This is the same government which has been involved in one scandal after another. And now, apparently, Kathy wants death on demand. (How convenient that she wants this after ramming through her controversial death tax). This seems to me to be a dangerous thing; the same government that benefits from your death wants you to have death on demand. It is possible that this is a conflict of interest, and that the government should not be in the business of providing death.
A problem with this victory hailed by the euthanasia enthusiasts is that they ignore the obvious: people are now going to die in this province as a policy decision. A policy is going to be formulated which allows government representatives to kill the citizens which elected the government that created that same policy. So death as a policy decision now becomes a political expedient by default of that decision.
Why do something which would cause you to lose even further in the polls? We might not have an answer to that question. However, we do know of the conflict between this government and the province’s doctors. We also know that doctors have mounted a working protest against the imposed policies of that same government.
Those protests have not stopped the policies, which has been called anti-democratic. So if doctors cannot change the policies of the government that employs them, the outcome is that those doctors are professionally disenfranchised. This is despite being in a democracy, and despite supposed checks and balances in place to allow for protest.
So what hope do patients have if they are targeted for death? How is that possible? Secrecy is built into the way doctors and nurses – and hospitals – operate. Yet that secrecy is not to protect the patient; it is to protect those who are trying to kill the patient. And dead patients say nothing and they save money.
If this sounds morbid and far-fetched, one wonders if this will become the norm. I have already outlined how the Ontario government is denying care and medications to its citizens, so how much of a stretch is it to think that they could push death over care? Remember, this is the perfect crime, because the victim, after the fact, ‘agrees’ to be killed. I am sure that the savings and freed-up beds are not going to be considered. At least not out loud.
But the fact that this is a new silent benefit, and it works for the government, which is trying to save money. Another silent benefit is the genetic and eugenic improvement of the human race; although I have never heard this stated anywhere. As well, the notion that we can keep undesirable parts of society from reproducing or even being present is once again becoming popular. I am writing of Denmark which has made a policy decision to be Down Syndrome free by 2016; no-one seems to have protested this political and policy move.
So that secrecy will be common; we also find that there are unspoken parts of this deal around killing patients which we will never learn. This tells us that people who are silent are assumed to be for medically provided death; people who protest now are automatically seen as dissenters, if not hatemongers.
This notion started as people telling a cautionary tale being fearmongers; we were soothingly told that what we feared – based on lived experience in those regimes which had medical death on imposition (sorry, demand) was not how it was going to be. This is despite the problems: people killed who cannot ask for death; people killed who did not ask for death; people killed for family convenience; people harvested for organs; and people killed for being bed-blockers. That is the lived (irony) experience in those places.
We just haven’t experienced it yet. One has to wonder what will happen when we do experience those problems. It seems as though the problems would be downplayed as isolated incidents. Yet when those incidents are all totaled, we now have a trend, and if it is a trend, it can be measured. The difficulty is that when we have secrets and hidden motivations, we cannot truly get informed consent if information is being hidden or downplayed. So the policy decision is being made without an impartial consideration.
In other words, we were duped. And we will continue to be duped until everyone is going to be in danger of medically imposed death. Remember that this is a policy decision, deliberately arrived at, despite the people who are powerless and would resist this turn of events. The rush to kill the dying and disabled means that we are all less safe, particularly if we are judged to be a liability, whether socially, economically or medically, or genetically.
By the time someone is aware of what the danger will be, it will probably be too late. Because the dead do not complain. Human lives are at stake, yours and mine. You cannot afford to be silent anymore; this is because silence equals consent in our culture.