Canadian House of Commons Approves Assisted Suicide Bill

Photo Credit: Mighty Drake
Photo Credit: Mighty Drake

OTTAWA — The Canadian House of Commons approved an assisted suicide bill on Tuesday, sending the legislation on to the Senate.

MP’s voted 186-137 in favor of Bill C-14 mainly along party lines, with some urging that its constitutionality be sent to the Canadian Supreme Court for review.

“Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the autonomy of persons who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes them enduring and intolerable suffering and who wish to seek medical assistance in dying,” a preamble to the legislation reads.

“Whereas persons who avail themselves of medical assistance in dying should be able to do so without adverse legal consequences for their families—including the loss of eligibility for benefits–that would result from their death…”

The bill sets stipulations that physician assisted suicide may be permitted for those who are at least 18 years old, have a “irremediable medical condition,” have made a voluntary request without pressure to end their life, and sign a form giving their consent. It also removes any criminal penalties against physicians or pharmacists who assist in the person’s death.

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expressed support for the bill, opining that it strikes a balance between the wishes of terminally ill patients and providing safeguards against abuse.

“We understand that this is the beginning of a conversation that will go on for the coming years as court cases, evidence, concerns, and doctors evolve in their thinking as we approach this. However, this is a big step. It needs to be taken right, and that is exactly what Bill C-14 does,” he said.

  • Connect with Christian News

“There are people who think we should have gone further with this bill. There are people who think we already went too far,” Trudeau also acknowledged on Saturday.

Groups such as the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition characterize the legislation as being “particularly dangerous.”

“The bill requires a medical or nurse practitioner to: be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria. To ‘be of the opinion’ is a very low standard. It will be impossible to prove that the medical or nurse practitioner was not of the opinion that the person met all of the criteria,” Executive Director Alex Schadenberg wrote in a blog post.

“It is unbelievable that legal immunity is provided to anyone. This bill provides the perfect cover for acts of murder,” he said.

The Physician’s Alliance Against Euthanasia has also expressed its opposition to the move. The group says that emphasis should be made on palliative care and not suggesting to patients that death is their only answer.

“The waltz of words continues, as we malign palliative care by presenting ‘medical assistance in dying’ as the only alternative to an agonizingly painful death,” it wrote in a recent post. “We are already far from the idea that was sold to us when this debate began: from proposing death for a few exceptional cases, we’ve reached the point where it’s considered ‘health care’ like any other.”

“[T]he federal government casts a wide net in its list of lives that are not worth living, including people with a serious and incurable disease, condition or disability, those losing autonomy and those with persistent physical or psychological suffering ‘that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable,'” it said.

A rally organized by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the Living with Dignity Network and Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia is scheduled for today on Parliament Hill. The event is headlined “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Are Not The Answer.”

Bill C-14 is the result of a unanimous Canadian Supreme Court opinion that current law providing criminal penalties for those who take part in ending the life of another should be amended to allow some adults with terminal and “intolerable” conditions to request assistance from their doctors.

“[W]e do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to life requires an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot ‘waive’ their right to life. This would create a ‘duty to live,’ rather than a ‘right to life,’” the court said in regard to a complete ban on the practice, “and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of lifesaving or life-sustaining treatment.”

The court gave Parliament until June 6 to enact a new law in light of its declaration.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Humanism = religion of death. Christianity = truth, life, light, and meaning. Canadian Christian missionaries taught the world that suicide and honor killing is wrong. This is so sad. The Western culture goes back to Pre-christian barbarism by losing the Judeo-Christian values. Canada needs Christian values to live on and to be fair and humane.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen, Sister Grace!

    • John N

      So Grace, when did Humanism became a religion? Are you inventing definitions again? Please explain.

      And religion of death? Coming from a follower of a religion that all turns around death and what supposedly happens after? Projection much?

      I do not care what misssionaries taught the world – what I do care is that christians try to push their religion onto other people, to the result that they will not allow someone in a state of enduring and intolerable suffering to end their life according to their own choice.

      And that is very sad.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Secular humanism puts humans on the top, and as a result they eliminate the youngest and the weakest humans who are considered unwanted or useless. It has a fine line with Nazism. Humanism and Nazism are twin ideologies. Christianity rescued most of humans around the world throughout history. Most conversion was free and willing in spite of severe persecutions because Christianity is astonishing true and good. Today, majority of religiously persecuted are still Christians. You are too young and you only know your own little Ex-christendom which was fed well by the Christian Church, and that’s why you know nothing about the world like a fattened kid from a rich family. Christianity has been the Western civilization’s long-term sanity and conscience and brought mankind God’s truth, salvation, charity, universal literacy, civility, and lawfulness. You must stop disgracing your own parents and grandparents and your ancestors who were better than you.

        • gogo0

          the best argument you are able to posit against humanists is that they are very nearly nazis? keep posting your comedy, Grace. it’s extreme self-righteous rambling like this that keeps us critical thinkers entertained and coming back to this forum.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So true, so true. LOL!!

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Holier than thou, much?

        • james blue

          What did Christians do to the native population in the process of founding the USA?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They brought literacy and civility and lawfulness. Go back to Europe as you wish if you are a liberal white American. Don’t occupy the land at all. Stop bashing your ancestors who were morally better than you and see what you are doing. The Natives hate the Western sexual pervs, too.

          • james blue

            if “charity and literacy and civility and lawfulness” is your definition of genocide…..

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They were having wars among themselves. They also mingled with the main population. If genocide is what really happened, you must leave the land. Take responsibility as you should. The Church gave you literacy, so pay tax to the Christian Church. And you are alive today only because the Church taught your mother that abortion is wrong. The Westerners would have been barbaric and illiterate as any other Earthlings if they had no Christian Church. Stop repaying the good with evil.

          • james blue

            So it was the Native American’s own fault that they were slaughtered and their land taken because they didn’t leave, not the Christians who did it? The Christians slaughtered them for their own good?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Natives were slaughtering each other any way, and the discovery of American continents by others was a matter of time. They massacred and slaughtered countless white Christian settlers. Migrants always have conflicts everywhere on earth. Many natives died of diseases as well, but it wasn’t something planned. It’s only the atheists who plan manual population reduction by killing and do live human experiments on others. Many Natives mingled into the European population by marriage, too. The European superpowers were at war each other and they slaughtered each other for the longest time; it was such an era of constant wars and struggles for survival from all sides. Eventually the strongest tribes(Britons this case) got most of the North America. Christians helped everyone with provision of God’s truth, charity, medicine, literacy, civility, and lawfulness, and the Britons created the finest nations and such systems for everyone to live. They are the first tribe to abolish slavery on Planet Earth. There were abuses, but it’s every tribe that committed atrocities. Those who hate the white Christian settlers should leave N. America and return to their countries of origin as they wish.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Yep, rambling again. You are very good at that. I mean judging people you don’t even know.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            The Natives hate seeing the Western sexual pervs, too.

            Native Americans have often held intersex, androgynous people, feminine males and masculine females in high respect. The most common term to define such persons today is to refer to them as “two-spirit” people

            Fail. Try again.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Not all Natives. Every culture has unique evils and some overlap, but mimickers of today’s Western Sodomism are the real permanent slaves to the rich perv Westerners. Both Westerners and Non-Westerners need the Gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation and the Christian education to be civilized. Sin is slavery.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            And again *facepalm*. You should really get out more.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christians need freedom not to support suicide or immorality.

        • John N

          >’Humanism and Nazism are twin ideologies.’

          Well, Hitler actually claimed to do your lord’s work: “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

          So you are in good company, Grace.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Hitler was a Darwinian evolutionist. He lied to the Germans because he knew that unlike the Russians the Germans would never listen to any Non-christian savages. Every European and American claimed to be Christian at that time any way. Nazi Germany was defeated by the Christian President of then-Christian America. The Westerners who hate Christianity are the new toxic species that started about only 3-4 decades ago. The Western civilization has nothing superior apart from Christianity. That’s why the De-christianized West is becoming like Sodom today. You guys are just crazy Sodomites without Christianity. Pre-christian barbarism was less sick than Post-christian Sodom. The West needs Christian faith for the truth and salvation and morality and liberty.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You love to ramble, don’t you? I don’t hate Christianity, I just don’t like Christians like you who think they are holier than thou. Those who tell other people how to live their lives. Live and let live you should try it sometimes, it’s liberating. Not being religious is even better, I don’t judge other people like you do.

          • John N

            “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”. Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936.

            Grace, you realy don’t need to lie to be able to hold on to your belief, you know.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      So you’re saying, you’re a Christian but not humane? No surprise there.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Promoting suicide is inhumane.

    • sandra-paquette-

      The left has no Christian Values, they are on the contrary the opposite. They had a Christian Prime minister in and the people didn’t want him. They wanted an Obama so now Canada will sink, sink and sink. Just watch.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s true God punishes the nations that indulge false peace and abuse children with immorality. Let’s keep praying for Canada’s repentance. Canada is a country which Christians have created for spreading of Christianity – the light and life.

  • bowie1

    As I understand this legislation doctors would be required to refer a patient to another if they themselves do not want to euthanize a person who requests it. But, when it comes to suffering is it the patient that suffers or is it their family members that think their loved one is suffering especially if it is not expressed such as in the case of Alzheimers disease.

    • Bob Johnson

      I spent two months sitting with my wife while her 98 year old mother died. When my mother-in-law was on morphine she could not remember her name, where she was, or who we were. When the drug wore off the slightest movement of the sheets sent her into screams of pain.

      • bowie1

        That’s the danger of morphine use and when it wears off and a person goes into withdrawal. My wife sometimes uses a small dose of morphine when she has angina pains but her sister doesn’t like its use. My own mother doesn’t have pain but she does have Alzheimers and no longer is verbal.

        • ComeOnPeople!

          A blind man cannot see ,therefore? A deaf man cannot hear, therefore? An aging man cannot remember, therefore? WHAT? A child is born with down syndrome , therefore? Are we to play GOD and say because someone is in pain, does not share our same health or is aging and can no longer remember things that their lives are of no value? Love offers hope not death. Love holds onto life until breath is gone it does not destroy life because of difficulties. I loved my mother-in-law and offered her hope not death up until her last breath. Those who take death into their own hands will always be haunted with what ifs. What if she had recovered, what if she had spoken something right before her passing that would change the family forever, what if the unbelief finds GOD in suffering, what if the doctors were wrong and they recovered or a miracle took place. There is no more hope once breath is gone. We should never offer dispart or a way out but always offer humanity hope.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      Humans are not pets that if hit by a car , the family has the option to put them down. Suffering is not a bad thing. Many times suffering has brought families together and gave them new outlooks on life. Suffering helps us to see just how powerless we as human beings are and gives us a deep desire to honor the ONE who holds ALL power in HIS hands. He is revealed to the unbeliever to be sovereign many times through suffering and shown to be faithful during suffering to believers. Murdering self or accomplishing someone in doing so … offers no hope of any kind.

  • Amos Moses

    YEAH ………. Canada gets it LEFT AGAIN ……………. SMH …………

    • TheBottomline4This

      Most Liberals are so into death. Abortions, assisted suicides, death of certain things in culture, They are blinded to what they really are supporting.
      Yet, they cry for gun control to “save lives”.
      Hypocrites much?

      • This style ten and six

        I Canada we acknowledge that a woman owns her own body, that same sex marriage is a right and soon will be able to get help in ending our lives if it becomes too burdensome.

        And yes, we have fairly strict control on guns and our homicide rate is way below that of the US.

        • Tangent002

          Savages!

          • John_33

            Quite literally. We forcibly sterilized members of our indigenous population in the 1950s & now we are bringing this into law thanks to unelected judges who ruled that it’s now the law of the land & gave our Parliament a deadline to craft it. This is going to be really bad.

        • Tangent002

          Canada seems to have more compassion than the U.S.

          • This style ten and six

            I think, on the whole, we are less religious.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I think every country that has these rights, have more compassion than the US.

      • Amos Moses

        Isa 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
        28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
        28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
        28:18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

  • TheBottomline4This

    Canada is becoming more evil as time goes by.

    • Ronald Carter

      There is nothing “evil” about Canada.

      • TheBottomline4This

        Well, not the land, but the people who are making these evil decisions.

        • Ronald Carter

          There is nothing “evil” about helping a terminally ill person to cut their suffering short.

          • Ken Faivor

            Cutting their suffering short? How about extending it to eternity?

            Rev 21:8 But for the FEARFUL, and UNBELIEVING, and abominable, and MURDERERS, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.

          • Ronald Carter

            That’s a big stretch to say that God wants people to have long, drawn out and painful deaths unnecessarily.

          • gogo0

            god wanted it for his son, why should the rest of us miss out?

          • gogo0

            if those people don’t believe in heaven/hell to begin with, then nothing changes except extended mortal suffering

    • Tangent002

      Evil is forcing someone to endure excruciating pain for the sake of appeasing some bronze age notion of morality.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    You are of your father the devil and he was a murderer from the beginning. Check yourself to see which spirit you are following. Suicide is the MURDER of self and those who help you to kill yourself are in fact accomplices to murder. Call it whatever you want but to take life either that of another or yourself is MURDER.

    • Bob Johnson

      So the Christian thing to do is to provide modern medical technology to allow a person a few additional weeks of pain and suffering?

      • Ken Faivor

        Are you a Christian? And was your mother-in-law a Christian?

        • Bob Johnson

          Yes.

          Mother-in-law was a Jehovah’s Witness, but she was disfellowed when my wife was born because she had a blood transfusion.

          • Ken Faivor

            Jehovah’s Witnesses lack the basic Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God and is God.

            Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

          • Bob Johnson

            Well, actually I’m an Episcopalian. So you probably don’t consider that Christian either.

          • JoeMvGod

            Not even close.

      • John_33

        When I read about your mother-in-law, my first instinct is sorrow and compassion. I’m very sorry to hear of it and the suffering that took place. My strong desire after reading that is for the healthcare system to keep pushing forward to create new ways to better alleviate suffering. We’ll never defeat death until Jesus returns, but we can at least work towards making people more comfortable until it is their time to die.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          How do you make someone who is terminal ill healthier and more comfortable until it is their time to die?

          • John_33

            At that point, making them healthier is probably not an option. We have pain killers, but currently they are inadequate. That’s why I think there should be far more research for better experimental drugs and pain killers.

          • Bob Johnson

            Pain is in the brain. Good luck producing a pain killing drug that does not cause other psychological problems. Well, I suppose a frontal lobotomy might qualify, but afterwards are they the same person?

          • John_33

            I’m suggesting better research. We don’t have it at our disposal, but the Bible condemns assisted suicide. It’s not for us to choose when to die, and if we do so, then it will set our healthcare system back decades because we won’t be searching for cures as hard as we used to.

          • Bob Johnson

            If it is not for us to choose when to die, we should stop taking antibiotics.

          • John_33

            No sir, we should do everything we can to preserve life. That’s what taking antibiotics does.

          • Bob Johnson

            So when God is calling you home, you say NO.

          • John_33

            No, we are doing what God said when He told us to choose life.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So your God rather let someone suffer as long as possible instead of ‘calling him/her home’? Right! Another reason I don’t believe in your God.

          • John_33

            No, God wants us to choose life and preserve it. That’s not extreme. On the other hand, choosing death calling that compassion is not right. Whether you’re religious or not, it’s bad all around and will lead to horrific abuses.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Yeah I got it. You rather let someone who is terminal ill, as in won’t get better not even antibiotics will help anymore, suffer. I’m glad I don’t believe in your God, neither does my sis or dad, or mom would have suffered, in constant pain, sick all day, in bed all day. But hey in your eyes it’s the compassionate thing to do, right?

          • John_33

            God forbid. I’m not in favor of suffering. I’m in favor for preserving life and mitigating suffering. There are many times when people are said to be terminally ill and they actually recover. This is not about compassion. This is about what kind of society we want. We should not seek death as a solution. People are going to suffer. We need to find the right answer to it, and death is not it.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Well my aunt, my uncle and my mom all three had terminal cancer and there was nothing they could do anymore. As in they would never recover. So no they wouldn’t make a miraculous recovery.

          • John_33

            Of course we can’t preserve life forever, but we can try to mitigate pain as best we can. I’m sorry to hear of your loss. I’ve had family too that had terminal cancer. I personally think we should put far more research into developing better pain medicine, but we must deal with what we have today. The truth is we are going to suffer. Everybody suffers even when we’re pretty healthy. Instead of trying to stop that, we need to figure out the most appropriate response. I don’t believe that administering death is the answer. It will lead to abuses, and that is something I don’t want to see in the system.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Many a person has made a turn around that modern medicine could not explain. Many who pleaded for death either to escape the pain of their bodies or a tormented mind, came back to health for a time or to their senses. Men cannot determine when a person will die. Many who have had cancer that I have known have went far more years living then what their doctors told them. My Sister-in-law was given no hope but is still among us and was blessed to see her only son married. Is her life less valuable just because men gave her a death sentence and she is in pain. NO! Life is a gift and to play GOD is to deny yourself any hope. A person without hope is a most miserable human being. To trust in GOD’s sovereignty gives man more comfort in suffering than the ending of their life ever could.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Compassion offers hope not a way out of suffering. Compassion says until your last breath, there is still hope. Hope for recovery , hope if you still do not believe in GOD to find HIM and hope that before you depart that you will still effect someone around you. Life offers hope… when your breath is gone… there is no more hope.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            You may never believe in your Creator until the day you are powerless in suffering.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        The Christian thing to do is to never play the part of the ONE who gives life and takes it. And yes the Christian is to value life even up into the last breath, whether the person is in deep pain or not. Suffering many times draws a person back to their Creator or to a deeper place with HIM. A Christian does not shun suffering because it’s a part of life and many an atheist has come to know GOD in his deepest suffering right before his last breath. Murder offers no hope, no last minute joys and no hope of recovery. Murder is always wrong, whether you are an accomplice to it or the actual murderer . Whether you kill yourself or you kill another. Murder is saying that you are your own god.

  • Ronald Carter

    Of all the things I disagree with evangelicals about, this issue is the most baffling. Someone is going to die with a terminal illness – WHY would anyone want to delay the misery and horrible pain? I wouldn’t want that – and I certainly wouldn’t want someone else to make such a horrible and heartless decision on my behalf.

    • TheBottomline4This

      No. What is baffling…miserable…horribly painful…heartless is the decision millions of women, either out of selfishness or ignorance make in aborting their son or daughter.

      • Ronald Carter

        Which has what to do with this topic?

        • TheBottomline4This

          Death. Killing.

          Most Liberals are so into death. Abortions, assisted suicides, death of certain things in culture, They are blinded to what they really are supporting.

          Yet, they cry for gun control to “save lives”.
          Hypocrites much?

          • Ronald Carter

            The topic is assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness, not abortion. Why are you comparing them?

    • gizmo23

      It’s very simple. You don’t value life. We do. Liberalism is a death cult, abortion and AIDS.

      • Ronald Carter

        Yeah, sure you’re Gizmo.

      • gogo0

        no real argument, so you impersonate another poster. classy

    • John_33

      I understand your point. The issue comes down to how we view life. If you believe that there’s more to life than this one & you believe that all human life is sacred & special, then you will most likely believe that you can’t take a human life for any reason. But if you believe that this life is all there is & there is nothing after it, then assisted suicide may seem like a pretty good choice. This is the real issue that divides us, but there are many problems associated with assisted suicide.

      The first problem is that it leads to a slippery slope. Once death becomes an option, protections against harm become loosened & it is considered more instead of real healthcare as an answer for everything. I know it sounds cliched, but bear with me as this is already happening.

      In Belgium, they have now removed the age restriction for assisted suicide. There is absolutely no restrictions. Now children as young as six or even younger can legally ask for it & be granted a review from a doctor. What child do you know at age six that can reasonably choose life or death? They can’t vote, marry, purchase a house, or go to war, but they are “adult” enough to choose to die? In what world? Even worse, at that age, children will undoubtedly be influenced by adults who can tell them all sorts of stories to encourage them to choose assisted suicide.

      In the Netherlands, they have created what is known as the Groningen Protocol, which creates a legal grey area that lets doctors kill disabled children up to age 12 with the parents’ permission. This is extremely frightening because the children have no say in the matter. Even though there are supposed to be controls on determining the viability of the child, the decision is in the hands of parents & doctors and not in the patients’ hands.

      There is also the issue of economic costs with assisted suicide disproportionately (and perversely, I might add), impacting the poor. Healthcare costs so much & assisted suicide is so cheap that it creates an incentive to choose death. Things like seniors residences, wheelchairs, and even Meals on Wheels are more expensive than assisted suicide. Is this the type of system we want where the burden of financial costs will literally encourage people to choose death? This is where it’s tragically heading.

      In Oregon, Barbara Wagner wanted to try $4000/month experimental drug treatment to prolong her life after fighting cancer, but her insurance company rejected it. They offered to cover $50 for assisted suicide instead. This created a media outrage that caused the insurance company to capitulate and give her the drugs. While Wagner succumbed to the disease, the company only changed its mind due to the mediastorm. There are many others like Wagner that struggle with paying for medication that costs thousands of dollars but they don’t have the media coverage to fight. Now with assisted suicide, they will be told that this is their option. That’s extremely terrible & isn’t what anyone wants for a healthcare system.

      Then there’s the problem of coercion. There will always be the risk of family members influencing the final decision of the patient. How could it be any different? Suppose a patient is in extreme pain and a family member says, “I really think you should consider assisted suicide.” Is that family member’s suggestion coercion, undue influence, or a loving suggestion? What if they say it multiple times over the course of a week? Would that be coercion? Now suppose in the same scenario that it’s a doctor that tells the patient that they should consider assisted suicide (it’s the doctor’s job to notify the patient of all possible treatments). Is that coercion? Please remember that it’s a medical expert suggesting the procedure as a potential remedy. Coercion and influence will never go away since it’s impossible to prevent. It’s a part of the system.

      In Canada, there are issues with wait times and rationing of care. Earlier in Ontario, cuts were made to the healthcare system because of the province’s high deficits. What happens when politicians, judges, and doctors see the system under strain because it’s underfunded? Will assisted suicide eventually be considered a viable option to keep costs down? I really hope not, but cold, hard decisions may be made, and I certainly don’t want to see that become a part of my healthcare system.

      There are many more issues, but suffice it to say that life is precious. We need to keep our healthcare system focused on the health and well-being of the patient and not on choosing death. The two are diametrically opposed, and it will negatively impact the healthcare system if assisted suicide is allowed. My only hope is that Canadians will see the error of their ways and reverse it before it causes too many irreparable problems.

      • John N

        >’This is the real issue that divides ….’

        No, it is not. The real issue that divides us that unbeliever like me (and a lot of believers too), do think that I should be able and allowed to make this kind of choice for myself, while a religious fundamentalist like you think that HE should make that choice for me.

        >’The first problem is that it leads to a slippery slope …’
        Yeah right, the slippery slope argument. Do you actually have any evidence that in Belgium and the Netherlands the liberal euthanasia-laws have lead to ‘protections become loosened & assisted suicide is increasingly considered an option instead of real healthcare as an answer for everything.’? If not, your argument is just a logical fallacy.

        The same thing for your other arguments – coercion, budget control, …. Except for this few anecdotes, do you have any relevant evidence of growing abuse in one of the countries that allow euthanasia or are you just making things up to prove your point?

        >’We need to keep our healthcare system focused on the health and well-being of the patient and not on choosing death. The two are diametrically opposed, and it will negatively impact the healthcare system if assisted suicide is allowed’

        No it doesn’t. The objective of a healthcare system is not to keep dying people alive at all costs; it is to give a maximum quality of life as long as possible.

        • John_33

          No, it is not. The real issue that divides us that unbeliever like me (and a lot of believers too), do think that I should be able and allowed to make this kind of choice for myself, while a religious fundamentalist like you think that HE should make that choice for me.

          The difference is how we view life. The idea that we can take a person’s life in compassion is very different from the idea that we seek to preserve life.

          Remember, I’m the one arguing to save life. You are arguing to prematurely end it before they are to die. That’s the difference we have between us. You can call that fundamentalism, I call it compassion.

          Yeah right, the slippery slope argument. Do you actually have any evidence that in Belgium and the Netherlands the liberal euthanasia-laws have lead to ‘protections become loosened & assisted suicide is increasingly considered an option instead of real healthcare as an answer for everything.’? If not, your argument is just a logical fallacy.

          They are in my previous reply.

          The same thing for your other arguments – coercion, budget control, …. Except for this few anecdotes, do you have any relevant evidence of growing abuse in one of the countries that allow euthanasia or are you just making things up to prove your point?

          I gave it in my previous reply.

          No it doesn’t. The objective of a healthcare system is not to keep dying people alive at all costs; it is to give a maximum quality of life as long as possible.

          The objective of a healthcare system is to preserve and maintain our health. It’s not about quality of life since that phrase has been defined so many different ways that it’s now meaningless. How do we objectively measure when someone’s quality of life renders them unable to continue living? We need to objectively measure health, not subjectively measure when someone ought to die. This is the fundamental difference between your position and mine.

          Here’s another problem. My position is to keep the system the same. Your position is to radically redefine it, yet you insist on me proving why the system you prefer is wrong. I did that, but I didn’t have to. The burden of proof is on you to prove why your system will not lead to coercion, looser controls, worse quality of care, rationing, and financial burdens. These are problems that you must answer why the system won’t go that way. Denying it doesn’t make these problems go away. They only exacerbate them.

          We are not talking about fundamentalism anymore. We are talking about life and death. The idea that this is an issue that can be settled by making “points” on the internet is absurd. This is a real issue that will affect real people. I care for Canadians, and I am greatly concerned that many will feel forced to choose it or that some may even die without giving consent. This is extremely terrible. Nobody should want this, yet many are pushing for assisted suicide without evaluating the risks.

          • John N

            >’Remember, I’m the one arguing to save life. You are arguing to prematurely end it before they are to die. ‘

            No, I’m not.

            I’m the one arguing that it is MY CHOICE to end my life in a way I prefer, NOT YOURS.

            Is it that so hard to understand?

            If you do not want assisted suicide, you’re free to die in any painfull way you want. But you’re not going to decide that for me.

            >’They are in my previous reply.’

            You call the extensions on an existing law to include young people a slippery slope? Why? Does this automatically leads to the abuses you fear will happen? Or do you deny young people who are dying in having a say on how they want to go?

            >’I gave it in my previous reply.’

            Your anecdotical evidence is irrelevant. Some countries have this law for more than ten years. You claim allowing an assisted suicide-bill will lead automatically to more and more abuse – a slippery slope. Where is the evidence this is happening?

            >’We need to objectively measure health, not subjectively measure when someone ought to die’
            No, we don’t. It is up to the patient to decide if his quality of life is still according his standards. It is certainly not up to someone who think it shuld not be illegal because his personal belief doesn’t allow him to make this choice for himself.

            >’The burden of proof is on you to prove why your system will not lead to coercion, looser controls, worse quality of care, rationing, and financial burdens’
            Is it? You are the one positively claiming an assisted suicide-law will automatically lead to coercion, looser controls, worse quality of care, rationing, and financial burdens. You have the burden of proof. I can only show you that in countries where such a law exists, there is not any sign such a process is happening.

            >’… I am greatly concerned that many will feel forced to choose it or that some may even die without giving consent.’

            And so you deny them the right to choose and oblige them to end their life in horrible pain. How very concerning and compassionate of you…

          • John_33

            No, I’m not.

            Yes you are. You are arguing to create a system which will let the government legally & prematurely terminate life. You just don’t realize it.

            You call the extensions on an existing law to include young people a slippery slope? Why? Does this automatically leads to the abuses you fear will happen? Or do you deny young people who are dying in having a say on how they want to go?

            Yes or no. Are 6 year olds mature enough to request assisted suicide?

            Your anecdotical evidence is irrelevant. Some countries have this law for more than ten years. You claim allowing an assisted suicide-bill will lead automatically to more and more abuse – a slippery slope. Where is the evidence this is happening?

            As I said before, I gave it in my original reply.

            Is it? You are the one positively claiming an assisted suicide-law will automatically lead to coercion, looser controls, worse quality of care, rationing, and financial burdens. You have the burden of proof. I can only show you that in countries where such a law exists, there is not any sign such a process is happening.

            If you can’t demonstrate why the system will not lead to those things, then you don’t have a case. You are only narrowmindedly insisting that your desire be allowed, and if that causes problems for anyone else, then too bad.

            And so you deny them the right to choose and oblige them to end their life in horrible pain. How very concerning and compassionate of you…

            And you want a system that will result in more unnecessary death. How compassionate of you.

          • John N

            >’Yes you are. You are arguing to create a system which will let the government legally & prematurely terminate life. You just don’t realize it’

            Even when you changed your statement now, you are still wrong.

            I’m arguing to let people decide on how and when to end their life in case of a terminal illness. The government has nothing to do with it – except for the fact that they will allow a suregon to help me do it in a human way.

            But it is MY decision, not yours, not the governments.

            >’Yes or no. Are 6 year olds mature enough to request assisted suicide?’

            I don’t know that, and neither do you. It is not my job to find out, and certainly not yours. But if I was a six year old, suffering from a terminal disease and in constant pain, I would certainly want to have a say in that. And I wouldn’t want some religious fundi come to tell me that due to his compassion for me, I’m obliged to stay suffering till the end.

            >’As I said before, I gave it in my original reply’
            And I don’t except that as relevant evidence. There you go.

            >’If you can’t demonstrate why the system will not lead to those things, then you don’t have a case. You are only narrowmindedly insisting that your desire be allowed, and if that causes problems for anyone else, then too bad.’

            Don’t try to change the burden of proof again. And until you have actual evidence that allowing my wish to be granted causes problems to other people, you have no case.

            >’And you want a system that will result in more unnecessary death. How compassionate of you.’
            Does the term ‘terminal disease’ rings a bell to you? Terminaly diseased people tend to die real soon. What I want to avoid is unnecessary suffering. Who would be so cruel as to not allow that? Oh, yes, I see.

          • John_33

            Even when you changed your statement now, you are still wrong.

            But it is MY decision, not yours.

            Who creates the law? Government. Who decides what constitutes assisted suicide and what is malpractice? Government. Who determines what is coercive action against patients and is therefore criminal? Government. Let’s say the doctor does something wrong and the patient dies. How do you seek restitution? By going through the court system. You didn’t gain any new freedoms. You only gave the power to kill citizens to the government, and the only institution you have to save you from it is the courts.

            Is that really your decision then? No.

            I don’t know. That is not my job to find out, and certainly not yours. But if I was a six year old, suffering from a terminal disease and in constant pain, I would certainly want to have a say in that. And I wouldn’t want some religious fundi come to tell me that due to his compassion for me, I’m obliged to stay suffering till the end.

            You don’t know. Really? Come now, you are being disingenuous, and it’s obvious.

            And I don’t except that as relevant evidence. There you go.

            I can’t help you if you choose to ignore the evidence.

            Don’t try to change the burden of proof again. And until you have actual evidence that allowing my wish to be granted causes problems to other people, you have no case.

            No sir, when you argue for something, you need to prove it. You can’t just propose something and require others to argue against it. I already demonstrated how controls are loosened and explained the economic factor and also explained how coercion cannot be removed from the system. You have provided absolutely no rebuttal.

            Does the term ‘terminal disease’ rings a bell to you? Terminaly diseased people tend to die real soon. What I want to avoid is unnecessary suffering. Who would be so cruel as to not allow that? Oh, yes, I see.

            What you don’t understand is that Canada is NOT only allowing this for terminally ill people. They are opening it up already for others, which proves my point.

            Premature death is not compassion. It will lead to people unnecessarily dying in what is supposed to be a healthcare system, and that, is the cruelest thing the government could do to its citizens.

          • John N

            >’ You only gave the power to kill citizens to the government, and the only institution you have to save you from it is the courts.’

            I don’t think you understand how assisted suicide works – or you don’t want too.

            It is the PATIENT who decides how and when he wants to die. Not the government, not the courts, not the doctor, and certainly not a religious fundi who prefers to let his mythical deity decide.

            So in case I’m the patient, yes, it would be MY decision.

            >’You don’t know. Really? Come now, you are being disingenuous, and it’s obvious’

            No, I’m not. And it is not obvious. And I’m certainly not arrogant enough to claim I can decide that a specific child is old and competent enough to take that decision. That is something I leave to the specialists – a youth psychologist, by example. Which is part of the procedure.

            >’No sir, when you argue for something, you need to prove it.’

            Correct! That is why you, who made the initial claims like ‘…t it leads to a slippery slope’ or ‘… it creates an incentive to choose death ‘ or ‘…the risk of family members influencing the final decision of the patient’, have the burden of proof. Glad you finaly recognize it.

            Me, on the other hand, can just look t the already available evidence for abuse in the countries that allow assited suicide and conclude it there is none.

            >’What you don’t understand is that Canada is NOT only allowing this for terminally ill people. They are opening it up already for others, which proves my point’

            Is it? So what do you understand by “persons with a irremediable medical condition”?

            >’Premature death is not compassion. It will lead to people unnecessarily dying in what is supposed to be a healthcare system, and that, is the cruelest thing the government could do to its citizens.’

            Again the same claim. Do you think it will become true when you repeat it enough?

            No, terminally ill people will not die unnecessarily, they will die anyway. No, the healthcare system is not ment to keep people alive at all costs. And no, the government has no saying in individual requests.

            And letting people suffer a painfull end of their life because your god could be upset is not a sign of compassion. It is a sign of religious bigotry.

          • John_33

            I don’t think you understand how assisted suicide works – or you don’t want too.

            It is the PATIENT who decides how and when he wants to die. Not the government, not the courts, not the doctor, and certainly not a religious fundi who prefers to let his mythical deity decide.

            So in case I’m the patient, yes, it would be MY decision.

            That’s how people envision the system to work, but it can’t stay that way. Who’s writing the laws and determining what constitutes assisted suicide? The government. And what happens if there is medical malpractice and, God forbid, a relative dies? Your only recourse is to go to the courts and sue the doctor. And what happens if the courts rule against you? You have no alternative, so yes, this is a government system, and it’s not your choice. It’s the government’s choice. Even from a libertarian perspective, this is government intrusion into your life because it’s a government-run system.

            As much as you want it to be about your choice, it’s not, and it can’t be. Assisted suicide gives the government legal power to kill. This is not hyperbole. Canada once forcibly sterilized its indigenous population without consent. It’s horrible, but it came about because of attitudes in the day towards sterilization and towards our indigenous population. We can’t let that happen again.

            No, I’m not. And it is not obvious. And I’m certainly not arrogant enough to claim I can decide that a specific child is old and competent enough to take that decision. That is something I leave to the specialists – a youth psychologist, by example. Which is part of the procedure.

            No, there’s no logic behind arguing that a six year old can make a life and death decision without any influence from adults when we know they cannot own a home, drive a car, marry, or drink alcohol. The risks are too high, and it’s simply irresponsible to let adults manipulate little child that way. It’s unconscionable, and future generations will wonder how we were that barbaric and perverse to allow it.

            Correct! That is why you, who made the initial claims like ‘…t it leads to a slippery slope’ or ‘… it creates an incentive to choose death ‘ or ‘…the risk of family members influencing the final decision of the patient’, have the burden of proof. Glad you finaly recognize it.

            Me, on the other hand, can just look t the already available evidence for abuse in the countries that allow assited suicide and conclude it there is none.

            You have yet to make a single argument for assisted suicide other than that you want the choice. I have presented evidence, yet all you have said is that you reject it. That’s not good enough. You need to make a case if you support something. Saying you want it is fine and good, but that’s not evidence for it.

            As I said before, the other states have serious problems with their systems. Turning this system on little children is an extreme example, yet that’s exactly what’s starting to happen in other countries.

            Is it? So what do you understand by “persons with a irremediable medical condition”?

            No, terminally ill is different. Groups supporting and opposing in Canada recognize this. Last month, Alberta’s highest court (a provincial court) ruled that people who have a psychiatric illness and are not terminally ill have a constitutional right to assisted suicide. This means even something like depression can be allowed for assisted suicide, something most Canadians are opposed to.

            As I said before, the definition is already opening up. This is why I said that coercion can never be removed from the system. Constantly asking people if they want to die when they are in distress, pain, suffering, or even have a mental illness can most definitely influence their choice. Some may not want to die, but they may feel that they must choose it. Others may have a mental illness and it may not be their decision entirely, but that won’t stop the government from deciding that these people can choose death. This is not something we should have in a health care system.

            Again the same claim. Do you think it will become true when you repeat it enough?

            It is true, and I will continue to express it because it’s vital to this discussion.

            No, terminally ill people will not die unnecessarily, they will die anyway. No, the healthcare system is not ment to keep people alive at all costs. And no, the government has no saying in individual requests.

            And letting people suffer a painfull end of their life because your god could be upset is not a sign of compassion. It is a sign of religious bigotry.

            As I stated before, this is not only about terminally ill people; however, even terminally ill people should not choose death. Once we accept that choosing death is a medical service, it dangerously opens up and people grow careless. As you said, you don’t even know if 6-year-olds can make such a decision, but Belgium has already decided to go ahead. This is dangerous, and it will lead to more deaths when people did not have to die. See, this is bad for all Canadians whether one is religious or not. I don’t want to see people die unnecessarily when they can live healthy, strong lives. Assisted suicide will devastate many families.

            That’s the problem, and it’s a shame that most Canadians do not understand this; however, I hope and pray they will in the near future.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            What ever happened to … DO NO HARM? To help someone to kill themselves is the ultimate harm, for once breath is taken from someone no hope can be offered. Those who do not know their Creator do not understand suffering and wish to end it. Some of our greatest songs, poems , books, paintings and inventions came about though great suffering. When one views suffering as a curse they cannot see the blessings it offers someone up until their last breath.

        • ComeOnPeople!

          The issue is that laws made will not just affect the unbeliever but they will effect the believer. I for one do not want one of my loved ones who is out of their mind in pain having the option to off themselves. All of us have had times where we have begged for death but because committing suiside was considered a sign of weakness and mental illness most people reconsidered before it was to late but should we pass a law and change our societies view on suicide (the killing of ones self) you now will have less restraint. Many many people with this law will commit suicide that would have otherwise come out of their suffering, weakness or their stupor . To kill is never right whether it is killing self or assisting someone to kill themselves. When you love others you offer them hope not death. Once their breath is gone from them there is no more hope.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      Read the instruction manual our CREATOR gave us and then you will understand why anyone who believes in HIM values life up to the last breath even in suffering. Read what it has to say about suffering. Stop reading what the world tells you about suffering and learn what your CREATOR has to say about it.

      • Ronald Carter

        There is no instruction manual from your creator. There is a book written by men which they claim was written by your creator which says many things I don’t believe our creator ever would have said. You elect to believe that. I do not.

        • ComeOnPeople!

          For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

          For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

          Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

          For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

          And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

        • ComeOnPeople!

          So your brother is in a car accident and in severe pain and they tell him the odds are against him. You would approve of your brother who is in a state of great weakened, is in severe pain and is being offered no hope…… having someone to assist him in killing himself??? By the way that is not called companion that is called not being compassionate to anothers suffering. Those who are compassionate offer their brother hope not an out. They see that their brother is weak and they encourage him. They sit by them in suffering and hold out for either death or for life. But since you do not believe in the GOD who gave you breath then of course you do not value that breath. You spit in HIS face and think you are yourself a god. One day in your suffering you will want hope, you will want life and you will call out to the life giver which you deny exists. Maybe one day in your own suffering you will find HIM.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, I would not do that. I would wait until the doctors told me my brother was going to die and there was no hope. I wouldn’t make a decision like that when it was simply a matter of things not looking good. Again, I don’t think you fully comprehend what assisted suicide entails.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Again you did not understand my statement and what I asked you. You are so bent on it being acceptable for a person to kill themselves and have a doctor (who by the way took an oath to do NO HARM) help them to do so that you can’t even understand anything apart from your murderous thoughts. Go look at the statistics of the countries who have allowed assisted suicide and you will see that once this is acceptable in any society then it is not only the worst of cases who are helped to kill themselves but the depressed, the crippled , the lonely, the addicted…. those who need a hand up not a hand out are killed. When we make killing acceptable just like with abortion we no longer value life as life & the weakest human beings among us are no longer protected.

          • Ronald Carter

            Once again it is pointless to have this conversation with you when you do not understand what euthanasia is. As long as you show that you don’t understand that this is done only in cases where the person is terminally ill and in great pain, and you insist on calling it murder, speaking to you on the subject serves no purpose.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            GO do your homework. That is to say… go look at the evidence in the countries where this has been accepted into their societies. Then let’s talk.

            Quotes from doctors & legal professionals in other countries who have accepted euthanasia ….

            Once a principle is established according to which a human being can be killed because he suffers, then logically it extends to all those suffering. If a human being is killed who requests it, it can be applied to all human beings who request it, even if they are not suffering.

            When discussion on euthanasia began in the Netherlands and in other countries, many pointed out the danger toward the worst, and the defenders of the measure said that it would not happen… Despite the opposition of public opinion, just years after that law, they are already facing its application to all the born, without any kind of informed consent by the interested party.”

            “The fact that euthanasia is being re-regulated in the Netherlands does not mean that it is going to be slowed…

            Once you open the door to justify killing in some cases, the practice inevitably grows and grows as it has in Holland where there are now many patients killed who have never requested euthanasia at all.

            Dr. [K.F.] Gunning put it, the Dutch have proved that once killing is accepted as a solution for one problem, tomorrow it will be seen as the solution for hundreds of problems. Once we accept the killing of terminally ill patients, as did the Dutch, we will invariably, over time, accept the killing of chronically ill patients, depressed patients, and ultimately perhaps, even children… The euthanasia virus is catching. A 2000 report found that 10 percent of Belgian deaths appear to result from euthanasia [“End-of-Life Decisions in Medical Practice in Flanders, Belgium: A Nationwide Survey,” The Lancet, Nov. 25, 2000]. With Belgian doctors clearly eager to follow the lead of their Dutch neighbor, Belgium formally legalized euthanasia in 2002. Notably, the first Belgian case, the killing of a man with multiple sclerosis, violated the guidelines; and just as occurs routinely in the Netherlands, the doctor involved faced no consequences. Now Belgium is set to legalize euthanasia for children. Indeed, Belgian doctors in Flanders have been found to commit infanticide in about the same numbers as their Dutch counterparts.”

            Eugene Volokh, JD, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the University of California at Los Angeles, stated in a Feb. 2003

            Dutch courts began by declining to punish doctors who assist the suicides of the terminally ill. They then extended this to those who are subject to ‘unbearable suffering,’ without any requirement that they be terminally ill.

            They then extended this to a person who was in seemingly irremediable mental pain, caused by chronic depression, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse, on the theory that the suffering of the mentally ill is ‘experienced as unbearable’ by them, presumably comparably to how the physically ill experience physical suffering.

            Dutch courts then extended this to a 50-year-old woman who was in seemingly irremediable mental pain caused by the death of her two sons, again on the theory that ‘[h]er suffering was intolerable to her.'”

          • ComeOnPeople!

            “The prohibition against killing patients… stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine’s primary taboo: ‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect’… In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient’s choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence–by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one’s consent to live does not deprive one’s living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician’s power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion.”

            — Leon Kass, MD, PhD

        • ComeOnPeople!

          You are welcome to your choice , your Creator gave you a free will. Love once forced is no longer love. I also am welcome to my choice and choose to hold fast to HOPE, LOVE and LIFE. I choose to honor not shun the Creator who has been proven to be faithful over and over again in my life. Anyone who believes in HIM and has experienced HIS presence has no trouble with their belief in an invisible GOD. Therefore enjoy your free will given to you by your loving Creator but know that should you ever need HIM although you deny HIM , HE will be there should you reconsider . You seldom find an atheist in a fox hole.

  • james blue

    With proper safety procedures in place Terminally ill people should be able to make the choice for themselves. .

    • Semp

      Killing should be sanitary.
      That is so Third Reich.

      • james blue

        Should you ever find yourself terminally ill with only the prospect of a lingering painful death I wish the choice to be yours, whatever that choice may be.

        • Semp

          Oh, please.
          You think people can’t see through you lefties’ faux compassion?
          Ironclad rule: the ones tooting their horns about how concerned’n’compassionate they are are the most coldblooded people on the planet. You favor assisted suicide for the same reason that creep Kevorkian did – he actually enjoyed killing people legally. Now the old monster is in hell.

          Give you people political power and suddenly there’s a growth industry in building gulags.

          • james blue

            I refer you to the comment to which you responded.

            Unlike yours my comment history is open for public view, feel free to make a case as to what “you people” I belong to.

          • Ken Faivor

            I saw that man once at a fair in a crowd of people. As crowded as it was, there was still a circle, void of people, 10 or 15 feet all around him. Dr Death was his nickname.

        • Ken Faivor

          You may have that choice now, but it won’t last long.

          Rev 9:6 And in those days men shall seek death, and shall in no wise find it; and they shall desire to die, and death fleeth from them.

  • sandra-paquette-

    Soon they will bump of the elderly as they will be a burden on society and too costly. Look at all the money Ottawa could save from having to pay out and put the money to better use. All a matter of time.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      The USA would gain thousands in retirement money that would no longer have to be paid out. Hey but what is human life to money right? Makes me sick to my stomach . This world is becoming one big cesspool. Governments continue to become greedy and have no value for life.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    “The prohibition against killing patients… stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine’s primary taboo: ‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect’… In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient’s choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence–by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one’s consent to live does not deprive one’s living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician’s power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion.”

    — Leon Kass, MD, PhD

  • ComeOnPeople!

    If they pass laws in your state that endanger you and your loved ones… MOVE! Take your labor and your income to states that still listen to the people and pass laws accordingly.

    5 States Have Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide

    4 states (CA*, OR, VT, and WA) legalized physician-assisted suicide via legislation

    California’s law took effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns the special session on healthcare, which likely will be Jan. 2016.

    1 state (MT) has legal physician-assisted suicide via court ruling

    45 States and DC Consider Assisted Suicide ILLEGAL

    38 states have laws prohibiting assisted suicide

    3 states (AL, MA, and WV) and the District of Columbia prohibit assisted suicide by common law

    4 states (NV, NC, UT, and WY) have no specific laws regarding assisted suicide, may not recognize common law, or are otherwise unclear on the legality of assisted suicide.

    0 Federal Laws on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide… The federal government and all 50 states and the District of Columbia prohibit euthanasia under general homicide laws. The federal government does not have assisted suicide laws. Those laws are generally handled at the state level.