Without any fanfare, Canada passed a somber and chastening milestone last month: the 10th anniversary of its legalization of euthanasia. During this time, at least 100,000 euthanasia deaths have been reported—and, given the systemic evasion of official procedures and protocols that are endemic to this depraved practice, the real number of voluntary and involuntary liquidations is, in all likelihood, far greater than even this alarming six-figure number.
Nor is the failure to keep accurate records any great surprise. The man-made law that Canada has put in place that allows medical murder flouts a commandment written on the very hearts of men: Thou shalt not kill. An entire institutional apparatus now facilitates suicide for the desperate and despairing and the extermination of those whose lives have been deemed futile or merely “unfit.” Little wonder that, in flagrantly violating a divine, primordial commandment, accurate bookkeeping falls by the wayside as well.
Nevertheless, it is shocking that Parliament itself has not adhered to its own legal duties. When C-14 was passed and euthanasia was legalized in June 2016, this law required Parliament to review the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime in June 2020 and to issue a report the following year. It has never carried out that review, although eligibility for MAiD has, in the meantime, significantly expanded.
Parliament has a duty to fulfill its statutory obligation and to perform the review which the original law mandated. If such a forensic review were to be performed, the results would surely be quite illuminating. There is, without any doubt, a deeply ingrained culture of abuse to be uncovered, one which likely ranges from inappropriate coercive circumstances to outright criminal circumventions. The very fact that, despite numerous complaints and justified outcry from bereaved and aggrieved families, only one single physician has been barred from practicing MAiD, and no medical professional has ever been charged, tells the tale. MAiD is a lawless, renegade, and murderous enterprise that is badly in need of careful oversight, followed by complete dismantling, and forensic prosecution of criminal malefactors thereafter.
The long overdue Parliamentary review would also need to reckon with the unsettling fact that the very law which established MAiD seems to have been written in a way that makes it impossible to prosecute violations. The phrasing of the law states that: “the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner” who administers medical death must, among other things “be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria” which are set out in the relevant subsection. What this means, in effect, is that if a doctor or nurse thinks the patient is eligible, he or she is eligible. Not only does this allow anyone potentially vulnerable to the murderous judgements of rogue members of the medical establishment, it also means that, should they impose these judgements on the unwilling or the unwitting, they will almost certainly be found not guilty of any crime.
A brief thought experiment illustrates the outrageous license that this horribly skewed legal test grants to those who administer the euthanasia regime. One need only imagine if legislation in any other sphere regulated by the law—from bank fraud to statutory rape—were to be written with such deference to the mental state of the accused. The benefit of the doubt preemptively extended to those wielding life-ending interventions is incredible: it gives every protection to those administering death itself, while depriving victims who have been murdered under the auspices of MAiD of no legal recourse. Indeed, that statute reads like it was designed to prevent mens rea—that is, the “guilty mind” essential for criminal prosecutions—from ever being established.
The fact that Parliament has not conducted the requisite review is symptomatic of the blind eye being turned to the phenomenon of MAiD by both Canadian politicians and the public at large. The mind recoils from a practice so atrocious and depraved that Nazi Germany can be fairly cited as an example of a society that experimented with euthanasia on a similarly large scale.
The incuriosity on the part of those charged with legal oversight is, nevertheless, appalling—and we, therefore, call for an immediate review. Parliament has the duty to fulfill the obligations that its own laws have established, and it is in dire need of high-quality information about the ever-increasing—and ever-expanding—practice of euthanasia so that it can identify and then remedy the clear abuses of a system that seems designed to protect murdering doctors and not their vulnerable patients.
The need for an immediate, extensive, and unflinching examination of the MAiD program is urgent. The blithe impunity with which medical practitioners now eliminate the lives of their incapacitated patients and actively encourage those with manageable, treatable, non-terminal conditions is alarming, and its toleration is unspeakably corrosive. Moreover, if the COVID years taught us anything, it is that every citizen is only one emergency away from being deeply enmeshed in the practices, precautions, and protocols of public health. The instances of MAiD that some individual doctors and nurse practitioners have now administered is in the hundreds. Would you want to meet any of them in an emergency room?
We, in Canada, can be justly proud of the many excellent, exacting, and scrupulous members of the medical profession on whose care and expertise we regularly rely. Indeed, the institution of medicine is far too important to allow the rot of an all-but unregulated and unreviewed program dealing out death on an industrial scale to be tolerated. Euthanasia should, of course, be completely banned; but, until that time, Parliament must heed its own laws and conduct a review that is long overdue of a murderous, infamous, and inhumane program that continues to besmirch our country on the international stage and to corrupt it from within. Those with serious mental and physical ailments deserve better than being dispatched in a callous and casual manner. And we all deserve to be ruled by a body that adheres to its own self-imposed legal requirements.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.