Sunday, February 28, 2016

Feb 28, 2016: response in part to the latest medical killing developments in Canada

We have already seen how the Parliamentary Committee on medically imposed death has dropped its report and made its recommendations.  I will examine those recommendations later, but for now, I have a few questions to ask and observations to make.

I have said in this blog, that no-one realizes how deep a change we will experience in Canada when the deathists have successfully imposed their death wish on us.  I pointed out how deep the changes will be.  This is why I am not surprised when we learn the Parliamentary committee on assisted dying has made such radical suggestions, which go beyond the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) decision.

This was the inevitable end game.  Except instead of taking decades or years, we now have death for those who cannot possibly consent before one death has happened; we have death for minors considered to be ‘mature’; we have death for those who have psychological or psychiatric ailments; we have a situation wherein someone can reject treatment of any kind – in favour of medically imposed death.

These are all things which have happened piecemeal in other places.  Certainly we do not have child killing yet, but that time will come sooner than people realize.  All it will take will be a minor to have the bug placed in their ear that they can get death, and a Charter challenge and emancipation from parents will ensue.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that parents will find themselves without children when they make a decision ‘not in the best interests’ of the child (or medical team).  We will hear, I predict, of cases where children are taken from families and killed because the parents didn’t want death.

As well, we learn now that religious hospitals in Canada will be forced to kill, even though medical killing goes against their beliefs, even though their beliefs are protected in the Charter.  That means the Charter of rights is no longer a conceptual menu, it’s a buffet.  Those with an interest in killing can choose to ignore what is inconvenient for them in favour of a preconceived outcome.  So if we can pick and choose – or have someone pick and choose for us what our rights are at any given time in certain social contexts - then we do not, any of us, have rights anymore, we have government approved privileges.

The right to do anything in our society is held by those who have social, or political (or economic) power.  Those without power will be allowed to voice their opinion, but the action will be decided by those who have the power to act. Let’s be clear: those with social power to kill will use that social power.  And since there have been half-truths and lies and manipulation in this imposition of death, underhanded tactics will continue.  Remember, dead men tell no tales.

And we just have to trust that those with the power to act will choose to act in our best interests.  This isn’t necessarily so.  This is because what is the organization’s best interest is not necessarily our best interest.

Unless the presumed best interest is death despite all.  Then it’s all ‘okay’.  Except we still have the problems of doctors’ conscience rights.  I read recently online that the Canadian Paediatric Association has said they don’t want to have to kill their young patients.  Too bad.  They’ll have to kill anyway.

As well, I read in The Globe and Mail recently that medically imposed death is supposed to be a choice between doctor and patient.  Oops.  You see, if that were true, then we wouldn’t have legislation requiring everyone to kill.  So it’s not about a person’s choice – it’s now about latent social control of the powerless.

One euthanasia enthusiast has said the guidelines are ‘a floor, not a ceiling’.  So in other words, we are starting from this place and making everyone vulnerable.

I am sure the euthanasia enthusiasts reading this will have abandoned the piece by now, arguing to me with soothing words, ‘it’s not going to be like that’ or ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’.  I am certain that we are now going to hear about things getting much, much worse.

The context of medical care prior to this decision and report was founded in discrimination in care; economic and cost-cutting considerations; organizational considerations; presumed consent; abuse and steering.

What makes us think those issues have disappeared after we have such sweeping changes in care?

We don’t have medical killing in Canada – yet.  The drop-dead time for this is June 6, 2016. (How ironic that the anniversary of the assault on Normandy – which ultimately showed the world the Holocaust some eleven months later – should be chosen as the time when doctors are free to kill – but history has never been the strong suit of euthanasia enthusiasts). 

Before that time, if someone wants to die, they will have to get a lawyer and apply to the courts, at least in Ontario.  Which means they will have to pay out of their own pocket for representation. (Why the civil liberties association hasn’t said they’d help for free is beyond me, unless it’s all about the money).  And that need for representation will be cited as an example of injustice in care.

Which leads me to ask another question: why the rush?  Why is the justice Minister saying she will have draft legislation in two weeks’ time if the decision was just handed down?  If we are dealing with life and death, should we not take a very conservative (in the sense of saving people’s lives) approach and consider each step?

Euthanasia enthusiasts will say no, precisely because they want to kill.  There is a rising collective blood lust in our culture.  I can give you examples from popular culture from blood sports to snuff videos to pet torture shows, but let’s consider this.  The attitude seems to be one of impatience to kill as soon as possible.  It’s like a medical blood lust, approved by those with social power against those without.

That is hardly a careful or considered position.  That is an enthusiastic response which underlines my notion that it has never been about the dying.  It’s about killing for social control.  If a nurse – who can kill in Canada – gets a patient who is a ‘problem’, what can he or she do?  ‘If you don’t behave or do what I want, I’ll kill you…’

You may protest and say that this won’t happen.  In England, we have a case where a nurse killed two of her patients and left two others in worse states after drowning them in their beds.  I think she’s in jail now.

We have a euthanasia activist, Charles Cullen, who euthanized two of his patients and is now, unjustly to euthanasia enthusiasts, in jail for it.

We have patients defined as bed-blockers in Canada where now a person with dementia can be killed.  Certainly the ideal is that the person has to make that decision well before dementia and when they are lucid, but what’s to stop someone from killing the patient overnight?  Who will know?  The family won’t know different, and remember the ideal that the now dead patient isn’t suffering…  An a priori decision means the patient has to be prescient in what will happen to them, not what might happen to them.

Remember, these guidelines are a floor, not a ceiling.  Except we don’t know which floor we’re on, and which direction we are going in, up or down.  And that choice of direction will determine our ultimate destination.

The only safe answer to this is NO.  Vulnerable human lives are at stake in this struggle.  People who are silent on the sidelines are now complicit in death by virtue of their silence.  That’s because silence equals consent in our culture.  And silence in life will lead to silence when death is imposed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment; I might have a turnaround time to post!