Canada Is on the Verge of Instituting the Most Radical Culture of Death in the World

Wesley J. Smith January 18, 2016 3:01 PM | Permalink

That's right, if the nation's Supreme Court conjures a "right" to be dead, Canada will be 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! Up until now, the so-called "right to die" has been a right to ask. The ultimate decision 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 killed 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. That 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 killed?

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 United States 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 U.S. 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.

A) Who is suggesting amending the Constitution?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don’t know where you’ve been for the past 8 years or so.

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that weâ€™re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

Americans “need help” to determine when they can live and die.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=0

Oh, I’m sorry, I meant they need help to determine what medical treatment they need. And thanks to several cases, in particular the Terri Schiavo case, hydration and nutrition are classified as “medical treatment”.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/1001/p1555.html

So as you see, we don’t have to do anything as radical as amending the Constitution to enact this glorious tax-saving measure. The federal government already has control of the means; they don’t need an amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B) What does this have to do with the article?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well let’s see.

We have a large number of people here in the U.S. who think that Canada is the model of healthcare that we need to follow. So we should watch what Canada does so we can see what’s planned for us.

Canada has been “ahead” of us for quite a while on this socialized medical care thing. They’re following a pattern we’ve seen before and are still seeing in Britain and other socialist and quasi-socialist countries. That pattern is:

Sick people are costing us money. Let’s get rid of the sick people!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.