Dear Dad:
The more I learn about Canada's Euthanasia law, the more concerned I become.
At first, there was one 'track' which was only for those people who were terminally ill and expected to die soon.
Then, they opened a second track to include people who aren't dying in the near future, but are suffering from irreversible conditions that affect their quality of life. The irreversible conditions don't have to be severe, just a condition that won't improve & all people have to say is they 'can't go on', then the government would be more than willing to dispose of them.
In 2023, an expansion was passed to allow a new Euthanasia track for people who suffer only from mental illness to be euthanized, though they deferred it's implementation until March 2027.
Now they're pushing for killing babies under the age of one who have chronic conditions such as down's syndrome, spina bifida, blindness, deafness, diabetes, asthma, etc. Essentially, all the infants they could not dispose of through the massacre called 'abortion'.
They also want 'mature minors' (as young as 12 years old) to have the right to request Euthanasia - with or without parental consent.
How can this be when doctors themselves can't say for certain that the conditions from which they suffer will be fatal, and who decides whether the quality of life they have is not worth living?
The one thing all these tracks had in common was it required to ask the 'applicant' just prior to starting the procedure if they still wanted to die. Now, they're discussing whether they will even require that final consent to be obtained.
We often discussed in 2016 the 'slippery slope' that would come once this law was put into practice. Dad, in only 9 years, Euthanasia has not gone down a slippery slope. Our country is in an outright free fall, and the impact to our Canadian society is devastating.
Love you and think of you often.
Lee-Ann
Let's focus on the proposed new track at hand.
Canadian Children may be euthanized with or without parental consent. (link to article)
The above article was first posted on the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition website (www.epcc.ca) and talks specifically about euthanizing children -- which is a different group than 'mature minors' which they said would include minors as young as 12 years old.
The passage in the article that sticks out most to me was:
"According to an article by Sharon Kirkey published by Sun Media, on October 9, 2018; the ethicists at the Children's Hospital believe that there is no difference between killing someone and letting them die. Kirkey reported:
The working group said it wasn’t convinced that there is a meaningful difference for the patient “between being consensually assisted in dying (in the case of MAID) and being consensually allowed to die (in the case of refusing life-sustaining interventions).”
Some people would dispute that, I know I would. There is a difference in a person's self-esteem and self-worth when they die a natural death as opposed to someone deliberately killing them. The willingness to end a life, as if it's not worth saving, has an effect whether it's admitted or not.
What is most concerning is the question of when and where will these conversations take place. When they discuss Euthanasia with children, will they make parents aware the conversation is taking place, or will they cite privacy laws and ensure these discussions happen behind closed doors?
Will they simply wait until the parents are gone to have this conversation, seeing as it has been made clear that it's the child's decision, not the parents'? Will parents arrive to visit their child only to find out they've been euthanized without their knowledge?
Many people would accuse me of fear-mongering; however, all the 'what if' questions and concerns raised at the onset of the Euthanasia regime back in 2016 have come to fruition in less than 10 years. Is it fear-mongering to warn others of dangers to themselves and their loved ones? That our government is moving to a place where they will inevitably decide who's life is worth saving and whose isn't - who gets suicide prevention and who gets just suicide.
Right now, we can legally kill someone with a long-term illness that won't improve, whether or not it's life-threatening. We can legally kill Canadians who suffer from mental illness, as long as doctors can also find a physical condition that will not improve. We have already passed a law that will allow us to kill Canadians who struggle with mental health issues, not physical ones, though its legal implementation has been deferred to March 2027.
It is beyond unethical to engage in suicidal discussions with young minds who have neither the life experience nor the knowledge base with which to make an informed decision of this magnitude. It is equally predatory to engage in suicidal discussions with people who may be suffering from depression, social isolation, despair, feelings of worthlessness, and the list goes on.
Despite their training, medical staff cannot say with any certainty when someone will die, there are many cases of people recovering unexpectedly, defying medical odds. Those cases exist in balance with the number of people who were expected to recover, but died suddenly - sometimes with no medical explanation to be found.
My goal for this blog is not to perpetuate fear, but to raise awareness, about the Euthanasia regime, to educate, and to prompt discussions involving all members of our society, regardless of their age. To remind people that their lives have value regardless of the challenges they may face.
With God's grace and the determination of Canadians, we can and will turn the tide.
So I challenge you as a reader to speak to your member of parliament, to have an honest discussion with your family and friends about their value in your life, and to become a member of your provincial pro-life organization to both show your support and get updates on critical issues that affect our society.
We ask you to stand with us by sending your prayers, speaking to your parliamentary representatives, educating those around you, and protecting our country by living up to our national anthem to 'stand on guard for thee'.
