


The Whispers of Strangers

U.K. Medical Society Goes ‘Neutral’ on Euthanasia as Quebec Expands Eligibility

Bioethicists: Euthanasia Okay for ‘Unjust Social Conditions’
Once killing the sufferer becomes a societally acceptable means for ending suffering, there becomes no end to the “suffering” that justifies human termination. We can see this phenomenon most vividly in Canada, because it is happening there more quickly than in most cultures. For example, a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness. Euthanasia mutates a society’s soul. I can’t imagine that being true ten years ago before euthanasia became legal. This kind of abandoned thinking finds enthusiastic, albeit not unanimous, expression among secular bioethicists. In fact, two Canadian bioethicists just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics — a prestigious British Medical Journal publication — arguing that “unjust social conditions” justify lethal jabs (euphemistically called MAiD, for “medical assistance in dying”). The argument claims that killing is a form of “harm reduction.” The authors even admit such cases have already occurred legally in Canada. From “Choosing Death in Unjust Conditions: Hope, Autonomy, and Harm Reduction” (my emphasis): In 2022, an individual in Canada, who had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), received MAiD. However, by their own description, their decision to choose MAiD was driven primarily by the fact that they were unable to access affordable housing compatible with MCS. While it was true that they suffered from an illness, disease or disability that caused ‘enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable’ as specified under the eligibility criteria of Bill C-14 [that recently expanded eligibility beyond death being “reasonably foreseeable], the primary source of their suffering was an inability to find appropriate housing, not the condition itself. Another person, also with MCS, writes: ‘I’ve applied for MAiD essentially because of abject poverty’. Good grief. The patient in question is dead — not because of their medical but housing conditions. And doctors used the physical issues as pretext for justifying the killing as within the law! The authors approve of allowing euthanasia for reasons of social injustice as a means of “harm reduction.” And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment: In the case of the availability of MAiD in Canada to people who not only might but have explicitly said they would choose differently if they had access to the options they preferred, we argue that the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available. This, even though Canada’s socialized health-care system is in crisis: Access to healthcare across nearly all dimensions continues to deteriorate in the wake of the pandemic even outside of long-term and palliative care, from basic care, to surgical backlogs, to a general consensus that the system is in a state of collapse. In this context, refusing options to people who autonomously pursue MAiD amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world. This is a world that currently does not exist and is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Even if it did, it is unfortunately even more unlikely that the people whose current suffering has led them to request MAiD will realise its benefits. So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?” The authors conclude: We disagree with any claim that the unjust lack of choices available to people is alone sufficient to undermine their autonomy. Those who launch legal proceedings or request and receive MAiD are unlikely examples of people whose reduced opportunities have led them to lose all hope and motivation for pursuing personally meaningful courses of action. Moreover, neither a reduction of opportunities in itself, nor the existence of oppressive ableist norms, is sufficient to directly undermine autonomy…Restricting an autonomous choice to pursue MAiD due to the injustice of current non-ideal circumstances causes more harm than allowing the choice to pursue MAiD, even though that choice is deeply tragic. Bioethics is growing increasingly monstrous. And that matters because these are the so-called “experts” who exert tremendous influence on our laws and regulations, in court rulings, over the attitudes of journalists, among the purveyors of popular culture, and, ultimately, upon public attitudes. Moreover, Canada is our closest cultural cousin. If such a crass death-embracing attitude developed there so quickly with the legalization of euthanasia, it will happen here too — and, indeed, almost all state laws allowing doctor-prescribed death already expanded their guidelines. Which is why, if we want to follow the truly compassionate course, it is a matter of great urgency that we reject all further legalization of assisted suicide in the United States.

Dutch Expand Euthanasia to Children Ages One to Twelve
Because of course they do. Once euthanasia is accepted by a society, it is a one-way street, continually expanding the killable castes. The Dutch already allowed euthanasia for ages twelve and up. Now, it is down to age one. From the NTD News story: The Netherlands has said it will broaden its euthanasia regulations to allow doctors the ability to end the lives of terminally ill children between one and 12 years old. The rule change involves the government adjusting an existing protocol, and does not require parliamentary approval. The decision comes after years of requests from some Dutch doctors to lower the age limit of 12 for euthanasia, as well as debate within the cabinet. According to the Dutch government, “The end of life for this [age] group is the only reasonable alternative to the child’s unbearable and hopeless suffering.” That’s always the excuse. But Dutch MDs kill babies born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions already under the Groningen Protocol. Given that Dutch doctors euthanize many people — including elderly couples, young women with anorexia, the disabled, and people with mental illnesses — the notion that euthanasia will be “strictly” limited to children close to death whose suffering cannot otherwise be ameliorated is bitterly laughable on its face.

Terri Schiavo Case Was a Culture-of-Death Tipping Point

Death Activists Oppose Limits on Virtual Access to Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia’s Cultural Collateral Damage: Less Respect for Human Life

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention’s Anti-Suicide Walk Ignores Assisted Suicide
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is holding an overnight walk in Washington, D.C., on June 3 to fight suicide. From the “Why We Walk” promotion for “Out of the Darkness“: As you walk over 16 miles from dusk till dawn, you’ll find support and understanding in a community of others affected by suicide. Together, we will help put a stop to this leading cause of death. That’s great. But do the ads or promotional material even mention that Washington, D.C., legalized assisted suicide several years ago? Do they mention that people who ask for assisted suicide are almost never offered suicide prevention? And do they mention that studies are now showing a connection between assisted-suicide legalization and increasing suicide rates generally? Do the walk materials mention the issue at all? Not that I could find. In fact, the AFSP’s website apparently never mentions the issue at all — even though assisted suicide is one of our most contentious public-policy controversies. I searched for “assisted suicide,” “medical aid in dying,” and “MAID” and came up empty. Unless I missed it, the Foundation either ignores the issue altogether or hides it so deep in the bowels of its website that it is unfindable. I don’t mean to pick on the AFSP. Most suicide-prevention organizations ignore the assisted-suicide-advocacy elephant in the room. Perhaps they are afraid of controversy. Perhaps they aren’t really opposed to assisted suicide, which would make them pro-some suicides. Indeed, one such organization has actually recommended those who ask for assisted suicide should not be offered suicide prevention! To be true to their calling, anti-suicide organizations should oppose all suicides and should work publicly against laws that permit its facilitation. Failing to do so is an abdication of the life-saving responsibilities that these organizations have assumed.

Canadian Minister of Health: ‘Suicidal’ Are Not Eligible for Euthanasia
Assisted-suicide activists play a word game when they insist that the practice isn’t really “suicide.” They claim that a person who seeks death does so only because of serious illness or disability. If a person is healthy, this claim goes, he or she wouldn’t have wanted to die. Thus, assisted suicide isn’t suicide but merely medical aid in dying (MAiD). But the same kind of reasoning could be applied to anyone who seeks to die, regardless of the circumstances. Had the grieving mother’s child not been hit by a car, for example, she wouldn’t be thinking of killing herself. But for his chronic depression, the psychiatric patient wouldn’t want to die. Had the entrepreneur’s business not collapsed, he wouldn’t want to end it all. You get the idea. Canada’s health minister recently argued that suicidal people are protected from euthanasia. From a National Post column: When Pierre Poilievre last week criticized the Liberal government’s plans to expand doctor-assisted death to depressed people, the Conservative leader was admonished by Canada’s minister of mental health and addictions. Carolyn Bennett accused Poilievre of being “totally irresponsible” and misrepresenting what medically assisted death would mean for people with a mental disorder, saying that “all of the assessors and providers for MAID are purposely trained to eliminate people that are suicidal.” Excuse me? By definition, someone who wants to die is suicidal. Indeed, suicide is about what is done, not why. (Technically, lethal-injection euthanasia in Canada is a legal homicide, but the desire to be euthanized is properly characterized as a suicidal ideation.) This makes the Canadian health minister’s blithe assertion that suicidal people are protected from euthanasia plainly ridiculous. All people euthanized legally by doctors in Canada were suicidal. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have asked to be killed in the first place. The minister’s sophistry reveals the insidious nature of euthanasia advocacy. Activists push suicide as an answer to serious health difficulties, while pretending that the kind of suicide they support isn’t really suicide. But it is. If assisted-suicide was as compassionate as its supporters claim, they would stop hiding behind ridiculous word games.