Dying with Dignity -- More government lobbying

It looks like Dying with Dignity has a new consultant lobbying Health Canada on their behalf: Puneet Luthra, Company is P S Luthra Consulting Inc.

Last year DWDC spent $213,171 on consulting fees. That's pocket change for them considering their total revenue was $3,791,596 and they had $7,370,174 in long term investments. No wonder they lobby government so much.

Subject Matter Details

Dying With Dignity Canada seeks to influence the Government of Canada to allow for advance requests for medical assistance in dying (MAID) for people who have a diagnosis of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. (from the lobbyist website)

Top 25 largest, wealthiest, worst pro-death groups in Canada

Compare and contrast pro-death charities with pro-life charities.

I looked at 25 pro-death Canadian charities. On average, they depend on government grants for 69% of their revenue. Their receipted donations ($3,880,807) only amount to 7% of their revenue. They received $39,239,005 in grants, or an average of $1,569,560 per charity.

I looked at 15 pro-life Canadian charities. Pro-life charities on average depend on government grants for only .33% of their revenue and depend on 65% of their income on receipted donations ($14,699,109). (Only three of the 15 actually received government funding.) They received a total of $73,558 in grants for those three charities.

(NOTE: all charities also receive revenue from Non-receipted donations, Gifts from other registered charities, and other revenue).

In other words, the pro-deathers probably wouldn't be in the death business at all, if they were not so heavily dependent on government grants. It is a very lucrative business to be in the killing business. Tax dollars literally flow into your income statement by the millions, thanks to Justin Trudeau and his support for abortion and MAID. And I'm not talking about the millions and millions used to do the actual killing part for abortions and MAID deaths. No, I am only talking about the government grants to those who promote/advocate/celebrate the killing.

Pro-death charities

Pro-life charities

Thanks to these very lucrative government grants, the pro-deathers push their killing agenda which also includes attacking pro-life charities. Kind of sickening isn't it?

Definition of a charity: "Your organization's purposes must fall within one or more of these categories

• advancement of education
• advancement of religion
• certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable"

So where does killing people fit into those three categories?

Constitutional rights for Christians

"A religiously affiliated health care facility's primary purpose is to provide health care. Religious beliefs should never interfere with a patient's health care choices; it is unconstitutional and compromises the patient's care when they are most vulnerable. We believe that a person should have access to all their end-of-life choices no matter where they access health care. Addressing this issue is long overdue, and it is incumbent on all of us to restore rights to patients, their loved ones and their clinicians." Helen Long, CEO, Dying With Dignity Canada

The pro-deathers at Dying with Dignity want their constitutional rights adhered to, yet refuse to acknowledge the constitutional rights (freedom of conscience and freedom of religion) of those who run Catholic hospitals. Talk about hypocrisy.

Participating in euthanizing another human being is against Catholic beliefs. For a Catholic doctor to euthanize a patient can put that doctor's eternal soul in grave danger. So no, Catholics do not want to kill people. The pro-deathers may not like these beliefs, but they are also guaranteed under our constitution.

If people ultimately decide to kill themselves, this is extremely tragic. But it is wrong to insist that others actively participate in that killing.

Dying with Dignity's death advocacy is heartwarming, motivating, exciting, wonderful, awesome

Some particularly ghoulish quotes from Dying with Dignity's emails, as they eagerly begged for donations prior to the year end. (Remember that in 2022 they had $8 million dollars in assets; spent a whopping $612,015 on fundraising, $793,408 on advertising, and $1,240,622 on salaries. No small potatoes for these death pushers but clearly they needed more.)

"I have been blown away by the incredible response we received last week in the lead up to the 2023 year-end deadline. It was one of the most heart-warming and motivating acknowledgements of the deep commitment to this work...1,154 donors across 10 provinces, 2 territories, and 3 states, we raised an unprecedented $197,000 toward our 2024 budgetary goals...thank you for being part of this wonderful moment...what this backing means for Dying With Dignity Canada this year... we will be investing deeply in our advocacy, public education, patient navigation and support programs to advance end-of-life choice and care across the country... we will be championing policy changes to remove barriers to access at both the federal level (including any remaining legal impediments) and provincial level (primarily addressing institutional religious obstruction)...The possibilities are quite exciting.

...

I have, what we fondly call at the office, the ‘awesome problem.’It happens when your work goes a little too well. And by solving one problem you create a whole new one — and, of course, make more work for yourself in the process. But I like to focus on the ‘awesome’ part of the ‘awesome problem’: it means that Kelsey, Kat and I are on the right track. People across Canada are hungry for more resources, support and community around end-of-life choice and care. As word spreads about the tools, demand for kits and guides that can help patients and their families at every stage of their end-of-life exploration — including medical assistance in dying (MAID) — has only continued to grow. I have a feeling that you might want to join me in tackling this ‘awesome problem.’ Will you chip in $50, or whatever you can, to help fund Dying With Dignity Canada’s ambitious Support program goals in 2024? Our budget deadline for this ends on December 31.

But then this week DYDC's email took a somber note when they learned that the government will again delay euthanasia for mental illness. Darn it.

DYDC is also pushing for advance requests to be killed. Heck, they will even help you write your own op-ed to newspapers.:

"You can start with something as simple as “This is my experience and why I support advance requests for medical assistance in dying.” Reach out to our Communications team at media@dyingwithdignity.ca if you would like support in writing your piece or connecting with your local paper."

And if you have dementia, there's still hope you can be put to death if you: 

"satisfy all the requirements laid out in the federal law." Whew.

Last but not least DYDC has written a handy booklet: "What to expect at a MAID death." It gives you all the information you need to know about what it's like to be killed by lethal injection but were afraid to ask.

Here Dying with Dignity gets some old people to carry their death signs for them.

This is sick

This is the kind of disgusting drivel we've come to expect from Joyce Arthur's warped Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Doesn't get much sicker than this. 

Pro-deathers run the show

CPSO's so-called consultation with the public on conscience rights was a farce. I think they already knew they were going to force doctors to act against their consciences. Consultations had to be pretend, since feedback was overwhelmingly against the new policy, yet CPSO is still going to implement it.

Seems that the pro-deathers are working overtime. First it was abortion, then assisted suicide, and now we are going to force doctors to do both. What's next, killing infants and those over 60?

The College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario should be ashamed of themselves.

When a clear conscience is no conscience

The anti-consciencers want to make sure that Saskatchewan doctors are prevented from practicing conscientious objection. So they've come up with a draft policy to do just that.

Then, the anti-consciencers got the the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) to adopt in principle, this policy--a dreadful, harmful, job-losing, anti-conscience policy, that would force doctors who commit the sin of following their consciences, to "be subject to discipline by the College."

When coming up with their anti-conscience policy, the anti-consciencers decided in their wisdom (because they know better than the rest of us) that since the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) said the the anti-consciencers "were mistaken with respect to physicians’ duty to refer", well, they'd just ignore the CMA:

"We decided to proceed by way of regulatory bodies rather than the CMA for two main reasons: 1) the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, not the CMA, are the regulators of physicians, which means their policies have more force than CMA policies; and 2) in view of the reaction of the CMA to the editorial described earlier, we thought CMA policy reform was unlikely."

And what did they call this fine policy paper?

"Moving Forward with a Clear Conscience: A Model Conscientious Objection Policy for Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons." 

But the best part of this whole anti-conscience charade, is what the anti-consciencers said in their anti-conscience policy about--conscience:

"Among the issues we examined were the moral nature and value of conscience."

I am not kidding.

"Pro-choicers" attempt to kill conscience rights

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

Saskatchewan physicians to be forced

to participate in killing their patients

For Immediate Release January 29, 2015

OTTAWA – “The assault on freedom of conscience that is spreading across our country ought to be of grave concern to every freedom-loving Canadian ,” MP Maurice Vellacott said upon learning of yet another province (this time his own) that plans to force physicians to participate in morally objectionable procedures, including those that kill. “No health care worker should be forced against their will to take part in the killing of another human being. It would be a grotesque violation of their human dignity.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) has adopted in principle a policyⁱ which it basically “cut and paste” from the Conscience Research Group’s (CRG’s) Model Policy on Conscientious Objection in Medicine.ⁱⁱ

Mr. Vellcott asked a series of questions that paint a disturbing picture of the process, or lack thereof, that went into CPSS’s adoption of this objectionable policy: “Was the CPSS aware that the drafters of the Model Policy, notably Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University, are abortion and euthanasia activists? Did the CPSS solicit input from anyone other than Professor Downie and her team at the CRGⁱⁱⁱ before adopting this policy? Did the Saskatchewan College let on to anyone else that it was even considering this issue? Is the CPSS aware that this policy was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)?”

Mr. Vellacott explained: “Professor Downie and co-author Sanda Rodgers, in a 2006 guest editorial in the CMA Journal, ignited a firestorm of controversy when they falsely claimed that CMA policy requires physicians to make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious/religious beliefs. As Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project, points out in his recent news release, that claim was repudiated by the CMA and vehemently rejected by physicians. And partly as a result of that negative response, Professor Downie turned her attention to the regulatory Colleges to try to convince them to impose mandatory referral.”^iv

Earlier this month, Mr. Vellacott spoke out against a similar draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). At that time, he expressed concerns that if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s current ban on euthanasia or assisted suicide, then CPSO’s policy would mean Ontario’s physicians would have a ‘duty to refer’ patients for these life-ending procedures. He stressed that no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation. ^v

“While the CPSO policy is not identical to the CPSS/CRG Model Policy, in principle it is the same—a coercive attempt to involve physicians in the killing of some of the most vulnerable members of our human family,” Mr. Vellacott said. “The sheer fact that these Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons feel that a coercive policy of referral for these controversial procedures is necessary, is itself testament to the fact that there is something inherently problematic about these procedures in the first place. If they were procedures just like any other medical procedure, there’d be no need to coerce physicians into sacrificing a fundamental part of who they are—their very consciences—in order to provide them.”

“No good can come from forcing a doctor to practice medicine in a way they find morally reprehensible. Killing the consciences of our medical doctors will cause inestimable harm to the people of Canada and society as a whole.”

“One cannot help but wonder, what is the real motivation of those pushing us down this dangerous path? And will we have the courage and wisdom and foresight to stop it?”

For information on providing input to CPSS on its draft policy, visit: http://www.cps.sk.ca/CPSS/CouncilAndCommittees/Council_Consultations_and_Surveys.aspx

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

i The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) is currently seeking input on a conscientious objection policy dubbed “Conscientious Refusal,” which it has adopted in principle. This policy would require physicians who object to providing certain “legally permissible and publicly-funded health services” to “make a timely referral to another health care provider who is willing and able to accept the patient and provide the service.” In cases where the patient’s “health or well-being” would be jeopardized by a delay in finding another physician, the physician would be forced to provide the service even when it “conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.” See: http://www.cps.sk.ca/Documents/Council/2015%201%2019%20Conscientious%20Objection%20policy%20approved%20in%20principle%20by%20Council.pdf

ii http://carolynmcleod.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/04_Downie-McLeod-Shaw.pdf

iii http://conscience.carolynmcleod.com/meet-the-team/

iv “Saskatchewan physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong,” Protection of Conscience Project news release, Jan. 27, 2015, 

http://consciencelaws.org/blog/?p=5548

v See Jan. 8, 2015 news release at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world.pdf ; and Backgrounder at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world%20-%20Backgrounder.pdf