Well, on that we agree. I’m certainly not in favour of ending the lives of people who want to live (that would be murder). And I do understand that people who rely on others to enable them to live could feel threatened or targetted by the legality of MAiD. That doesn’t prove that they are threatened or targetted, which would be horrible and absolutely wrong.
Thanks for the link. A quick perusal of the SLAY site shows me that it’s not a source I would consider reliable; I think it’s biased in the extreme. (On the other hand, my sister would love it. Different strokes, etc.)
I do wonder why a US publication is so concerned about MAiD in Canada. I doubt it’s because they care about the sanctity of life. I don’t see any opinion pieces there condemning the US for extrajudicial killings in int’l waters or condemning Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian people or condemning the policy of grabbing people off US streets and sending them to countries that they have no connection to, without charge or trial.
If there have been 90,000 deaths under MAiD, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It indicates that 90,000 people were not forced to suffer needlessly against their wishes. Over 9 years, it’s about 10,000 per year. About 80,000 people died of cancer in Canada in 2023 alone.
This SLAY article suggests that people are being forced or cajoled into MAiD so that their organs can be harvested. It seems to me that many or most of the people who would choose MAiD would also choose to donate their organs if possible because choosing MAiD indicates a certain way of looking at life. That is, being more concerned about quality than length of life.
My dad died of MND when I was a teen. In a perfect world, I’d be 100% behind assisted suicide. However, it is NOT a perfect world. We live in a world that deems the value of your organs as far more than your value to society.
A Canadian Paralympian, who became disabled by fighting for his country enquired into why his stair lift was taking so long. He was told it was too expensive, but he could apply for MAID immediately.
In recent news, Canadian doctors have successfully restarted a heart that was dead for 7 minutes. I’ll dig out the source.
I’m sorry to hear about your father. That must have been so hard for you and your family. It’s way too young to lose a partner and a parent.
No worries about the source re restarting the heart. I hear your concerns and they are valid but I’m still in favour of people not having to suffer and be dependent on others if they are terminally ill and don’t want to do it.
Modern medicine can keep us alive for far longer and through far more illness than nature intends.
Beyond the important concerns about organ harvesting and encouraging dependent people to end their lives to benefit others, it becomes an individual and personal choice of whether you value life for the sake of life itself as opposed to valuing life for quality of life. I’m in the latter group.
It seems to me, judging by the some of the sources and directions used to oppose MAiD, that this is being picked up as a wedge issue by people who do not truly value life or care about others.
Lord Falconer says people with “learning difficulties or autism” could, with “proper assistance”, access assisted suicide.
That should alarm every Peer in the Lords. Vulnerable people don’t need help to die. They need support to live.
If the concern is important why is it being ducked, and those who raise the concern smeared?
‘Quality of life’ in the context of other peoples’ decisions on other peoples’ deaths is more a right wing trope. Nazis are an extreme example; sick people are just an economic burden etc etc.
Not so extreme actually - see this
You can’t get to the heart of the matter (see what I did there ) by waving left and right flags. If economics is the main point of the policy then it’s wrong for it to be pushed, and wrong to cheer it and wrong to pretend it’s about people’s rights.
There seems to be an understanding between governments, corporations and the media that there is a need to present sick people as a harmful drain on the economy.
In terms of showing their slip on this issue, the govt of Canada seems the worst! Surprised you’ve not picked this up Jackie.
I gather you don’t like the flavour of the outlets that are highlighting it, and I understand that, but we’ve seen in covid that the so-called right looked better because the so-called left abandoned opposition and embraced the policy. That may be the case here too - if policy isn’t scrutinised, populations can be sleep-walked into supporting extremist ideology. The necessary scrutiny may involve constructive interaction between political opposites on new issues…
Cheers
I’d argue that Dad’s death was too early. If I had been 5 years older or younger, it would have glanced instead of direct impact. Things happen.
I also believe in the right to avoid suffering. But I’ll never trust medicine again. DIY.
After dad passed, mother began to accuse me of mental health issues. She was a nurse at the time and pulled strings. I had a home visit from the county chief shrink. I had to explain myself and my feelings to this random stranger because of my mother’s accusations. Really not a good day and I can still recall our conversation clearly.
It ended up with mother being referred for counselling by the shrink. I was fine.
Why do write this? Because MAID has now announced that from 2027, mental illness is all that’s needed to qualify. As you’ve just read, others can accuse you of mental health issues.
This would put two of my step children into their sights. For being ruined by the MMR jab…
Seems to me this is a bad example as an argument against MAiD. The framing that the government euthanized the women is problematic because they chose MAiD and it is a medical procedure. It’s like saying that the government took my appendix out.
The guy in the story is upset that his grandmothers chose to die on their own terms. It’s really none of his business. And if he was so close to them, why didn’t he know that it was going to happen? Maybe they were afraid to tell him of their decisions because they didn’t want to argue about it. You don’t just make a phone call and say I want to die tomorrow. It’s a process that takes a prescribed minimum amount of time. I haven’t heard anyone say that people aren’t entitled to their grief over losing loved ones. This sounds like a controlling guy who feels entitled to tell other people what to do with their lives.
I know where I stand on this issue - I’m in favour of medical assistance in dying and I think it’s an individual’s right. Everyone will decide for themselves how they feel about it. I am absolutely against people being coerced or coaxed into choosing MAiD and I’m not convinced that that is happening. My impression is that the legislation is written so that it won’t happen. I certainly don’t think of people who need help as burdens on society, economic or otherwise. It’s just a part of life. Any one of us can suddenly be someone who needs help for any number of reasons.
I get your concern but just being diagnosed with a mental illness wouldn’t put someone on a list for MAiD. According to the law, it has to be a personal choice.
Certainly the age you were when you lost your dad made it the tragedy even more difficult and traumatizing. A very hard blow for a developing psyche. You were handed a heavy burden and I hope you’ve been able to come to terms with it and find some inner peace.
Hi folks, I’ve so far just followed this subject with interest - for the record I’m a firm believer in “where there’s life there’s hope” on the basis that today’s pain killing drugs should be sufficient to deal with any possible pain. The following article confirms my view that you can’t trust anyone who is advising victims death over life - everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but my experience with the UK medical profession and politicians passing laws on any health issue is that they cannot be trusted. The medical profession is already guilty of overuse of DNR to push people onto the death list.
The Canary article looked over-the-target to me, I would have wanted to see the reply given to the MP who raised the question.
He is exactly correct to include mention of Courts Of Protection, a shabby little antechamber of “wellbeing” arguments. It’s not called health as such in polite circles.
@LocalYokel : your story resonates strongly. Death Pathways, to sweep away the old and/or unhypnotised.
EDITED: to include Starmer’s hilarious non-answer, from Hansard
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that, and I will look at the particular example he has raised. As he will know, we are rolling out hubs. Some of those are already in place and there are more to come, and I will happily update him on where they are likely to be.
Following the work of the eating disorders all-party group, I was horrified to hear that 19-year-old Lilly Cliff, who suffers from anorexia, has been placed on an end-of-life care pathway, after Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS foundation trust obtained a Court of Protection ruling to withdraw her treatment. The decision directly contradicts guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the statement from the Minister for Care in September that eating disorders are not a terminal illness. Will the Prime Minister urgently review that case to ensure that Lilly and her family receive the support they need, and that Lilly is given every possible chance to recover and live, and remind all integrated care boards, the NHS and hospitals, that suffering from an eating disorder is not a terminal illness?
I would agree that there is more on bad-looking individual cases (which always make tempting headlines) than on ‘advancing policy’.
But I also read that In Ca, mental ill health had been added to the list of conditions for which MAID would be allowed, and that this has been given a postponement and this is planned to take effect until 2027.
This would seem to represent a wish to expand…?
The trouble is, ‘reputable’ sources who agree with the right to decide in principle, may not want to report on excesses to avoid harming the policy. Perhaps you are in that category yourself, Jackie!?
But does that not kind of suggest that a policy with excesses and permitting the embediment of political and financial vested interests, could be the inevitable end result!?
Simply because the excesses are not publicised or discussed using ‘sources’ as an excuse.
ED (still rooted on principle on both sides )
Some ‘reputable’ stories?
The Slippery Slope
MAiD was first legalized in 2016 for Canadians whose death was “reasonably foreseeable.” At the time, a person had to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition which caused enduring physical or psychological suffering to qualify for euthanasia. Think of someone with a terminal cancer prognosis.
In 2021, just five years after legalization, MAiD was expanded to include those whose “death is not reasonably foreseeable.” With this expansion, people with disabilities or non-terminal illnesses could choose to have a doctor end their lives. Think of someone who is wheelchair bound.
The next expansion has already been passed into law, but implementation has been delayed until March 17, 2027. This would allow Canadians suffering solely from a mental illness to be eligible for euthanasia. Think of someone suffering from depression.
… https://www.dordt.edu/in-all-things/the-cautionary-tale-of-euthanasia-in-canada
(No terminal illness required)
25/3/25 Calgary judge rules 27-year-old can go ahead with MAID death despite father’s concerns
8/1/25 Canada’s Euthanasia Experiment: Army Veteran Offered Suicide Instead of Stair Lift
Christine Gauthier, a physically impaired army veteran and former Paralympic athlete, testified before the Canadian Parliament in late November 2024. The paraplegic woman had applied for funding to install a stair lift. Instead, she received a proposal for “assisted suicide” from the Department of Veterans Affairs under Justin Trudeau’s left-wing government.
…
Next MAID Stop Europe?
WEF-affiliated Trudeau, whose policies made these euthanasia laws possible, is now backpedaling and describes the incidents as unacceptable. According to news from Canada, he faces defeat in the January election, as not only the opposition but also his own party has lost patience with the globalist clown.The British Daily Mail reports that over 10,000 people in Canada were euthanized last year. From 2025, the suicide law will be further expanded, allowing people with mental illnesses to be state-assisted in self-termination.
Dear Friends,
My name is Roger Foley. I live with a rare, progressive neurological disease called Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 14 (SCA14) along with other severe disabilities. I’m currently a patient ‘trapped’ inside London Victoria hospital in Ontario because the self-directed home care I need has been cruelly withheld by public health authorities.
Hospital staff have repeatedly offered and pressured me to consider Canada’s infamous assisted suicide program Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) while simultaneously obstructing the very services and supports I need to live safely. Despite my condition, I have fought tirelessly for my rights, dignity, and the ability to return to the community.
On May 7, 2025, the hospital removed the specialized lighting accommodations that I had relied on for years. These accommodations were medically necessary due to my severe neurological photosensitivity and visual disability. To safely swallow liquids or pureed foods, I must be lifted with a mechanical sling and seated in a solid chair, where I can achieve more than a 90-degree forward neck bend to perform an effortful swallow technique with a chin tuck. This is essential to prevent choking, aspiration, and pneumonia. Without the lighting accommodations, I cannot safely eat, take oral medications, or even drink water. The hospital’s fluorescent and halogen lighting emits high-intensity blue wavelengths that cause intense eye pain and injury. My eyes require non-direct, low-intensity amber-wavelength lighting—the exact conditions provided by the longstanding accommodations that were removed.
Since then, I have also been starved of basic care: placed on IV fluids, subjected to ongoing dehydration and malnutrition, repeatedly berated and harassed by staff, violently woken under the guise of so-called “checks,” and assaulted with other abusive tactics.
…
Interesting coverage of this on UK Column News of 19th. Of particular interest, is the official figure how many Canada expects to “euthanise” and the money they will save. I don’t remember the figures but they were really shocking, or if you are the chancellor, mana from heaven.
One of Sandy um Adams’ better recent contributions on UKC News as I recall. Can’t be arsed to go through the news again but I seem to recall that she quoted an official Canadian source boasting that MAID would save Canada something over a trillion dollars over a period of time by disposing of over 14 million Canadians, mostly elderly but plenty of disabled etc.
Whatever the truth/provenance of SA’s report, come on everyone, this is the good old eugenics agenda being rolled out in plain sight. ‘We’ have succeeded in ‘our’ aim to make the unthinkable thinkable again* after that naughty Hitler gave ‘us’ a bad name.
How long before the mandates?
** Isn’t that what Julian Huxley publicly pined for when he launched UNESCO?*
) by waving left and right flags. If economics is the main point of the policy then it’s wrong for it to be pushed, and wrong to cheer it and wrong to pretend it’s about people’s rights.
)
