient’s consent

SELECT: Very Important

3. Do you have any other comments you want to share about possible safeguards for people who are eligible for MAID, but not at the end of life?

COMMENTS: People who are sick, suffering, and/or disabled need to be actively encouraged to embrace life – even amid all of their challenges. They must be offered the very best life-affirming treatments, counselling, resources, and options first of all. They need compassionate care and support that respects the inherent dignity and value of their lives at all stages and in all circumstances. If we, as a society did a good job in this respect, demand for MAID would vanish.

Section D: Advance requests for MAID

1. Imagine that a person makes a request for MAID, is found to be eligible, and is awaiting the procedure. A few days before the procedure, the person loses the capacity to make health care decisions, and cannot provide final consent immediately before the procedure. In your opinion, should a physician or nurse practitioner be allowed to provide MAID to a person in these circumstances?

SELECT: NO

2. Imagine that a person is diagnosed with a medical illness that, over time, will affect their mind and take away their decision-making capacity, such as Alzheimer’s disease. The person prepares a document that says they consent to receive MAID if specific circumstances arise at a later date, after they no longer are able to consent.

In your opinion, should a physician or nurse practitioner be allowed to provide MAID to a person in this situation once the circumstances in their document have arisen and they otherwise meet the MAID criteria, even if they can no longer consent?

SELECT: NO

3. Do you have any other comments you want to share about allowing MAID to be provided to a person who has an advance request but is not able to consent to MAID at the time of the procedure?

COMMENTS: An advance request does not permit a person to change his/her mind, even at the last moment. Every human being has the right to change his/her mind. Even a mentally incompetent person has human dignity and human rights and could decide at the last moment that he/she does not want to die. Advance consent robs that person of his/her rights and eliminates absolutely necessary safeguards to prevent abuse.

Section E: Additional Comments

1. Do you have any other comments you want to share that have not been covered in the discussion so far?

COMMENTS: MAID is a euphemism for murder. Prior to June 2016, acts of euthanasia and assisted suicide were acts of homicide. This is still the case in most countries of the world. It is never acceptable to purposefully hasten or facilitate the death of a human being, no matter how sick or disabled. Human dignity demands we value and respect their lives and provide compassionate care up to the point of their natural death, even when there is great suffering. The sick and disabled are particularly vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, and the law should afford special protection to them. In addition, sick children or those with mental illness or dementia are incapable of giving fully informed consent, which means that providing euthanasia for them is tantamount to execution.