April 27, 2015

Canada "may be only months away from de facto legalized euthanasia with no limits"

Marissa SemkiwArchive

Recall that in February, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it is no longer illegal for a doctor to kill his or her patient.

Back in the 1980s, the same court ruled that Parliament could limit abortion, but that they couldn’t completely eliminate it. So they opened the door for Parliament to legislate.

What happened? Parliament couldn’t get their act together in time to pass anything, and every successive parliament since has said it’s too much of a hot potato, we’re not touching it.

So now we have no laws regulating abortion.

And my fear is that we’re months away from euthanasia becoming de facto legalized across Canada, with no limits.

What do you think? Speak your mind in the comments!


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Ontario's sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government's morality on every Ontario family. VISIT ProtectOurKids.ca to sign the petition.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-04 08:20:42 -0400
@terry Rudden commented 5 days ago
@donald Allen: could you expand a bit on your suggestion that allowing us, as Canadians, to ask our doctors to help us die, and allowing doctors to do so, represents a REDUCTION of our liberty?

Where does it say the physician HAS TO ASK OUR PERMISSION FIRST? AND if we have given a family member POWER OF ATTORNEY what is to stop them from using this maliciously to end our life before we would have wished? Even now a person can be hospitalized against their wishes because a physician FEELS they would be unsafe at home, even though that person FIRMLY WISHES TO GO HOME. They have lost their LIBERTY ENTIRELY because of a (various) medical condition that still leaves them with full use of their faculties, causing them INTOLERABLE feelings of IMPRISONMENT.

Can you only see the narrow use of this and not the expanded use? We have gone from full abortion rights up to the day of birth to opening the gates for each person to be killed should their life be considered INTOLERABLE……BY WHOM? The word intolerable is indeed sketchy…broad and, in this scenario, INTOLERABLE.
commented 2015-05-04 08:10:04 -0400
If Canadians now find the Supreme Court INTOLERABLE could we euthanize them, or at least their position?
commented 2015-05-02 18:18:39 -0400
Catholic churches in Columbia threaten to close hospitals if euthanasia is made law by government
commented 2015-05-02 11:35:17 -0400
Amanda, what your fear is ….. is indeed fear itself, why I don’t know, only you can determine that. There is no great conspiracy going on with the right to die, there is no slippery slope, it’s about each person having the choice to choose, should a person find themselves in that awful situation, thats it, thats all. Sadly, your video is nothing more than fear mongering. The highest court in the country has decide that its an individuals choice. In fairness and to the best of my knowledge its NOT the choice I would make………. again to the best of my knowledge, because I am not in that position nor do I hope to be there anytime soon. It is difficult to speak with 100% certainty until your find yourself in those shoes, but today I can say I would not choose that path. However, I do support another persons right to chose that path under the criteria that the Supreme court laid out, I support with 100% certainty. There is likely no greater decision and one in which the governments, courts or your likely limited and biased views Amanda should have any say in; it’s the person that finds themselves in that position choice, it is between them, their families and their God! This is not about, nor there is there any evidence suggesting the need for discussion of “what if’s”, there no room for “but this could happen”. Quite frankly, I’m shocked and surprised by not only your fear mongering reporting, but the narrow-minded and biased view of you Amanda and Ezra; honestly its seems entirely hypocritical of both you and Ezra and what the Rebel stands for. Is that responsible journalism? Is that the type of responsible human rights and fairness journalism that the Rebel stands for? Maybe I need to rethink my involvement with the Rebel?
commented 2015-05-02 06:21:00 -0400
I am surprised at the number of people who imagine that euthanasia has any relationship to “control” over their bodies. Progressives invented the idea of control over one’s body, to undermine traditional values against killing family and friends. (Historically, progressives always try to undermine such values.) First it was abortion, now euthanasia (including infant euthanasia, for that comes next). We don’t have much control over our bodies, as we are, in part, our bodies. In countries where euthanasia is legal, seniors are afraid to go to the hospital. Check it out. It’s really simple: A great many seniors are worth more dead than alive. The bad new for heirs is that people who used to live to be 75 now live to be 95. It is rubbish to say that, in general, they are suffering. Private retirement residences have no interest in creating suffering; they want their customers to live happily as long as possible, paying a profitable rate to the home and speaking well of it to friends.
commented 2015-05-01 18:34:10 -0400
It’s easy to see why this is happening: First, Canada has an obligatory public health care system, but never put away enough money to cope with the fact that nearly 30% of health care expenses are for persons in their last year of life. (Well, hello, that is when they are sickest, right?) Second, people are living longer, and often – in late life – much or most of their potential estate is spent on their care. People over 90 spend almost all their disposable income on care. This is great for young people starting out in the health care industry, especially new Canadians – not so great for the very old senior’s 65-ish heirs. I visit very old seniors every day in retirement homes. The whining about “suffering” is bosh. I’m not saying there is never any suffering, but that if suffering were the issue, there is a remedy for practically any known type. No, this is a bold move to get rid of people who would spend their savings on their own care instead of leaving it to the Boomers. Like abortion, with the Boomers involved, it had to happen.
commented 2015-04-30 06:35:18 -0400
Greg Rogers: Yes, I have disagreed with SCOC decisions.
commented 2015-04-29 23:51:48 -0400
Aren’t we all about freedom of choice here? As an adult if my suffering is intolerable and there is no cure for my disease do I not have the right to decide that my pain is too much and I don’t want to burden family or the medical system? I disagree that people will be forced to be ‘murdered’. We can’t advocate for freedom of choice then suggest there should be legislation to protect us from ourselves. I like Marissa but this is a silly hill to pick a fight on when seemingly speaking out of both sides of our freedom of choice mouth. Let’s drop the religious and social issues and focus on fiscal conservatism and real freedom of choice.
commented 2015-04-29 21:43:05 -0400
The euthanasia debate does not affect me, currently. I sure don’t like the idea of someone else lording over my suffering. I think the option should be available.
commented 2015-04-29 20:02:38 -0400
So, Mr. Rudden I must ask you have YOU ever disagreed with an SCOC decision or is your support of this arrogant gaggle of Marie Antoinette, ivory tower philosopher activists consistent across the board?
commented 2015-04-29 19:59:18 -0400
Mr. Rudden, this is off topic.

But in another topic thread you asked me if I disagreed with the SCOCs decision on the issue of prayer at council meetings. I have looked over the decision in light of the Charter and what the SCOC considers supporting case law and I stand by my former statement that their ruling was incorrect, activist and distressingly arbitrary.
I assured you I would give it an in depth review and get back to you. You stated that responding ‘NO’ wouldn’t “cut it”.

Well, sir, I’m afraid it will have to “cut it”. Here’s why.
1) This is a blog. Not a law class and I don’t feel like taking an hour to drone on and debate an issue with you when it won’t convince you of anything anyway.
2) We all have busy lives and I really don’t feel like taking the time to kick this topic around with somebody I don’t know and don’t care about.

So, sorry Mr. Rudden I know you wanted to draw me into a protracted snore fest of lofty sophist debate but just don’t think it’s worth it. The SCOC have a serious weed up their asses about Christians and anyone with traditional values and if you are honest with yourself maybe you will see that.

You can call me names or say that I am scared to debate it with. I don’t care. Why bother? I am quite certain you are immovable in you position so screw it.
commented 2015-04-28 18:03:00 -0400
WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE. Male 75 years old, receding gray hair, wearing blue jeans and brown jacket. Last seen heading north on Highway 400 at high rate of speed. In a black Model T Ford. If you see this person, contact your nearest Police Station. This individual has passed his allotted life span and needs to be terminated.
commented 2015-04-28 16:52:04 -0400
Regarding ’Do Not Resuscitate:" be careful of this definition. Some physicians include suctioning of breathing passages as “heroic measures.” Some physicians withhold, as already pointed out, stronger than tylenol medication, citing addiction with an 89-year old patient in pain. Speak up when you observe such actions. Demand humane treatment—and I do not mean lethal injections.
commented 2015-04-28 15:56:21 -0400
We already have infanticide in this country based mostly on inconvenience or cost. Now we can look forward to Senicide – the killing of one’s elderly family members when they can no longer work or become a burden. …

This is a very worthwhile article to hear. Without a standard of what constitutes good and evil we will continue to sink into the dark cesspool of human judgements and interpretations which are solely based on an individual’s perception of good and evil.

When the Bible was removed as the standard held publicly for centuries, humanity and society began the downward spiral. Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools.

For those who applaud this new revelation of a culture of death for those with disease or disability, just remember each of us is closer to being one of the victims than we realize. Years do pass by quickly and it is indeed troubling to think of the lives of the sick and elderly being held in the balance by those with no standard of life and death but their own.

Please, try to listen to the logic and warning to everyone in Canada which is being shrouded in thoughts of so-called goodness and mercy. That is only the case of when those in charge are good and merciful. Do you really want to take the chance?
commented 2015-04-28 15:39:33 -0400
@donald Allen: could you expand a bit on your suggestion that allowing us, as Canadians, to ask our doctors to help us die, and allowing doctors to do so, represents a REDUCTION of our liberty?
commented 2015-04-28 14:51:40 -0400
Marrisa makes some good points as she always does. My largest concern with the issue is not moral but rather it is financial and the badness that seems to crawl out of government financial decisions. Alberta, as an example, has a “Do not resuscitate” directive. It does not take a genius to figure out that it is cheaper for the government if someone signs the “Do not resuscitate” directive then if money has to be spent on resuscitation. Often people suffering from great pain are quickest to sign the directive. I have talked to several of those folks who believe this has led to the medical providers not providing adequate pain relief. When you see folks lying in horrible pain and you see some moron bringing them a tylenol it really makes you wonder. So this begs the question “Will governments take the high road and provide proper pain relief and improve the quality of life of the terminally ill or will they cut bacK further on pain relief thus encouraging euthanasia.”
commented 2015-04-28 14:28:02 -0400
unbelievable. I just subscribed. I’m sorry Marissa. I did the survey and when it asked who I would like to see most I hadn’t seen your name on the list of bloggers and as I don’t have a lot of time today, I just said Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley. I would have put your name in there too as I did like you on tv and I really enjoyed your debating skills.
commented 2015-04-28 11:12:57 -0400
I am become increasingly impressed by the ability of the ability of the hard working and imaginative Rebel news team to create terrifying scenarios in their headlines out of thin air. It’s a strange superpower, of limited utility, but still, a skill is a skill.
Let’s parse this specific headline, its wonders to behold. But first, let’s look at the actual story. Not the Nobel-class fictionalized scenario spun by the rabble team, but the actual STORY.
The Supreme Court ruled that Canadians may now ask doctors for help, if they choose to commit suicide, under specific circumstances.
That’s it.
Now let’s look at this marvelous headline.
It begins “Canada May…” (which, in this case, means “the possibility exists”. It does not mean legislation is pending, or even in the works; and in fact, the Conservative Government has signaled its intention of “studying the Court’s decision further”, which is Harperian for “take on this hot potato before an election? Are you nuts?” So, yes, Canada MAY be lots of things – about to be struck by a giant asteroid, about to legalize cannabis, or cannibalism, or virtually anything not excluded by the laws of physics. But we may not. To continue:
“…be only months away…” Sure. The possible durations encompassed by the term “months” ranges from two months to infinity minus one months. I’m not sure about that math, but the point is – “months away” certainly sounds a lot scarier than “an indeterminate period of between eight weeks and forever.”
“…from de facto legalized euthanisia…” Reading tip. When parsing a political piece – particularly here – the term “de facto” can safely be translated as “not actually.” In this case, the Revel is using Euthanasia as a synonym for “assisted suicide”. Again, it’s a much scarier term; and as the comments below confirm, it immediately conjures up images of everything from Auschwitz to Soylent Green. Except – that’s not what’s being discussed. This is about people who have chosen to die, and who are asking for the assistance of someone who can help them.
“…with no limits!” Except, of course, that the Supreme Court DOES define limits. Are they precise and testable? Nope: there’s no legislation actually in the works to provide a context and framework for the definition of such limits. But you know that already. This is a just a classic slippery slope argument, and it s makes as little sense as arguing that border guards should not be armed because they might go on a killing spree.
What surprises me is that so many self-professed libertarians and conservatives, who will argue vociferously against government intervention in our lives, are opposed to a measure that would help an individual who chooses to do so die with dignity.
commented 2015-04-28 10:28:43 -0400
It becomes more obvious every single day that we have surrendered our " LIBERTY " to a group of judges who think they and only they have the knowledge to make decisions . We have a Constitution that gives them the right and power to override the will of the people.
commented 2015-04-28 07:44:02 -0400
Guy- no laughing matter – this is techno-socialist government with Malthusian reflexes who run a health care monopoly – socialism is first and foremost a system for rationing finite resources because they promise all things to all people without the means to support the claims -that takes rationing – we see this in the health care system – many new life saving medicines and procedures are not available because of costs, euthanasia is sure to be a new “option” offered to social health care consumers who are denied life saving procedures – from my perspective the current health care system is unsustainable and many many people caught up in it as an only option will be sacrificed to the politics of single tier socialized/unionized medicine – euthanasia offers an large safety gap for those trying to keep an unsustainable medical system afloat.
commented 2015-04-28 07:40:07 -0400
If the sanctity of life is not to be respected and upheld, then what impediment is there to curbing murder with such slippery slope thought. Little wonder the during the Communist Revolution they killed off the intellectuals first because bad ideas always have bad consequences.
commented 2015-04-28 01:27:59 -0400
OMG, this can’t come soon enough, I have a hang nail and it is causing me intolerable pain but my doctor will not give me a lethal injection … Yes that was sarcasm. >.<
commented 2015-04-27 23:52:40 -0400
Canada’s elite embrace the UN technocratic Malthusian paradigms – abortion, sterilization, euthanasia – population control technology for the new global governing order who want to maintain earths population at under 500 million – Smaller populations are easier to control – so, fellowship of earth-guardians, let’s get cracking finding ways to start depopulating this human cancer infecting mother earth.
commented 2015-04-27 23:41:11 -0400
The Supreme Court of Canada dictates another arbitrary ruling that confirms they play God. Times have changed. Its OK for your doctor to kill you. Just make a good excuse or someone else can. You can join your cancelled kids if you have any. Don’t fret. Its legal. Nine progressive folks said so. Besides it’s cheaper for the State and we can get rid of the older ones who need re-educating anyway. Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be happy. Ah, the dignity of life. How liberal/fascist/communist.
commented 2015-04-27 23:24:29 -0400
Just an absolutely fantastic piece. From 4:30 on almost made me cry… lame, I know but just so great.
commented 2015-04-27 20:29:13 -0400
You make a very solid argument Marissa.
commented 2015-04-27 20:17:57 -0400
Marissa, that is well stated!

It really is nice to be at a website where they have their moral compass set correctly.
commented 2015-04-27 20:07:06 -0400
I am absolutely outraged, at the way this our Federal, and Provincial Governments have allowed this uncivilized Culture of Death to fester for so long. There is nothing supreme about the so-called Supreme Court, except for Supreme EVIL. If the Judges of the so-called Highest Court in the land want to pass assisted death,, then Let us put all members of the highest court at the head of the line, and kill them off first. The function of the Supreme Court of Canada, is this, The Elected Government Representatives, are to make Legislation, and it is the function of the Supreme Court of the Nation, to judge as to the Government legislation abides by the Charter Constitution and Laws of the Nation.


In conclusion, I would say this to all of our Elected Officials in Parliment, and at the Provincial level. Do your job. the Job that we the voting people of Canada elected you to do. This doesn’t mean you have the Courts do your job for you.
commented 2015-04-27 19:55:49 -0400
Socialists and Communists revel in killing people. It shows their superiority over those they rule.
commented 2015-04-27 19:43:02 -0400
I agree with Marissa Semkiw that euthanasia is not good to begin with and always ends up broadening to include who can be killed. Why use the word euthanize. It should be called what it is kill and murder. Words such as euthanize and abortion are terms used by the politically correct who are very annoying undesirable people (maybe they should be euthanized).
This society of evil that we live in today is like waking up in some horror movie, with blood everywhere and people screaming…. well, close to it. Murdering or killing undesirables will be perfectly legal. Can you actually get your mind around that? Think about it. In other countries as Marissa pointed out this legal killing usually starts out for the elderly and terminally ill and eventually includes the depressed, children who are disabled and I would extend that even further to the homeless and drug addicts, more undesirable people. When is the world going to get back to being more loving and caring towards the unfortunate instead of considering using this hideous politically correct Nazi killing machine.