Remember how the ‘experts’ laughed at anyone raising the slippery slope arguments that speed-running the end-of-life process for terminally ill would bleed into OTHER situations where people were just inconvenient?
Turns out, those ‘experts’ were either diabolically dishonest, or hopeless naive about human nature.
Poor people are being killed on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime. So are depressed people. Elderly people with no home care are pushed into it. An elderly catholic priest with a broken hip was agressively harassed — TWICE! — by people who tried to push the doctor-assisted-death option despite knowing his moral objections. He claimed that the pain he was experiencing from his injury in one of these conversations almost overcame his natural reason.
And the 80+ woman who had been pressured into suicide because nobody could help her with showers, and she couldn’t get accepted to a hospice program tried to back out of it after she had given her consent. But she was murdered anyway. Yes, ‘murdered’. What OTHER word does the English language have for ending the life of an innocent person who wants to remain alive?
It didn’t take long for those ironclad assurances of patient consent to get hopelessly murky.
But at least there was room for an argument about whether a threshold for consent had been reached.
But what possible consent can a baby give about having his or her life snuffed out? One doctor is bringing light to a horrific proposal being considered by Carney’s filibuster-proof liberal majority, in expanding MAiD far beyond its original scope when Trudeau launched it in his first year as PM back in 2016.
A Quebec physician reportedly suggested assisted suicide for infants up to one year old with severe conditions.
“Babies cannot speak, cannot consent, and cannot ask for help. If we cannot draw the line here, I’m not sure where medical professionals imagine the line to be.”pic.twitter.com/FPZKEzC3Qu
— Juno News (@junonewscom)May 13, 2026
Source: Clash Daily
