From Margaret Somerville at MercatorNet:
Making the best of a bad law If, as has occurred in both the Netherlands and Belgium, PAD were to become part of the norm and, as in those countries, the same 3.5 percent of total deaths were deaths by euthanasia, Canada would have over 9000 such deaths each year. Dr Ellen Wiebe, the first doctor to kill a patient in Canada pursuant to judicial authorization, told a webinar of around 300 pharmacists that she believed that deaths from euthanasia and assisted suicide in British Columbia would match the Netherlands rate. Taking the annual number of deaths in BC that would mean around 1,212 deaths annually – about three per day – just in that province. More.
Belgium, the EU’s Ground Zero, shows the way forward: From: The ever-expanding bounds of Belgian euthanasia
In 2002 the Belgian Parliament passed a euthanasia law, but the public was promised that there would be strict safeguards. Now, 14 years later, infants and teenagers can be candidates for a lethal injection and there are seminars in nursing homes promoting euthanasia as an appropriate option.”
Canada’s Trudeau has made clear he wants no conscience rights for doctors, which means that your physician will probably be an accomplice to many cases and could not save such a person in any event. In fact, non-accomplices will soon not work in medicine.
Reality check: You heard the big legacy media carrying on about how awful all this is, didn’t you? Oops, wrong question. You voted for it, didn’t you? No, it was all just handed to us, drowned in dramas around how cool Trudeau is.
Euthanasia is one outcome of the fact that a growing proportion of the Western world population is simply an expense to big government. That is, the jobs are gone elsewhere or to automation, and increasing numbers of people produce only needs and demands, which others are paid to provide. Or not, as the case may be.
The system is not an obligatory economic one. It can be jiggered and trimmed for equilibrium.
Related: The precious little asshats who arrive at universities today don’t bring a desire to learn but the need for a safe environment. Face it, they are the future. Why aren’t they smacked down? Because the humanities traditions they represent are dying off and no one needs them for anything. What job would you want to give them? It’s easier to just capitulate. The STEM side of the universities is comparatively untouched because traditions like genome sequencing and quantum computing are still viable.
The really significant part is that it has all been happening with very little public outcry. The only blind attempt to understand the changes – made in total absence of media or consultant support – has been movements like the Trump candidacy. And then all people could do to send a feeble signal was vote for Trump.
See also: Should babies scheduled for infant euthanasia be baptized? The parents claim to be Christians; otherwise they wouldn’t be asking. Should they be excommunicated? And on what terms?
Our American Friend: It’s Over, Over Here (Trump sews up GOP nomination so far)