Euthanasia: then and now

Hitler's euthanasia Program and Aktion T4:

(All emphasis added)

"The goal of the Nazi Euthanasia Program was to kill people with mental and physical disabilities. In the Nazi view, this would cleanse the “Aryan” race of people considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society. In the Nazi context, however, "euthanasia" was a euphemistic or indirect term for a clandestine murder program and Aktion T4."

(MAID: Must have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability. Under Canadian law, if your only medical condition is a mental illness, you are not eligible to receive MAID until March 17, 2027. However, if you have a mental illness alongside other qualifying physical conditions, you may still be assessed for eligibility.)

The UN on MAID: "Rosemary Kayess, Committee Expert and Leader of the Taskforce for Canada, said it was concerning that persons with disabilities sought access to medical assistance in dying due to unmet needs, which was a systemic failure of the State party. The disproportionate impact of these failures, which included poverty, and a lack of access to employment and services, underpinned the so-called choice for seeking medical assistance in dying as an alternative. How was this not State-sanctioned euthanasia? If choice was the trigger, why was there not also a focus on addressing the support that person needed, which would take them away from social isolation where they perceived dying as the only option they had?"

Hitler's euthanasia Program: "In the autumn of 1939, Adolf Hitler signed a secret authorization in order to protect participating physicians, medical staff, and administrators from prosecution."

(MAID: Doctors in Canada are protected from being prosecuted for providing Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) through specific exemptions in the federal Criminal Code.

Hitler's euthanasia Program: "Even though physicians and institutional administrators falsified official records in every case to indicate that the victims died of natural causes, the "euthanasia" program quickly became an open secret. There was widespread public knowledge of the measure."

(MAID: the cause of death is reported as the underlying illness, disease, or disability that necessitated the procedure.) 

Conscience rights are violated with Bill C-14

From the Protection of Conscience Project:

"... it is necessary to emphatically reaffirm that conscientious refusal to kill people is a manifestation of essential humanity that deserves the protection of law... 

...Bill C-14 does not provide that protection. The government is deliberately ignoring the ongoing coercion of health care providers to compel participation in euthanasia, and Bill C-14 will allow coercion to continue..." 

...the federal government can prevent such coercion because it has exclusive jurisdiction in criminal law. It can enact a law to prevent powerful groups, professions, or state institutions from forcing people to be parties to homicide and suicide. It can prevent those in power from punishing health care providers who refuse to arrange for their patients to be killed or helped commit suicide...

...It is true that the bill’s preamble states that the government will “respect the personal convictions of health care providers.” But – aside from the fact that preambles have no legal effect – what is that worth? 

...the Special Joint Committee claimed that respect for freedom of conscience is exemplified by their recommendation that, “at a minimum,” objecting physicians should be forced to find colleagues willing to kill their patients. Behind this Orwellian perversion lies the Committee’s more astonishing premise: that the state can legitimately order people to become parties to homicide and suicide, and punish them if they refuse. 

...Whatever else it might decide about euthanasia and assisted suicide, parliament should make it the law of the land that no one and no institution in Canada can be forced to be a party to homicide or suicide, and no one will be punished or disadvantaged for refusing to do so.”

The Gosnell case: why aren't we talking about it?

Brian Lilley lamented that there hasn't been much media overage on the Gosnell story, himself included.

I haven't blogged about it either. Why? It think it's because the story is so horrendous it depresses me. It's also hard to know even what to say about it. How people can travel so far down the slippery abortion slope into what happened, is almost impossible to comprehend.

Yet anyone who discusses the Gosnell case are aghast. Last night I listened to two men in a restaurant who were watching CNN coverage of the case. The sound wasn't on the TV but CNN has text on their screen so it was obvious what they were discussing. The two men watching were totally shocked and disgusted at what they were seeing. One of them didn't know about the case and when the other man was explaining to him what it was; he was incredulous. They both were. We all are.

But I think society is becoming totally inured to abortion because it has become so normalized in society, so celebrated, and so status quo. I have a pro-choice friend who won't even discuss abortion with me. This is what he said to me regarding the abortion debate:
"Its old, tired, based highly on religion and emotion, and when all is said and done, it just plain doesn't matter to me. At least not as long as our society leaves me the right to make my own choices and live life as I please."

That sentiment makes me very sad. But I think that is where we find ourselves now when we can't get people to talk about it. Maybe people think that the Gosnell story is just another abortion story. And they just don't care.

Brian Lilley says that the story deserves more coverage and:
"On Byline we will fix that on Monday. A potential guest fell through for this week but on Monday we have booked Lila Rose of Live Action to talk about this deeply disturbing but very important story."