With Canada’s Supreme court ruling last week in favour of assisted suicide, we are now seeing the poisonous fruit of contraception and abortion come full circle. The dignity of human life and the transmission of human life, when separated from its natural end, become a play thing of government planners. This sophistry that euthanasia will be administered by consent should fool no one. It will start by simply “recommending” to the patient that “their time has come”. There will be an “understanding”. And if there are no family members around (or perhaps they will be those who really don’t care or, shocking as it may seem, those who actually have a vested interested in moving along the inevitable), the medical “authorities” will simply pull the plug. No resistance? No problem. And when there is resistance? Well, that will warrant a level 2 response.
We’re a really perverse culture, if you really think about it. We put such a heavy emphasis on “consent” in ethical questions that we fail to realize the such a warm and fuzzy phrase is merely the triumph of the will over true morality and the laws that God has placed in every person’s heart. “Consent” over issues like sex and death is really quite superfluous. We don’t have massive sexual abuse or soon-to-be massive abuse over euthanasia because “consent” is the best ethical paradigm on which to run a society. In point of fact, “consent” is a joke because it doesn’t work. Just ask the former fans of Jian Gomeshi. Jian didn’t see a problem with consent, because sex was no big deal. Nobody gets too worked up over casual sexual entertainment, do they? Why should they when sex has been completely stripped of any kind of sacred significance? Just like no one will get too worked up about ending a life which is about to expire anyway. Who cares about consent when the fundamental immoral act is being legalized and has already been accepted by society?
Pope Paul VI said the following about contraception, but it can equally now be said about Euthanasia. In fact, it’s even more appropriate to speak of his prophesy about euthanasia, considering that the elderly and sick are less able to defend themselves than young parents:
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. (Humanae Vitae, 17)
The reality is that Euthanasia would never have obtained a foothold without contraception. It’s simply the back end of the same evil. And, sadly, the generation that ushered in the Pill is going to be the first generation on a large scale to experience the bitter pill which provided them a false freedom and now a lonely and tragic death.
A great article here.
Personally, I’m not surprised by the verdict, but I am disturbed by just how illogical the Supreme Court’s arguments have become. They justify assisted suicide because it supposedly infringes on the right to “life, liberty and security of the person”. So allowing assisted suicide advances the right to life? Really? And the right to security of the person? Are you serious?
The Court also said that the current law infringes on people’s right to make decisions about their “bodily integrity.” Of course, because nothing screams “bodily integrity” like injecting a fatal dose of medication to stop your heart.
The Court also contradicts itself on multiple levels compared to its 1994 verdict in which it upheld the current law.
This is what passes for the “supreme” authority in our land, having the power to usurp Parliament’s right to make laws. Democracy has failed.
Such is the crazy world in which we live. Clearly, God is allowing us to slide deeper towards hell for the time being. Honestly, I’m not sure we deserve any better.
Some good news here.
It’s good to remind ourselves that being pro-life and Christian doesn’t necessarily mean insisting that futile treatment be given to a dying person who has no chance of recovery. As the Catechism says:
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
But also this:
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
What’s the difference between paragraph 2278 and euthanasia, aside from intent? There’s a very practical difference. In paragraph 2278, if the patient continues to live when a treatment is discontinued, then you allow the patient to keep living until natural death ensues. In euthanasia, you don’t let the patient live, but rather take a concrete action to make sure the patient dies.
Belgian Catholic deacon charged with ten counts of illegal euthanasia
Quebec legislature votes 94-22 to enshrine euthanasia as ‘medical aid in dying’
By my count….the 25-30 year olds who rode the sexual revolution are now experiencing the bitter fruit of their rebellion, sadly.
We Catholics have not yet figured it out: this culture is no longer salvageable. We need to start building from the ground up and start again.
A moving video below.
They make an excellent point: once euthanasia is legalized for kids, parents will be pressured to accept the diagnosis of their doctor, even if it’s a wrong diagnosis that means killing the child. Not everybody will be as fortunate as this little girl, whose dad was also a doctor.
I must say, I’m shocked that the court would rule in our favour. Great work by Alex Schadenberg and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The BC Court of Appeal has struck down the decision by Justice Smith and upheld the current laws which protect Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in the BC assisted suicide case in order to uphold the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and basic human rights. EPC is pleased that the Court has followed the lead of Canadian Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the majority of Parliaments and Supreme Courts around the world in finding that the prohibitions against assisted suicide represent an important protection against abuse of vulnerable people. (Source
…Since then, my life has changed considerably. Up until now, I am still trying to understand how it is possible for euthanasia to be performed on physically healthy people without even contacting their children….(Source)
The triumph of raw will over reason and love. No, there is absolutely no generation preceding this one which is more perverse and wicked.