ARTICLE

The Expansion Of Assisted Suicide North Of The Border

News Image By John Stonestreet/Breakpoint.org October 15, 2018
Share this article:

How is it that a nation known for its politeness has become so committed to killing its most vulnerable citizens?

In a horrifying scene from "The Man in the High Castle," Amazon Prime's sci-fi dystopian series where the Nazis won World War II and control more than half of North America, the son of a high-ranking Nazi officials discovers he has an incurable genetic disorder. Committed to the party and the cause, he turns himself in to the party's death doctors and saves the Reich from having to care for him.


His parents are devastated, but the public hails him as a hero. Sadly, the scenario is not as sci-fi as we might like to believe.

In 2016, Canada legalized "Medical Assistance in Dying also known as MAID. The terminology is, of course, a euphemism for euthanasia. To be eligible for MAID, persons must be at least 18-years-old and have a "grievous and irremediable" condition.

Like all such death-devoted legislation, terms like "grievous and irremediable" are moving targets. Descriptions used in the law include expressions like "serious and incurable," "irreversible decline," and suffering--both "physical and psychological"--that a person finds "intolerable."

Of course, nearly all of these words are subjective: What's "intolerable" to one person may not be to another. If Netherlands and Belgium are any indication, we can be sure that eligibility for MAID will, like gas, expand to fill whatever space is available.

Two recent stories illustrate why our fears are grounded in reality. The first story involves people with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. As of now, MAID "is not available to children or people with mental illnesses" and clarifies that anyone seeking to die by doctor's hands "must confirm their wish to proceed at the time of the assisted death."


One Ontario man in the early stages of Alzheimer's wants the law changed to permit an "advanced directive," since he will be unable to comply with the law's confirmation requirements later on.

The Alzheimer Society of Canada offered an obvious objection: "How will you protect [people with Alzheimer's]? ... to make sure that [they're] not vulnerable to decision-makers?" After all, it's possible that "someone could be transformed by dementia and become someone new--with a greater tolerance for incapacity and a different definition of a meaningful life."

The man from Ontario replied, "I have dementia. I'm still a Canadian citizen. I have full rights. I want those rights." And he's willing to sue to "protect" those rights. Since the right to MAID is, in large measure, a creation of the Supreme Court of Canada, I wouldn't bet against him.

The second story concerns an article in "The Journal of Medical Ethics," written by three Canadian doctors, which makes the case for extending MAID to minors. Children.


As Wesley J. Smith notes in National Review, the goal of these doctors is to "normalize" euthanizing children and "reduce the stigma" by calling the killing "a procedure." Accordingly, the authors emphasized the need to hide the identities of those killing children from the public. And, they argued against requiring parental permission--or even parental notification if it were against the child's wishes.

This is right out of "The Man in the High Castle."

As Smith asks, "Can you imagine visiting your sick child, only to learn that hospital doctors killed her because she asked to die and wanted you kept in the dark? The rage and agony would be unimaginable."

The rage and agony might be unimaginable, but the scenario isn't. It represents the logic and worldview that makes euthanasia possible: the belief that some lives are more worthy of life than others.

Once you accept that principle, people will eventually forget why they were originally repulsed by the idea of killing children and those with a disability. And when they arrive at the hospital only to find their loved one's room empty, they'll tell themselves, "Oh, well. He had his rights."

Originally published at Breakpoint.org - reposted with permission.




Other News

March 28, 2026When The Bible Becomes 'Hate Speech': A Wake Up Call For Christians

There are moments in a nation's history when a law reveals far more than legal intent. It exposes the moral direction of a country. This w...

March 28, 2026A Church Chasing Relevance Has Lost Its Reason To Exist

The installation of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury was supposed to project dignity, history, and hope. Instead, it exposed, on...

March 28, 2026The Shadow Army At Israel's Doorstep - One Surprise Attack Away From Disaster

A new investigative report is sounding an alarm that many in Israel and abroad may not be prepared to hear: the Palestinian Authority is ...

March 28, 2026Gavin Newsom And The Democrats' Israel Problem

For Democrats who are already immersed in the run-up to the 2028 presidential election, Israel isn't so much a country in the Middle East ...

March 26, 2026'We're Not Doing This Again' Outcry Over Lockdown 2.0 Fuel Speculation

Concerns over oil supplies have governments quietly dusting off emergency playbooks that could force citizens to ration energy, limit trav...

March 26, 2026The Next Generation Of Iran’s Regime - Even More Radical Than Before?

War is often described as chaos. But the most dangerous wars are not the ones with clear chains of command, identifiable leaders, and know...

March 26, 2026AI, The Antichrist, And The Battle For Authority In The Digital Age

Peter Thiel arrived in Rome this month carrying an unusual set of briefing materials. The billionaire co-founder of Palantir Technologies ...

Get Breaking News