Euthanasia - Bing, bing, bing.
Slippery slope straight ahead.
Last week the television channels in Quebec (the CBC, TVA, it was the same) rejoiced in a loop of the judgment of a Quebec judge in the case of euthanasia. All accompanied by long complacent testimony from two people who asked to be euthanized visibly delighted with this decision. Having read very few criticisms of this decision in the mainstream press, we believe it beneficial to publish that of Michael Cook published on Mercatornet.
A little more than 8,000 people died in Canada after the implementation of its law on medical assistance in dying in 2016. From now on, it will probably become even easier after the decision of a Quebec judge. Last week, Superior Court Judge Christine Baudouin declared unconstitutional a provision of Bill C-14, a federal statute that limits euthanasia to terminally ill patients. A clause states that the patient's natural death must be "reasonably foreseeable". This means, according to lawyers advocating euthanasia, that some patients who want to die,
but have no expiration date, may suffer indefinitely. The judge agreed.
In her decision, Justice Baudouin wrote that denying them access to medical aid in dying was tantamount to "forcing them to endure heavy physical and psychological suffering". "The court does not hesitate to conclude that the requirement that their death be reasonably foreseeable is a violation of [the complainants] 's rights to liberty and security. The pro-euthanasia activists were delighted.
"Three years ago, during the [federal] law debate, we expressed our concerns about the reasonable foreseeability test, claiming that it did not comply with the Carter [Supreme Court] decision. ], "Said Cory Ruf, of Dying Dignity Canada. He had heard of Canadians who had gone to Switzerland to be euthanized, who were starving or who had committed suicide because they could not get help under the law. Bioethicist Jocelyn Downie and a colleague commented that Judge Baudouin's "770-paragraph decision is an overwhelming indictment of the useless cruelty of the" reasonable foreseeability "test. His decision is also consistent with the Carter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada,
in the opinion of many constitutional law experts and a majority of members of the Canadian Senate. "
However, for Dr. Michel Racicot, who represents the Collective of Physicians against Euthanasia, the judgment sends a bad message. "If we take away this criterion (to be at the end of life), we do not transform medical aid to death into help for the dying person, but it becomes almost a death on demand for people who are suffering, but who may still have to be a long period of life before them.
In addition, while the Canadian government is promoting suicide prevention, the removal of the "reasonably foreseeable" clause creates a two-tier suicide system, he said. "We're going to have two kinds of suicides: the good suicide, which is going to be the medical aid in dying for people who are not at the end of life - because it's a form of suicide, you do not have to to hide - and the bad suicide that we try to prevent. "
A little more than 8,000 people died in Canada after the implementation of its law on medical assistance in dying in 2016. From now on, it will probably become even easier after the decision of a Quebec judge. Last week, Superior Court Judge Christine Baudouin declared unconstitutional a provision of Bill C-14, a federal statute that limits euthanasia to terminally ill patients. A clause states that the patient's natural death must be "reasonably foreseeable". This means, according to lawyers advocating euthanasia, that some patients who want to die,
but have no expiration date, may suffer indefinitely. The judge agreed.
In her decision, Justice Baudouin wrote that denying them access to medical aid in dying was tantamount to "forcing them to endure heavy physical and psychological suffering". "The court does not hesitate to conclude that the requirement that their death be reasonably foreseeable is a violation of [the complainants] 's rights to liberty and security. The pro-euthanasia activists were delighted.
"Three years ago, during the [federal] law debate, we expressed our concerns about the reasonable foreseeability test, claiming that it did not comply with the Carter [Supreme Court] decision. ], "Said Cory Ruf, of Dying Dignity Canada. He had heard of Canadians who had gone to Switzerland to be euthanized, who were starving or who had committed suicide because they could not get help under the law. Bioethicist Jocelyn Downie and a colleague commented that Judge Baudouin's "770-paragraph decision is an overwhelming indictment of the useless cruelty of the" reasonable foreseeability "test. His decision is also consistent with the Carter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada,
in the opinion of many constitutional law experts and a majority of members of the Canadian Senate. "
However, for Dr. Michel Racicot, who represents the Collective of Physicians against Euthanasia, the judgment sends a bad message. "If we take away this criterion (to be at the end of life), we do not transform medical aid to death into help for the dying person, but it becomes almost a death on demand for people who are suffering, but who may still have to be a long period of life before them.
In addition, while the Canadian government is promoting suicide prevention, the removal of the "reasonably foreseeable" clause creates a two-tier suicide system, he said. "We're going to have two kinds of suicides: the good suicide, which is going to be the medical aid in dying for people who are not at the end of life - because it's a form of suicide, you do not have to to hide - and the bad suicide that we try to prevent. "
There is a memorable episode in Winnie the Pooh, a classic of children's literature, which describes what is happening in Canada.
"Here is the Martin Bear coming down the stairs, bing, bing, bing, on the nape, behind Christophe Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way down the stairs, but it sometimes seems to him that there must be another way, if only he could stop a moment to bang his head and reflect. "
Bing, bing, bing, the Canadian Medical Aid to Death Act goes down the slippery stairs. An act that was imposed on Canadians by the Supreme Court, let us remember, and was not approved by the voters in a referendum. Much to the dismay of Dignity Canada, the "reasonably foreseeable" clause in Bill C-14 prevented Medical Assistance in Dying from becoming euthanasia on demand when it was passed in 2016. This clause was a glimmer of common sense in a bad law.
As Dr. Racicot pointed out, it prevented vulnerable people from killing themselves just because they were shot. Canada goes to the polls on October 18th. Whatever the winning party, the government will have to look at this judgment by appealing or simply accepting it. Unfortunately, things could easily get worse. Bill C-14 left three other issues unresolved: euthanasia for children (under age 18), advance directives for euthanasia and euthanasia for mental illness. The current federal government prepares reports on each of these issues. Given the precedent of Judge Baudouin's judgment and the intense pressure exerted by the euthanasia lobby, it will be difficult to resist the slippery slope that is driving the law toward euthanasia on demand.
"If only he could stop for a moment to bang his head and think. Canadians, like Winnie the Pooh, may not have the opportunity to do so.
"Here is the Martin Bear coming down the stairs, bing, bing, bing, on the nape, behind Christophe Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way down the stairs, but it sometimes seems to him that there must be another way, if only he could stop a moment to bang his head and reflect. "
Bing, bing, bing, the Canadian Medical Aid to Death Act goes down the slippery stairs. An act that was imposed on Canadians by the Supreme Court, let us remember, and was not approved by the voters in a referendum. Much to the dismay of Dignity Canada, the "reasonably foreseeable" clause in Bill C-14 prevented Medical Assistance in Dying from becoming euthanasia on demand when it was passed in 2016. This clause was a glimmer of common sense in a bad law.
As Dr. Racicot pointed out, it prevented vulnerable people from killing themselves just because they were shot. Canada goes to the polls on October 18th. Whatever the winning party, the government will have to look at this judgment by appealing or simply accepting it. Unfortunately, things could easily get worse. Bill C-14 left three other issues unresolved: euthanasia for children (under age 18), advance directives for euthanasia and euthanasia for mental illness. The current federal government prepares reports on each of these issues. Given the precedent of Judge Baudouin's judgment and the intense pressure exerted by the euthanasia lobby, it will be difficult to resist the slippery slope that is driving the law toward euthanasia on demand.
"If only he could stop for a moment to bang his head and think. Canadians, like Winnie the Pooh, may not have the opportunity to do so.
Thank you for your visit
