An analysis of Bill C-384 from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg has a great analysis of Bill C-384 over at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition blog. It’s very detailed for anyone interested in the specific problems with the bill, but I’ll just post the summary:

Society cannot legislate autonomy and choice in relation to acts that intentionally and directly cause death. No safeguard will ever protect vulnerable people from the subtle pressure to “choose” death.

Legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is always wrong because:

  • It directly and intentionally threatens the lives of the most vulnerable members of society. The lives of people with disabilities and chronic conditions, people who live with depression and mental illness, and others are directly threatened by euthanasia and assisted suicide.
  • It establishes euthanasia and assisted suicide as a treatment option for problems that are properly solved by effective and compassionate medical care.
  • It changes the trust relationship between the medical practitioner and the patient.

Canadians need to tell their member of parliament to vote against Bill C-384 because it promotes a concept of choice and autonomy which is based on false principles and safeguards that are simply an illusion.

3 Comments on “An analysis of Bill C-384 from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

  1. Another point about euthanasia is that it is documented in Finland or Sweden, (you could research this) people are euthanized without their consent for other considerations arbitrarily decided by the doctor. Case in point. An older woman in need of an operation told her doctor she didn’t want to go to the hospital because they would kill her. The doctor assured her he would make sure it would not happen. The operation was a success. Doctor had a day off. On his return he found his patient gone and upon inquiry discovered she had been euthanized to make room, they needed the bed. I repeat this is a documented fact.

  2. To legalize euthanasia would put doctors in the position of taking lives more than saving lives. It would progress from a person making the choice to taking the lives of the old, the infirm, the handicapped mentally or physically and justifying it by claiming it’s actually a good thing to do, a merciful thing, a compassionate thing, dignified and preferable because, the old adage, “I can’t stand seeing you in pain” or “your quality of life has diminished to the point where you have no reason to live”. Which means relatives decide what is quality of life and whether it is worth living. Just as abortion has progressed from first trimester to partial birth abortion. Would anyone have ever guessed?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *