Randy Michael Walker, R.I.P. (10 December 1956, 13 April 2014).

It is two years today that Randy died.  I am not sure of what, but he died.  He was given a green burial on Victoria Island; under a small cliff, under a canopy of trees, his wooden coffin was draped with long-lasting pink carnations.  A pink carnation means "I will never forget you."

Euthanasia and the Outlier Defence

In Lynn Smith's reasons for her declaratory orders, it would seem only a few would use assisted suicide or euthanasia per year. To me, that would mean one or two individuals.  It would only be used in exceptional circumstances;  Lynn said a means of last resort. However, I was wrong, it is more like one percent of all deaths. 

This is what I received from the euthanasia prevention people this morning April 16, 2016, in answer to how many are going to use MAD (medically assisted death) in Canada.

Probably less than 1% in the beginning but in 3 - 5 years there will be 4% of deaths.

There were 268,000 deaths in 2014. Therefore, there will be 10,000 or more deaths in 3 - 5 years and probably 20,000 deaths in 2025.

The medical vultures are already going in for the $kill. The first death in Canada per Carter  was done by Dr. Ellen Wiebe, she has already started a clinic, to much media applause, in Vancouver, being a good death clinic.

And since your family physician, if you are lucky enough to have one, will not want to get involved in any of this, he will refer you to Dr. Ellen, a stranger. And you will die in a sterile clinic. I wonder who funded her clinic.

There is no law yet and already there has been four individuals that have used the exemption clause: two died in BC and another approved in BC and another approved in Manitoba.  Three have died in Quebec under its own law to hasten death. There could be more but the white wall of silence prevents disclosure. The public might never know of  further deaths unless the Death with Dignity people leak out the information to the media as a good news story.

And who is paying the $10,000 or more to do the court applications and the costs of travel to the good death clinic in Vancouver to make these deaths a good news story.  Was it on the condition that the participants participate. When Bill C-14 passes, hopefully, it does not, there will be no legal fees as a doctor will make the order, not a judge.  This also means there will be no transparency.  No oversight; just the truth of health care professionals.

Bill C-14 has to be defeated.  Contact your MLA and MP and say you want to veto Bill C-14 and invoke the "notwithstanding clause". We have to study this further to make sure the safeguards are safe and cannot be circumvented.  Collateral deaths are not allowed: we are not at war.

We as a society did not contract for lethal injection at the HEMLOCK AID CLINIC.  Dr. Ellen could have come up with a less vomitoid name.  Hemlock is dark... very very dark.  Does anyone know how the very very very rich die, the 1%,  I have read that it is the 1% who want the rest of us to die as soon as we are not productive.

Non-ambivalent

I do not like the fact that the word non-ambivalent was taken out from Lynn Smith's declaratory order in 2012, see 2015 Appeal.

You will never forget/forgive the doctor who euthanasized your loved one, with or without consent

April 4, 2016

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

To the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau,

I am writing to you out of deep concern for the legislation that will soon be drafted regarding physician assisted suicide. I am so concerned, that I produced videos on the websites, DearGodLetter.ca and CherDieuLettre.ca, in the hope that more Canadians would be informed about the potential ramifications of such legislation.

As a medical doctor, there are many arguments I could provide detailing why physician assisted suicide is wrong for Canada. But the one argument that many have overlooked is the very real likelihood that physician assisted suicide in Canada would actually lead to more pain and suffering in Canada—not less.

Let me explain:

As a pain specialist I have evaluated hundreds of car accident victims over the past several years.  Interestingly, the patient suffering chronic pain from injuries sustained in the crash is almost always the victim—rarely the individual(s) responsible for the crash. Many falsely believe these patients are just trying to scam the system. While this might be the case in rare circumstances, almost always these victims have legitimate chronic pain.

Research has demonstrated that when the mind is clouded by negative emotions, such as anger, hate, bitterness, or depression, the body is unable to properly “turn off” pain signals arising from lower in the body. Car accident victims are often angry at the individual(s) who hit them, and frequently develop low mood and/or anxiety. All these negative emotions play a role in the development of chronic pain by way of something pain specialists call, “Central sensitization.” Peripheral sensitization and maladaptive central nervous system (i.e. brain) neuronal plasticity are also factors in the genesis of chronic pain. 

How does this relate to physician assisted suicide? 

If the recommendations provided by the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying become law, there will be many teenagers, parents, and grandparents killed against the will of their family members (especially those suffering from depression). Prime Minister Trudeau, it won’t be long and your children will be teenagers. You wouldn’t want someone to kill your teenagers against your will.  Why then would you want to kill other teenagers against the will of their parents?

A family can eventually learn to forgive a member who rashly commits suicide on their own. However, it will be extremely hard—if not impossible—for Canadian families to forgive the doctors and politicians responsible for their loved one’s death. The same rage that the Goldman’s displayed against O. J. Simpson will be the same anger directed at you and many others by Canadian families. These angry family members will be at significantly greater risk of developing depression and anxiety, with a high likelihood of developing chronic pain from even minor injuries—and sometimes no injury at all. For every one person you kill against the will of the family, you run a very high risk of triggering a lifetime of mental and/or physical illness/pain in at least one family member—and possibly the entire family.

Furthermore, there are over 5,000 physicians across Canada in the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience, committed to protecting conscience rights for health practitioners and facilities. Many will refuse to kill their patients, and refuse to refer patients to be killed. For every doctor’s license you consequently take away, you will erase on average at least 2,000 patient encounters per doctor per year. Then there’s the doctors who will just quietly leave the country, and those who will refuse to move to Canada because of the hostile environment where doctors are forced to work against their consciences. Then add to this the number of healthcare professionals who will drop out of palliative care and Geriatrics for fear of losing their licenses. Do the math and the number of Canadians affected are staggering.

Will all this not result in even more pain and suffering for Canadians in the end?

Yes, there will always be individuals who want to kill themselves at the first diagnosis of a chronic disease. And there will always be arguments saying that not everyone has equal access to quality palliative care across Canada where adequate pain control is very often achieved. But what kind of country would rather kill its citizens than provide the necessary care and compassion they deserve?

Will the Liberal Party be popular with Canadians 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years from now? 

Will the Liberal Party be popular with the Person who created the teenagers, parents, and grandparents that you will kill? 

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

Brad Burke, MD, FRCPC

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Cc The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice

Slippery Slope is happening

OPINIONEND OF LIFEThu May 21, 2015 - 4:38 pm EST

Dutch court acquits man who euthanized his mother after doctor refused

 Euthanasia , Netherlands

May 21, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A Dutch appeals court acquitted a 74-year-old man earlier this month of the murder of his mother in 2008, because he acted in an “emergency situation”: the woman wanted euthanasia and had not obtained it from her family doctor.

The decision is a surprising one, even in the Netherlands, and will probably be followed by an appeal from the public prosecutor, who has already published a communiqué reminding the public that euthanasia and assisted suicide “are and remain, in the eyes of the prosecutor, exclusively to be performed by a doctor.”

As it stands, the decision marks a new step down the slippery slope of euthanasia. The decision justifies an act of euthanasia contrary to the letter of the law on the grounds that the accused, Albert Heringa, was careful to act in compliance with the law’s provisions.

Albert Heringa acted in accordance with his conscience of his own duty and he was right to do so, ruled the Arnhem-Leeuwarden appeals court, because his sense of duty “justly” carried more weight than the legal prohibition of the act, which in theory can only be decriminalized when performed by a medical doctor under strict conditions.

The accused said he was “very happy” about the decision. The Netherlands Right to Die Society (NVVE) hailed it as “a step in the direction we want to follow.” “Many people who consider their life complete wish to be helped by loved ones,” said its spokeswoman, Fiona Zonneveld.

The judges did not take into account the fact that Albert Heringa’s mother, “Moek,” was deemed ineligible for euthanasia by her doctor.

In 2008, Moek was 99. She had no grave illness; she was just old and blind and did not feel like living any longer, calling her suffering “unbearable” and “without hope of improvement.” When her doctor refused euthanasia on those grounds, she turned to her son who decided to help his mother die.

He was later to explain that his mother started hoarding her medication in order to kill herself through an overdose. The pills she was taking would not have been able to bring about her death, he argued, but would have made her health much worse. This was confirmed during the subsequent judicial enquiry.

Heringa decided to go to work “transparently,” filming his every gesture in view of the killing of his mother. He used an overdose of his own malaria pills together with sleeping pills and anti-emetics to poison her. The films were later used to illustrate a documentary on “Moek’s last wish,” which was aired in 2010 on Dutch TV. The appeals court judges took this “transparency” into account in their decision to acquit him.

The public prosecution was not so lax. Despite the “rectitude” of Heringa’s intention, it accused the man of not having acted in compliance with the law. In 2013, he was judged guilty but exempted from punishment. The prosecution appealed that decision, demanding a three months suspended prison sentence in order to underscore the illegality of his actions. But the Arnhem-Leeuwarden appeals court went even further than the first judges in exonerating him completely.

They invoked the euthanasia law, which decriminalizes euthanasia when no other “reasonable solution” is available to alleviate a patient’s suffering and thus avoid euthanasia, but in this case they equated the potential “reasonable solution” with the ability to find a doctor who would be willing to perform the act, as if euthanasia were a patient right. Heringa could not find one, therefore he was justified in taking the law in his own hands, the judgment says in substance.

This marks a double revolution. Firstly, the court overlooked the legal requirement that a doctor should perform euthanasia, and no one else. Secondly, it justified euthanasia on a woman who was simply “tired of living,” a situation for which the euthanasia law definitely does not provide.

But this is just another element of the Pandora’s box that was opened when the Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2002. Increasingly, regional control commissions, which verify all declared acts of euthanasia retrospectively, have cleared “mercy-killings” of elderly people who had multiple complaints but no single life-threatening disease. “Intolerable suffering” is being interpreted more and more widely. In Heringa’s case, it is simply his mother’s plea for euthanasia that justified the act in the eyes of the court.

The court even went so far as to say that Heringa would have had to live with a “sense of guilt until the end of his life” had he not taken measures to end his mother’s life.

In 2011, the Dutch medical association KNMG changed its position on “intolerable suffering,” declaring that “unbearable and hopeless” suffering can result from other causes than physical illness. Also, the End of Life Clinic founded in 2012 caters to euthanasia requests that have been refused by patients’ family doctors on conscientious or medical grounds. Would Heringa have found a doctor willing to perform euthanasia on his mother in this new situation?

Whatever the answer to that question – and no one will ever know – the fact of his acquittal is a definite sign that euthanasia is being treated more and more as a right and an acceptable option in the Netherlands. It is also good news for unscrupulous family members who might find it expedient to push their relatives towards the grave.

.

 

Safeguards

Sunday, April 3, 2016 (updated April 27, 2016)

 

Safeguards

  

I have not been doing much on my blog. I have been in severe bereavement for the longest time.

I am seeing the parallel between DNR and Euthanasia.   If Bill C-14 becomes law leaving the safeguards in the hands of the medical regulators it will cause collateral damage (deaths). Canada does not allow capital punishment and yet when it comes to euthanasia the courts have decided it is okay to make mistakes that will result in collateral deaths. We are not at war. If a DNR can be unauthorized, then it can be argued that Euthanasia can also be unauthorized. All safeguards so far mentioned in the proposed Bill can be circumvented.

No one believes this but it is true.  If a patient wants medical aid in dying, neither family nor best friend has to be consulted. It could be devastating not knowing for sure. The family might never know as the death certificate will say a natural death . All assessments for such deaths should be made public, so anyone can voice his concern as to possible coercion.

We have to demand that the government invoke the notwithstanding clause to gain time so safeguards are designed to be true safeguards.

I am of the view that consent should be videotaped as it is done in Switzerland.  Not once, but during the whole process.

Was Brittany Maynard forced to end her life on November 1 2014.  She had changed her mind on October 31 2014.  If her husband truly loved her, he would have stopped it as she was ambivalent.

She was locked in the process and could not change her mind. And so was Gloria Taylor.

The word "non-ambivalent" is the word that is missing in the Supreme Court of Canada’s Declaratory Order [para. 127] in 2015. Justice Smith’s Declaratory Orders in 2012 [para. 1393] contained it. Why was it taken out?  Ambivalent means “not sure.”  
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I was just told from an insider that letters to members of parliament are read if not by the member then by his staff.  Just say something from your heart and you will be heard and it will get to the member of parliament. It is important.It will be archived forever.

Send an email to Prime Minister Trudeau : justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca; and/or write Justin Trudeau, House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0A6.(postage is free).

Send an email or a letter to your Member of Parliament: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 (postage is free). Or go see him in his local office.

Send an email to the Senators c/o Denise Batters, denise.batters@sen.parl.gc.ca; and/or send an email or write to a senator who you might know at The Senate of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OA6 (postage is free).


Send a letter to the media.  Just do something. We must invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Copy this and give it to your neighbours.

Audrey Jane Laferriere,
5976 Cambie Street,
Vancouver, B.C.
V5Z 4X3     604-321-2276
blog: http://voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com, to read my story.

Back to Reality as I know it.

I have not been doing much on the blog about Randy because I could not.  But I have decided to start again.  I am seventy-one years old and do not have much life left and I must focus and what is important.  And what is important is Randy's story.  The medical system is broken.  The medical system is for patients and not doctors.

CBS and assisted suicide.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-aid-in-dying-lapook/

The above is a must see link.

The following is some insight by Nancy Valko to the above link.

CBS’s “60 Minutes” and the Selling of Physician-assisted Suicide

March 16, 2016 nancyvalko assisted suicide, education, end-of-life, euthanasia

In the March 13, 2016 TV “60 Minutes” segment titled “Aid in Dying” (retitled “Should the terminally ill control how they die?” in the online transcript, the vaunted investigative news show crossed the line from presenting facts to enthusiastic advocacy.
The stage was set when medical correspondent Dr. John LaPook, an internist and son-in-law of liberal activist Norman Lear, opened the segment by stating:

This is not euthanasia, when a doctor gives a patient a lethal injection. That’s illegal in all 50 states. Aid-in-dying, or what opponents call “assisted suicide” and supporters call “death with dignity,” relies on people taking the medication themselves. Oregon became the first state to legalize it 18 years ago, but because a nurse or doctor is rarely present, it’s remained mostly a private affair, practiced behind closed doors. We wanted to hear from patients and family members who’ve experienced it and are fighting to make it legal nationwide. (Emphasis added.)

If you go to the link for the transcript, you will also see “related videos” with segment extras not included on the TV show.
One titled “ethical concerns” is an interview with Dr. Katrina Hedberg, state epidemiologist of the Oregon Public Health Division, to discuss “ethical concerns raised by her state sanctioning aid-in-dying”. Not surprisingly, Dr. Hedberg strenuously denies that assisted suicide is a danger for the “disenfranchised” or for medical economic or family burden reasons. Instead, she says “the opposite has happened” despite cases like Barbara Wagner’s.
In the segment extra “How does the medicine work?”, the assisted suicide doctor explains that the medicine simply just “shuts off the brain” starting “at the top” where consciousness is and then goes to “the bottom” of the brain where heartbeat and breathing occur. Not a very accurate or scientific explanation but designed to reassure the public.
In the televised segment, there was only a very short interview with Dr. William Toffler, National Director of Physicians for Compassionate Care  but only identified by Dr. LaPook as a doctor “who’s taken care of terminally ill patients for 40 years” and whose wife died of cancer in comfort and without physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Toffler’s practical and ethical concerns were ignored or dismissed by Dr. LaPook.
The rest of the segment involved interviews with people fighting for physician-assisted suicide for themselves or a relative and an assisted suicide doctor. The usual lethal overdose drug and the method for using it for suicide were described in detail.
A major portion of the segment were interviews with Brittany Maynard’s husband and Dr. Eric Walsh, the Oregon physician who prescribed the overdose for the 29 year old woman with a gliobastoma brain tumor whose countdown to assisted suicide became a media sensation in October, 2014.  Brittany’s suicide was described by her husband as Brittany just going to sleep and slowly stopping to breathe.  Not surprisingly, it was after Brittany’s suicide that most mainstream media then changed the usual term “physician-assisted suicide” to softer terms like “aid in dying” or “physician-assisted death”.
Ironically, 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 29, 2015-just 5 months after Brittany Maynard took her lethal overdose-titled “Killing Cancer“  The segment followed patients in a year long clinical trial who had gliobastoma brain cancers like Brittany’s. Many of these patients saw their cancers disappear after being treated with a reengineered polio virus. This was touted as a great breakthrough by “60 Minutes” but went unmentioned in this segment.
Another interview was with a man in hospice who was being seen by Dr. Walsh but, as the segment stated:

Though usually extremely effective at keeping people comfortable, in rare instances, standard hospice care doesn’t work well enough. In those cases, Dr. Walsh says, one option is something called palliative sedation.
Dr. Eric Walsh: When the physician decides that suffering is intolerable, the physician prescribes a medication which puts the patient in a coma…The nurse administers it. It’s given until the person is asleep. The person sleeps for three days, five days. I’ve had someone live 10 days, still excreting, still breathing, with the family at the bedside wondering, “When is this going to end?”

When an assisted suicide doctor himself “decides that suffering is intolerable”, prescribes a intravenous continuous medication to be administered by a nurse to speed a patient’s death, how is that NOT euthanasia?
Sadly, the last interview with a woman dying of colon cancer illustrates the dangers of assisted suicide for so-called “altruistic” reasons that would also appeal to many non-terminally ill but debilitated or suicidal people:

Dr. Jon LaPook: And it sounds like from what you’re saying your decision to
perhaps take the medication will be a final act—
Elizabeth Wallner: Absolutely.
Dr. Jon LaPook: –of protecting your son.
Elizabeth Wallner: Absolutely. I just want him to remember me laughing and, you know, giving him a hard time, and telling him to brush his teeth, and knowing that I would– I would, you know, walk across the sun for him. (Emphasis added)

The public deserves a better and more comprehensive discussion about physician-assisted suicide. Such discussions have been occurring in state legislatures where physician-assisted suicide groups like Compassion and Choices relentlessly push for legalization and medical, disability, pro-life and other groups testify to the real facts and dangers.
There must be something to this opposition since so far this year 8 states have rejected physician-assisted suicide bills.

www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca

There are daily reports about euthanasia on the blog www.alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca, go to it. This is important so you can understand all the issues.  At my age, replicating this information limits my life experience.

My fear is about the dangers of euthanasia evidenced by my experience with DNRs without full informed consent or any consent. Randy would have died if I did not intervene on November 18 2013 and call 911 as GPC (VCH) would not because Dr. Dunn had a DNR on Randy. It was Randy's DNR not Dr. Dunn's. Dr. Dunn was told earlier (7:00 pm) to take off the DNR and he said he would consider it after he returned from Prince George.  So much for CHANGING YOUR MIND and who owns your body.  DNRs are no different than euthanasia, in reality, will you be able to change your mind? Each year DNRs cause more deaths than euthanasia ever will. A DNR tells staff not to give aggressive treatment to a patient.

Euthanasia is quick and painless while a DNR can dictate a death that can be long, very painful and terrifying.  A DNR is a red flag saying to staff not to treat you aggressively. Why would anyone want to look forward to a heart attack or torture by waterboard (unable to breathe) when euthanasia is much more inviting.

And guess what, you the consumer are blamed as you are the ultimate decision maker.

Randys anniversary of his death is rapidly approaching.  Every where I go and I see him.  I am not crying as  much but the pain is so regretful. I could have done more I keep telling myself.  .  But the circumstances of his death is causing me flashbacks and I cannot do very much. If I was not banned from seeing him by VCH.  VCH caused Randy and me irreparable and unforgivable pain.

Randy had a green burial under trees and a mountain cliff.  The day I buried him was cold but beautiful.  The trip home on the ferry from Victoria was fitting as it was a cold but a beautiful day.
I want to demonstrate downtown with my sign and little Owen, but I cannot.  I feel paralysed by grief.  I only want to stay home.  Perhaps, when spring comes, I will feel better.  The sign says:  If you cannot trust doctors to do a DNR, how can you trust doctors to do euthanasia.

Vulnerable: The Euthanasia Deception - Documentary Promo

Andrew Coyne: Society has lost its way

February 29, 2016

Canada is making suicide a public service. Have we lost our way as a society?

By Andrew Coyne

Assisted suicide has gone, in the space of a year, from a crime, to something to be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, to a public service

When the Supreme Court, overturning Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, several votes of the House of Commons and its own previous ruling, legalized assisted suicide last year, it did so on a particular understanding of to whom and under what circumstances the new regime would apply.
It would permit a physician, normally obliged by the code of his profession to save life, to take a life instead, at the request of 1, an adult who is 2, mentally competent and 3, clearly consents, in cases of 4, a "grievous and irremediable" medical condition that imposes 5, suffering that is "intolerable to the individual."
On its own, this made it legal to assist in suicide in a much broader set of circumstances than had previously been contemplated. The emphasis in all previous discussion - the basis of the apparent widespread public support for legalization - had been on persons who suffered, not just from an irremediable, but a terminal condition, such that suicide would merely hasten the inevitable; who were in acute physical pain, rather than enduring subjectively "intolerable" suffering, which the court was clear could be physical or psychological; and who were, or feared they might become, physically unable to kill themselves on their own.

Assisted suicide was presented, paradoxically, as a way of extending life

Assisted suicide was thus presented, paradoxically, as a way of extending life, rather than shortening it, sparing patients from what the court called the "cruel choice" to which they would otherwise be subject: kill themselves while they were able, at the cost perhaps of several years of life, rather than endure the pain and indignity that might come with waiting for nature to take its course. Yet the court's decision did not depend upon this dilemma being present. It was enough that a competent adult was suffering, intolerably and irremediably, and wanted help killing himself. The necessity of the assistance was not at issue.
So the court not only opened the door to assisted suicide, but opened it a little wider than it had been asked to. Nonetheless, it remained confident that the door would open no further. Indeed, the ruling arguably depended on it. The Crown's case for retaining the prohibition, after all, had rested on the concern that the logic of assisted suicide would not permit it to be limited to the sort of narrow circumstances the court had in mind. Expert testimony was called on the experience in Belgium and other countries, where eligibility for assisted suicide has been extended to children, the mentally incompetent, and others.
The court found this sort of "anecdotal" evidence unpersuasive. These countries, it said, had a very different "medico-legal culture" than ours. In Canada, the "risks" of legalized killing could be limited "through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards."
That was a year ago. The court's ruling has not yet taken effect, and already we have the report of an all-party joint committee on "physician-assisted dying" recommending legislation that would go far beyond what the court prescribed.
To be sure, the report builds on the court's foundations. It would apply to both terminal and non-terminal conditions, physical and psychological, debilitating or otherwise. But its definition of a competent adult would not exclude people with mental illnesses - which is to say virtually all current suicides - nor people who had previously expressed the wish to be killed in the event they should later become mentally incompetent. Moreover, after a three-year trial period, it recommends extending the practice to what it calls "mature minors," a term left undefined.
Not only would "assisted dying" be legalized, under the committee's recommendation, it would be publicly funded.

Fred Dufour/Getty Images An all-party committee on assisted dying is recommending that it be publicly funded.

Not only would doctors be permitted to kill their patients on request, they would be obliged to, or provide "effective referral" to others who will. And while the committee suggests that those seeking assistance in killing themselves should be required to get two doctors to certify they met the criteria, the criteria are so open-ended it is hard to see in what circumstances they could say no. In any event: the consent of two doctors? Where have we heard that before? What if none are available? How long could it be before the Supreme Court rules on the inequity of denying "access" on these grounds?
Indeed, no sooner had the report been released than advocates were pushing to expand its bounds. For example, should eligibility be restricted to "mature" minors? Could it, in law or conscience? As Dr. Derrick Smith, chair of the physicians' advisory council of Dying with Dignity Canada, told the CBC, "obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, 'Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering.' "
Well, of course. Once you have normalized suicide, from a tragedy we should seek to prevent to a release from suffering we should seek to assist, it is logically incoherent - indeed, it is morally intolerable - to restrict its benefits to some, while condemning others to suffer interminably, merely on the grounds that they are incapable of giving consent. So it is that assisted suicide has gone, in the space of a year, from a crime, to something to be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, to a public service. Perhaps you see this as progress. But I cannot help feeling that a society that can contemplate putting children to death has somehow lost its way.

National Post

1.7% of doctors

How can we trust doctors when they refused to fill out a survey on medical assisted death.  Only 1.7% of doctors in Canada filled out the Canadian Medical Association's survey.  Every single doctor should have filled out the survey with comments. Maybe then they would know what is going on.  I spoke to a doctor three weeks ago and he did not even know that euthanasia was on the table. 

Earlier this year, the CMA invited its 80,000 members to participate in an online survey about assisted death. Of the 1,407 members who responded, 29 per cent said they would consider providing assisted dying, while 63 per cent said they would not, the CMA reported.
With a report by CTV’s medical specialist Avis Favaro