We need a real pro life doctors movement

Imagine my astonishment when I read this post from the pretend pro life doctors’ movement:

Physicians for Life’s Statement of Principles is silent on the matter of referral. We know that some of our members are comfortable providing a referral for these procedures, while others are not. Referral is a matter of conscience for our members. [colour emphasis added]

However, as an organization, we are taking a stand against mandatory referral. We are supporting broad physician conscience rights and religious freedoms, and those include the right not to refer if doing so conflicts with our members’ ethics, beliefs and/or professional judgement.

I use to work for that organization (1980s) when it was actually pro life. Not at all effective but actually pro life.

My stunned reply:

I simply will not do anything to assist you if some of your members are “comfortable with” referral for assisted suicide. I cannot believe I am even hearing this. Have you sunk so low that you would even WANT such members? Oh wait, you have a tax number. That explains a lot. – Denyse O’Leary, Nepean

I personally believe that tax numbers have gutted the heart out of Christian witness in Canada.

Creating these useless donor job parasites when people’s lives may be at stake has turned out to be a really bad idea.

I now only give to pro life organizations that do NOT have a tax number so they are free to advocate for life. They are not just providing a jobjobjob for nice, harmless persons.

Bluntly, euthanasia erodes the duty of care across the healthcare system because neglected people can always ask for it, and restrictions will soon be dropped. Hence my second reply:

I am ashamed of you.

Please get me off your mailing list. I do my job better if I do not have the stress of even hearing from you anymore. I will doubtless hear your mildly handwringing point of view fronted on the CBC [Canada’s government broadcaster] when euthanasia goes full swing.

How about: Man seeks euthanasia to end his sexuality struggle  [!]

So this is how the pro-life movement ends.

Reality check: I know what the “comfortable” doctors will say: We’re not allowed to refuse to refer.

Then why did you not apprise all your patients that you are obliged to refer for death in order to stay in practice in a progressive regime that would benefit from reducing health care costs? Instead of just declaring yourselves “comfortable” with it? That might have changed their vote.

It might also cause us to ask, why do we need a “Supreme Court” instead of a “Court for Life for all Canadians”?

Progressivism has cost hundreds of millions of lives in the twentieth century. These co-operating doctors’ patients are just small roadkills by comparison. But before progrssivism took hold, maybe they mattered in some way.

Reality check: This problem stems from the fact that Canada does not need Canadians, old or new, any more.

The global elite, including Justin! and Sophie!, can get by fine with almost-slave Third World labour, no-rights temp workers, robots, and migrants. Just like Obama and Merkel can. The Trudeaus can dump the country’s pension obligations via euthanasia and make it ever more difficult to raise children in Canada in any normal or natural way.

Because Canadian kids are not needed either, after all; they are expensive personal fulfilment projects, at best makework for daycares and schools run by progressives.

We need a “Canada for Canadians” (old and new) political movement where the right to live is a priority.

Otherwise, we are cooked: We are all “the fetus” now.

Anyway, pay no attention hereafter to “Canadian Physicians for Life.” They’re just another authorized Soviet church. Ultimately, one hopes, the problem of their continued existence will solve itself.

See also: March for Life: An exercise in planned futility

After I published my piece on the March for Life 2016 as an exercise in futility, I received a few thoughtful comments privately, and I’ll try to address them here.


“The Fetus is Breathing, We Can’t Provide Care” Hey, infant euthanasia fixes that. Would take only one Trudeau Supreme Court decision.

  • BillyHW

    But but but the early suffragettes were pro-life or something!

    • They were (see Susan B. Anthony), but what has that to do with this now?

  • We will never see one unfortunately.

    • This is very serious if you know someone who needs medical care. Just discovering that the doctor is “pro life” mean what now?

      • I look after my Mom best I can, the elderly need constant vigilance, as their care is often substandard.

        • I know, and the worst thing about euthanasia is that the seniors who are worth more financially are bigger targets. I doubt we have any politicians in Canada with the guts to take on the Trudeau family legacy of murder of innocents s (abortion and euthanasia). If we had, we could possibly doom the progressives. Otherwise, hell for all.

        • BCF, it’s a chance to live backwards for a brief moment. I explain to my dad stuff he used to explain to me. He nods and says, you don’t visit me often enough. I used to think, you are away all day [at work]. The river of time flows on.

  • Denyse, take a look at the country you are in. Canadians are morally lazy. ANY pro-life effort is shovelling sand against the tide.

    That being said, no one can weaken now. Things are getting worse for everyone and the powder must be kept dry.

  • Shebel

    I am ‘Pro-Choice’ for the individual .
    Not Pro-Death . Not Pro- Life.
    I don’t think that some little girl should be forced to have a Baby because it makes YOU feel morally superior any more than some olde coot should be forced to die in agony and indignity because it make YOU feel good.
    You don’t want the bureaucracy Dictating your lifestyle—- but–
    You sure as hell have no problem telling the most vulnerable – how to live their lives.

    • FactsWillOut

      If an individual chooses to die, should the state be able to order doctors to help him die? If an individual chooses to abort her child, should the state be able to force doctors to perform the abortion? Should the taxpaying public be forced to pay for either?

      • Shebel

        That depends .
        Should the Taxpayer be forced to pay for a sex change if you suddenly decide that you feel like a women ?

        • FactsWillOut

          I guess that depends on how hot I would be and how much tax revenue would be generated by said hotness.

          That being said, I’d rather like feeling women than feel like women.

          • Shebel

            That is your choice.

          • FactsWillOut

            At any rate, no, the taxpayer should not pay to attempt to mutilate me, especially as it would be against my will.
            That being said, the taxpayer already pays folk to deprive me in detail of economic freedoms, so what the hay? It’s a small step from there to mutilation.

      • Shebel

        No. The state should Not be able to order Doctors to abort or euthanise.
        That is why I am Pro -Choice.

        • FactsWillOut

          My view is that it should not be covered by state healthcare plans, either.

          • Shebel

            I have no problem with that.
            Why should I pay to abort your daughter’s illegitimate child and why should you pay to euthanize my neighbours husband.

          • FactsWillOut

            Again, excellent
            That being said, I don’t think it’s a good idea to forcefully prevent doctors from performing these procedures, or to forcefully prevent folk from obtaining them, provided they pay for them themselves.

            Although, there are a few people I’d happily pay to see…euthanized.

            I think we’re both on the same page here. 🙂

          • Shebel

            Most definitely. haha