Canada is on the verge of instituting the most radical culture of death in the world.
More radical than the Netherlands, which allows psychiatrists to euthanize the mentally ill.
More radical than Belgium, in which euthanasia of the disabled and mentally ill have been conjoined with organ harvesting.
That’s radical! So why is Canada more radical?
I’m glad you asked. Up until now, the so-called “right to die” has been a right to ask. The decision of whether to make the patient dead has been solely up to the doctor.
It looks increasingly like that won’t be the case in Canada. The Supreme Court’s ruling is so broad and absolute, it would appear to create a positive right to be made dead if one has a diagnosable medical condition–a very broad category–that causes irremediable suffering, a determination solely in the view of the patient, even if he refuses alleviating treatment.
Topping it off, euthanasia will be a free service paid for by the government under Canada’s single payer health plan–which works really well for socialized medicine as there is no cheaper “medical treatment” than a lethal injection.
Evidence that the court pushed a right to ask, into an actual right to die, is seen again in its just released ruling granting the government four extra months to write legislation implementing its original decision. Note the language I put in italics:
During the four-month During extension period, we grant an exemption to those who wish to exercise their rights so that they may apply to the superior court for the relief of their jurisdiction in according [in accordance to the terms of the original decision].
An “exercisable right” goes beyond mere legality into an action the government must guarantee, as in the right to vote.
But how would a government guarantee a citizen’s right to be made dead?
The government could do the actual killing, highly unlikely in a country that opposes capital punishment.
It could create a new profession of lay executioners–Jack Kevorkian’s proposal, and something Scotland has considered. That’s also unlikely as the purpose here is to normalize euthanasia and have it viewed as just another “medical treatment” like surgery or antibiotics.
It could coerce doctors to do the deed on demand of the patient–or force doctors to refer to a known death doctor–as a condition of medical licensure. No medical conscience allowed. This seems to be the approach that Canada’s medical establishment prefers.
It could force nurses to be the death agents. They always get the dirty jobs. This has been recommended by a panel of “experts” under the auspices of the provincial governments.
What happens in Canada may not stay in Canada. Many political progressives want the USA to emulate that country’s healthcare system. So we can expect the same kind of agitation to commence here in the not too distant future.
By the way, many abortion activists in the USA want to turn abortion into the same kind of positive right. This could come to pass, as I have written, if the basis for the abortion license shifts from privacy under Roe v Wade to equal protection of the laws, as desired by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Winter is coming.