- Feb 5, 2002
- 187,638
- 69,649
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Donald Trump may or may not bomb Iran in the next few days. His cheerleaders will cite the Tehran regime’s brutal executions of Iranian protesters as justification. But if the President is in the mood for humanitarian interventions and stopping barbarism, he might also want to make good on his pledge to annex Canada.
Once praised as a paragon of decency and civility, Canada is now turning into a dystopian society in which so-called “healthcare” professionals wield increasingly terrifying power of life and death.
Infant euthanasia isn’t yet law, but given the expansion of Canada’s euthanasia laws, it soon could be. In 2016, Canada legalized “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or MAiD, for terminally ill adults. Five years later, its Parliament lifted the requirement that a patient’s death be “reasonably foreseeable.” By 2022, lawmakers were discussing euthanasia for minors and in psychiatric cases, and next year MAiD for mental illness will become legal.
When a government grants permission to end a life, where does it stop? “Once you start legalizing, there is a risk that a significant number of physicians normalize this practice. It’s like putting fuel on the fire,” says Trudo Lemmens, a law professor at the University of Toronto, who now regrets supporting Canada’s original MAiD laws. Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute think tank asks the question: “If killing is an acceptable answer to suffering, why limit the killing to adults?”
The CMQ insists that MAiD is a medical matter. Ending life, it argues, can itself be a form of care. That phrasing is chilling. It suggests a shift towards a sinister utilitarian paternalism, where bureaucrats judge whether a life is worth living – and if it isn’t, then the “caring” thing to do is to terminate it. Babies, of course, have no say in this matter. Others must infer their suffering and interpret their interests. And so a law once presented as care for consenting adults at the end of life could now lead to involuntary euthanasia for babies at the start of life.
Continued below.
Once praised as a paragon of decency and civility, Canada is now turning into a dystopian society in which so-called “healthcare” professionals wield increasingly terrifying power of life and death.
Canadian doctors are considering euthanizing newborns under certain circumstances as a form of “healthcare.” When Dr. Louis Roy advocated for this in 2022, it sparked widespread outrage and the proposal appeared to be dead. It wasn’t. When the Daily Mailpressed the CMQ last year, it confirmed it still endorses the recommendation. It recently stated that euthanasia for babies with “severe deformations” or “extreme pain” may be medically justified. Public outrage, as usual, has faded in the shadow of Canada’s euthanasia bureaucracy.
Infant euthanasia isn’t yet law, but given the expansion of Canada’s euthanasia laws, it soon could be. In 2016, Canada legalized “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or MAiD, for terminally ill adults. Five years later, its Parliament lifted the requirement that a patient’s death be “reasonably foreseeable.” By 2022, lawmakers were discussing euthanasia for minors and in psychiatric cases, and next year MAiD for mental illness will become legal.
When a government grants permission to end a life, where does it stop? “Once you start legalizing, there is a risk that a significant number of physicians normalize this practice. It’s like putting fuel on the fire,” says Trudo Lemmens, a law professor at the University of Toronto, who now regrets supporting Canada’s original MAiD laws. Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute think tank asks the question: “If killing is an acceptable answer to suffering, why limit the killing to adults?”
The CMQ insists that MAiD is a medical matter. Ending life, it argues, can itself be a form of care. That phrasing is chilling. It suggests a shift towards a sinister utilitarian paternalism, where bureaucrats judge whether a life is worth living – and if it isn’t, then the “caring” thing to do is to terminate it. Babies, of course, have no say in this matter. Others must infer their suffering and interpret their interests. And so a law once presented as care for consenting adults at the end of life could now lead to involuntary euthanasia for babies at the start of life.
Continued below.
