Until Canada’s radical Supreme Court ruling imposing a positive right to euthanasia on the entire country goes into effect, suicidal ill and disabled people can apply to a court for a license to be killed.
From the “Practice Advisory” published by the Ontario court:
Commencement of Application
An application to the Superior Court of Justice for authorization for a physician assisted death shall be commenced by notice of application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and be in accordance with this Practice Advisory.
Content of Notice of Application
The notice of application shall state that the application shall be heard by a judge on a date to be fixed by the registrar at the place of hearing, such date not being earlier than fifteen days after the application is commenced and not being later than thirty days after the application is commenced. Depending upon the circumstances, certain applications may be heard sooner on an emergency basis. The nature of the relief sought on the application must be brought to the attention of the registrar by the applicant at the time of filing so that a hearing date within these time periods, or sooner, can be fixed.
This is just stunning. A judge is going to dispassionately review an application to be killed, and then, rule thumbs up or down.
I doubt there will be many refusals. The Supreme Court’s ruling is so broad and radical that virtually any medical condition beyond a tooth ache can qualify for euthanasia.
And once the ruling goes into effect, even this minor impediment to death will be erased.
This from a country that considers itself too enlightened to countenance a death penalty.
Poor Canada. We hardly knew ye.
Historian Ian Dowbiggin wrote a splendid history of the euthanasia movement back in 2003. It was thorough, detailed, and objective.
The movement cooperated with Dowbiggin by making its archives available for his use. But now, they may have been destroyed. From, “A Scandal in the Euthanasia Archives:”
Imagine for a moment that reporters broke the news that the Vatican had destroyed the bulk of its archival records.
Researchers around the world justifiably might accuse the Roman Catholic Church of a deliberate cover-up.
Well, the Vatican has done no such thing. But it appears as if the right-to-die movement has. If so, one might well ask; why did people in the movement do it? Are they trying to hide something about their past?
One thing is clear: if the euthanasia movement’s records have indeed been destroyed, a lot of history has vanished, Orwell-like, down a cavernous memory hole. And with it, information the right-to-die movement doesn’t want you to know.
What is the evidence?
About five years after the book’s publication, I was contacted by a US graduate student researching the history of euthanasia. She told me that in trying to track down the ESA records she had been informed that the collection had been intentionally destroyed. Just this year another US graduate student got in touch with me, also trying to locate the ESA archives.
She too has been told the records no longer exist, although she is still investigating. Of course, it might be that the ESA records are sitting somewhere safe and sound. Yet why do groups like Compassion and Choices ignore my own requests for information? Why, when a published scholar in the history of medicine enquires about the whereabouts of this important archive, is there a resounding silence?
What might they want to erase:
Not only did these activists urge governments to permit voluntary mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide, many also supported the involuntary mercy-killing of handicapped people. For example, despite his knowledge of widespread Nazi murder of people with disabilities, in 1943 the ESA’s president thought it was a good idea to legalize euthanasia in time for returning veterans who suffered from mental and physical wounds.
The euthanasia movement spent more than one hundred years looking for the right words and impetus to convince people to follow their dark calling. They think they have found it in “compassssssionnnn.”
That is part of it, in a twisted way. But there is so much more to it than that–a malign side–and that is what the modern euthanasiaists may not want people to see.
One of the distinctions between humans and animals is that we are a moral species. Only we create moral codes through rational means–which is one reason they differ from society to society.
Animals are amoral. Whatever morality they appear to show–often anthropomorphized by observers–comes from instinct, not rational discourse and deliberation worked out and changeable over time.
With that in mind, dolphins are often romanticized as gentle sweethearts. But males force females into situations of gang forced intercourse, and may kill unrelated young. From the BBC story:
Small teams of males were usually part of larger “super-alliances” of up to 14 males.
It is also clear that the females are not particularly willing participants. “Male aggression toward a consort included chasing, hitting with the tail, head-jerks, charging, biting, or slamming bodily into the female,” Connor and colleagues wrote in their 1992 paper.
The females frequently “bolted”, but only managed to escape the males once in every four attempts. “Over the course of the year, a female will be herded by lots of different alliances over many different months,” wrote Connor and colleagues
The males also apparently kill the young:
During 1996 and 1997, 37 young bottlenose dolphins washed up on beaches in Virginia. Superficially, there appeared to be nothing wrong with them, but necropsy revealed evidence of “severe blunt-force trauma”.
The injuries were mainly to the head and chest, “and multiple rib fractures, lung lacerations, and soft tissue contusions were prominent,” according to a study published in 2002. There was lots of evidence that adult dolphins were responsible for the deaths.
Notice I didn’t use the term “rape.” That is because an animal cannot commit rape, which is a crime that involves moral turpitude.
The dolphins forcing themselves onto unwilling females, and killing the young isn’t wrong. It is merely dolphins being dolphins.
Of course, when humans do such thing, they are judged rightly as monsters. That is because we are exceptional.
Hillary Clinton has a shriveled moral core. When asked about one of the most important and radical social agendas the other night–the euphemistic, “death with dignity”–she wouldn’t take a position.
At the town hall, Hillary Clinton fielded what she said was her first campaign question about physician-assisted suicide. Clinton didn’t stake out a position on the controversial issue, but said it will come up more frequently as people live longer with serious illnesses.
“It is a crucial issue that people deserve to understand from their own ethical, religious and faith-based perspectives,” she said. Clinton added that she wants to examine what other countries, like the Netherlands, have experienced after enacting laws.
She had no ready answer because she hadn’t yet polled and focus grouped the issue.
But if Secretary Clinton wants to know what has happened in the Netherlands, I’m happy to help:
- The mentally ill are euthanized by psychiatrists.
- Incompetent Alzheimer’s patients are killed by doctors if they asked to die in an advance directive.
- Babies with serious disabilities or terminal illnesses are killed in their cribs.
- The elderly “tired of life” are killed by doctors.
- People with disabilities are killed by doctors.
- People with chronic illnesses are killed by doctors.
- People with terminal illnesses are killed by doctors.
- Euthanasia will soon be conjoined with organ harvesting–already happening in Belgium.
- People who haven’t asked to die are killed by doctors, what is euphemistically called “termination without request or consent.”
- Doctors terminally sedate people–put into an artificial coma and withdraw food and fluids–at shocking rates, so they don’t have to be present when the patient dies
In short, the Netherlands is to the culture of death what Niagara is to water falls.
It seems to me that should settle the question.
Now, Mrs. Clinton, ask about Belgium and Switzerland.
And ask about Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup in Oregon, both denied life-extending chemotherapy by the state, but offered payment for assisted suicide.
Generally speaking, once assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized, people give a fig about abuses.
The media rarely cover such situations, and even when they do, people shrug. They either don’t care or don’t want to think about the wolf in their midst.
I have seen many such situations over the years, but this one out of Belgium takes the cake.
Sisters of a euthanasia abuse victim–killed while depressed and having been diagnosed with autism–are very upset at the death of their beloved sibling. From the De Redactie.BE story (Google translation):
Tine Nys received euthanasia in April 2010. At that time she was 38. A relationship was on the rocks, was the specific reason. “On Christmas Eve 2009, she told her doctor that she would submit a request for euthanasia,” tell her sisters. ”She had a history of mental illness, but at that time she was fifteen years [post treatment] in psychiatry and she took no treatment.
“Two months before her death, Valentine was told after new tests that she was suffering from autism. “It is difficult to understand that euthanasia has gone still and the doctors have proposed no other treatment.”
To obtain euthanasia, three doctors must give their consent. According to the sisters of Tine they chose themselves the doctors in question and which do not exchange information. “Furthermore, one must have an incurable mental illness to euthanasia on the basis of psychological suffering. Debbie who had not.”
But even the killing of their despairing sister–apparently against the supposedly protective guidelines–doesn’t shake their support for euthanasia:
“We will not abandon euthanasia”, highlighted the sisters finally. “In some cases it is necessary.”
Sigh. Once the culture of death gets into a society’s bloodstream, its infection remains virulent,–come what may.