Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

MAiD

Even Canadian leftists are starting to recognize the ‘dystopian’ nature of MAiD

Published

14 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia based on poverty or disability is rarely based on personal choice and autonomy, it is horrifying, it is profane, it is the outcome of a failed social welfare system, and it is indefensible.

David Moscrop wrote an excellent article that was published by Jacobin Magazine on May 2, 2024. Jacobin is an ideologically left magazine, which is concerned about Canada killing people with disabilities and the poor by euthanasia, known as MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying).

The article begins with this quote:

Canada boasts one of the world’s highest assisted-death rates, supposedly enabling the terminally ill to die with dignity. However, this suicide program increasingly resembles a dystopian replacement for care services, exchanging social welfare for euthanasia.

Moscrop tells the story of Normand Meunier, the quadriplegic man in Québec who died by euthanasia after suffering from horrific neglect. Moscrop writes:

For want of a mattress, a man is dead. That’s the story, in sum, of a quadriplegic man who chose to end his life in January through medically assisted death. Normand Meunier’s story, as reported by the CBC, began with a visit to a Quebec hospital due to a respiratory virus. Meunier subsequently developed a painful bedsore after being left without access to a mattress to accommodate his needs. Thereafter, he applied to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program.

As Rachel Watts writes in her report, Meunier spent ninety-five hours on a stretcher in the emergency room – just hours short of four days. The bedsore he developed ‘eventually worsened to the point where bone and muscle were exposed and visible – making his recovery and prognosis bleak.’ The man who ‘didn’t want to be a burden’ chose to die at home. An internal investigation into the matter is underway.

I find it interesting that the article states that Meunier chose to die by euthanasia when in fact he was put into an untenable situation. Moscrop then reinforces the concerns of the disability community:

Disability and other advocates have been warning us for years that MAiD puts people at risk. They warned that the risk of people choosing death – because it’s easier than fighting to survive in a system that impoverishes people, and disproportionately does so to those who are disabled – is real. Underinvestment in medical care will push people up to and beyond the brink, which means some will choose to die instead of ‘burden’ their loved ones or society at large. They were right.

Moscrop comments on how euthanasia is the outcome of a failed social welfare state:

A libertarian ethos partially underwrote the fact that not many people blinked when MAiD was initially rolled out. Taking a more expansive view of rights, many of those not swayed by rote libertarianism were convinced that concerns over bodily autonomy and compassion were reason enough to adopt MAiD. However, in the absence of a robust welfare state, and in the face of structural poverty and discrimination, particularly toward disabled people, there is no world in which the MAiD program can be understood to be ‘progressive.’

Indeed, last year, Jeremy Appel argued that MAiD was ‘beginning to look like a dystopian end run around the cost of providing social welfare.’ Initially supportive, he changed his mind on MAiD as he considered that the decisions people make are not strictly speaking individual but are instead collectively shaped and sometimes ‘the product of social circumstances, which are outside of their control.’ When we don’t care for one another, what do we end up with?

‘I’ve come to realize,’ wrote Appel, ‘that euthanasia in Canada represents the cynical endgame of social provisioning with the brutal logic of late-stage capitalism – we’ll starve you of the funding you need to live a dignified life [. . .] and if you don’t like it, why don’t you just kill yourself?’

READ: Young, healthy women being euthanized in the Netherlands should be a warning for Canada

Moscrop then comments on that euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has been delayed in Canada based on the lack of mental health care. He refers to the reality as grotesque and writes that this is the stuff of nightmarish science fiction. Moscrop comments on the broken social welfare system in Canada.

In Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, a recipient of disability support receives about $1,300 a month – a pittance they’re meant to stretch to cover food, shelter, and other basic needs. Ontario Works – the province’s welfare program – pays a current maximum of $733 a month. Meanwhile, rental costs for a one bedroom apartment routinely push toward an average of $2,000 a month in many cities. In April, in Toronto, a one bedroom apartment averaged almost $2,500 a month.

Moscrop challenges a statement by euthanasia activists James Downer and Susan MacDonald who stated:

Despite fears that availability of MAiD for people with terminal illness would lead to requests for MAiD driven by socioeconomic deprivation or poor service availability (e.g., palliative care), available evidence consistently indicates that MAiD is most commonly received by people of high socioeconomic status and lower support needs, and those with high involvement of palliative care.

By their own admission, the data on this matter is imperfect. But even if it were, the fact that ‘most’ patients who choose MAiD are better off socioeconomically is beside the point. Some are not – and those ‘some’ are important. That includes a man living with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis who, in 2019, chose medically assisted death because he couldn’t find adequate medical care that would also allow him to be with his son. It also includes a man whose application listed only ‘hearing loss,’ and whose brother says he was ‘basically put to death.’ This story came a year after experts raised the concern that the country’s MAiD regime was in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2022, Global News said the quiet part out loud: poverty is driving disabled Canadians to consider MAiD. Those ‘some’ who are driven to assisted death because of poverty or an inability to access adequate care deserve to live with dignity and with the resources they need to live as they wish. They should never, ever feel the pressure to choose to die because our social welfare institutions are starved and our health care system has been vandalized through years of austerity and poor management.

Moscrop then states that Canada has the resources to prevent endemic poverty and provide adequate care, that poor people being euthanized by the state is profane.

Moscrop then refers to a recent article by professor Trudo Lemmens who is a critic of Canada’s euthanasia law.

In a February piece for the Globe and Mail, University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens wrote, ‘The results of our MAiD regime’s promotion of access to death as a benefit, and the trivialization of death as a harm to be protected against, are increasingly clear.’ In critiquing MAiD’s second track, which allows physician-assisted death for those who do not face ‘a reasonably foreseeable death,’ Lemmens points out that within two years of its adoption, ‘“track two”’ MAiD providers had ended already the lives of close to seven hundred disabled people, most of whom likely had years of life left.’

In raising concerns about expanding MAiD to cover mental illness, Lemmens added that ‘there are growing concerns that inadequate social and mental health care, and a failure to provide housing supports, push people to request MAiD,’ noting that ‘[a]dding mental illness as a basis for MAiD will only increase the number of people exposed to higher risks of premature death.’

Moscrop continues by referring to a commentary from disability leader Gabrielle Peters.

In 2021, Gabrielle Peters warned in Maclean’s that extending MAiD to cover those who weren’t facing an immediately foreseeable death was ‘dangerous, unsettling and deeply flawed.’ She traced the various ways in which a broader MAiD law could lead to people choosing to die in the face of austerity, adding an intersectional lens that is often missing from our discussions and debates over the issue.

She warned that we were failing to consider ‘how poverty and racism intersect with disability to create greater risk of harm, more institutional bias and barriers, additional layers of othering and dehumanization, and fewer resources for addressing any of these.’ And now here we are. We should have listened more carefully.

Moscrop ends his article by suggesting that euthanasia may be OK based on personal choice but it is indefensible when it is based on poverty.

While MAiD may be defensible as a means for individuals to exercise personal choice in how they live and how they die when facing illness and pain, it is plainly indefensible when state-induced austerity and mismanagement leads to people choosing to end their lives that have been made unnecessarily miserable. In short, we are killing people for being poor and disabled, which is horrifying.

It thus falls to proponents of MAiD to show how such deaths can be avoided, just as it falls to policymakers to build or rebuild institutions that ensure no one ever opts to end their life for lack of resources or support, which we could provide in abundance if we choose to.

I agree with most of Moscrop’s comments but I disagree with his statement that euthanasia is possibly defensible as a means of individuals exercising personal choice. Even though people with disabilities experience social devaluation in Canada, they may be still exercising personal choice when they ask to be killed.

The problem with modern writers is that they miss the fact that euthanasia is about killing people. Even if Canada had a greater level of equality, there would be people who ask to be killed based on their poverty or their concerns about homelessness.

The real concern is that Canada has given medical professionals the right in law to kill their patients. This is about people killing people.

Nonetheless Moscrop is right that euthanasia based on poverty or disability is rarely based on personal choice and autonomy, it is horrifying, it is profane, it is the outcome of a failed social welfare system, and it is indefensible.

Reprinted with permission from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Health

US podcaster Glenn Beck extends a lifeline to a Saskatchewan woman waiting for MAiD

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Jolene Van Alstine was approved for euthanasia after tiring of waiting years for surgery in Canada

A Canadian woman is looking to die by state-sanctioned euthanasia because she has had to endure long wait times to get what she considers to be proper care for a rare parathyroid disease.

The woman is Jolene Van Alstine, whose condition, normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism (nPHPT), causes her to experience vomiting, nausea, and bone pain.

As noted in a recent CBC report, Van Alstine claims she is not able to get proper surgery to remove her parathyroid in her home province of Saskatchewan, as there are no surgeons in that province who can perform that type of surgery.

She has said her “friends have stopped visiting me” and she is “isolated” and living “alone lying on the couch for eight years, sick and curled up in a ball, pushing for the day to end.”

“I go to bed at six at night because I can’t stand to be awake anymore,” she said.

As a result of her frustrations with the healthcare system, Van Alstine applied for Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). She was approved for the procedure on January 7, 2026.

Saskatchewan Health Minister Jeremy Cockrill met with Van Alstine last month to try to see if he could help her, but what they talked about remains confidential.

“The Government of Saskatchewan expresses its sincere sympathy for all patients who are suffering with a difficult health diagnosis,” the government said.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, over 23,000 Canadians have died while on wait lists for medical care as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is focused on euthanasia expansions.

Americans offering Jolene surgery help now say they have made contact with her

Van Alstine’s story has gone viral on the social media platform X, catching the attention of well-known American personalities, some who have claimed they can help her.

“If there is any surgeon in America who can do this, I’ll pay for this patient to come down here for treatment,” Glenn Beck wrote Tuesday on X.

“THIS is the reality of ‘compassionate’ progressive healthcare. Canada must END this insanity and Americans can NEVER let it spread here.”

According to Beck in a subsequent X post, he has had “surgeons who emailed us standing by to help her.”

“We are in contact with Jolene and her husband! Please continue to pray for her health,” he wrote on X.

“Will update more soon.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews recently, a Conservative MP’s private member’s bill that, if passed, would ban euthanasia for people with mental illness received the full support of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Lobby groups have pushed for MAiD to be expanded to minors.

Desiring to expand the procedure to even more Canadians, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government sought to expand from just the chronically and terminally ill to those suffering solely from mental illness. The current Liberal government appears to want to continue with the MAiD regime.

However, in February, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government delayed the mental illness expansion until 2027.

Continue Reading

Great Reset

Proposed ban on euthanasia for mental illness sparks passionate debate in Canada’s Parliament

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

“When a person is standing on the edge, the role of a responsible nation is to pull them back.”

Conservative MP Tamara Jansen’s Bill C-218—the “Right to Recover Act”—was debated in Parliament on Friday. The legislation would ban euthanasia for those suffering solely from a mental illness, which was legalized in 2021 with the Trudeau government’s Bill C-7, but subsequently delayed. It is set to come into effect in 2027, pending a parliamentary report.

Tamara Jansen led with a passionate and powerful speech highlighting the desperate need for Bill C-218; Conservative MP Andrew Lawton gave a supporting speech in which he shared his own experience with a nearly successful suicide attempt. Two Liberal MPs and a member of the Bloc Quebecois pushed back in support of euthanasia for mental illness.

Jansen moved that Bill C-218 be read the second time and referred to committee, and asked her fellow parliamentarians to imagine someone’s son, in his forties, struggling with a painful illness and struggling with addiction, depression, and anxiety. He is supported by his family, she said, and they are doing their best but struggling. When he finally gets a psychiatrist appointment, he hopes he might finally get real help.

“He is vulnerable, scared and hanging on by a thread,” Jansen said. “At that appointment, instead of being offered a plan to get him stable, MAID is raised as an option. The assessment moves ahead, and before he ever receives proper support for his mental health or addictions, he is approved. His MAID provider is the one who drives him to the place where his life is ended. This is someone’s son who needed help, not a final exit.”

“Believe it or not, this actually happened here in Canada, and this is where we are headed if we do not act,” she emphasized. “Unless this Parliament chooses a different path, Canada will allow MAID for people whose only condition is mental illness. That means men and women struggling with depression, trauma or overwhelming psychological pain could be steered toward death by a system that too often cannot offer timely treatment, consistent follow-up or even basic support.”

Jansen noted that when Parliament last debated assisted suicide, mental illness was not included in the core discussion—but that it was added “in a last-minute Senate amendment to Bill C-7.” Since then, Canadians from all walks of life have spoken clearly against this dangerous expansion. “Psychiatrists across Canada, including the chairs of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools, have told us plainly that there is no reliable way to predict when a mental illness is irremediable, which is a requirement in the MAID law,” she reminded her colleagues.

READ: Canadian broadcaster’s positive coverage of disability advocate’s euthanasia sends terrible message

“We must ask: who receives suicide prevention and who is guided toward MAID?” she asked. “If a person suffering from depression calls a crisis line tonight, do we encourage them to hold on or do we quietly redirect them to an assessor? What principle decides the answer? What medical test? What ethical standard? There is none. That is because the very feelings that drive someone to seek MAID, hopelessness, despair or the belief that they are a burden, are the same signals that every suicide prevention worker is trained to treat as a cry for help.”

Jansen also noted that Canada’s planned expansion has been condemned in the international community. “International human rights experts have raised the alarm, including the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has urged Canada to step back. It warns that our trajectory risks discriminating against people with disabilities and mental illness and recommends repealing this expansion entirely. This is what Bill C-218 would do.” She cited several heartbreaking examples from Ontario’s MAID death review committee findings:

They describe a man who had cancer. I will call him Bill. Earlier in his illness, he had briefly mentioned MAID, as frightened patients tend to do. By the time he was assessed, he was delirious, confused and heavily sedated. His own medical team made it clear that he no longer had the capacity to make major decisions, yet a MAID assessor shook him awake, took the faint motion of lips as consent, withheld sedation, obtained a rushed virtual second opinion and ended his life that same day. Bill was not stable. Bill was not capable. He did not understand what was happening.

Claude DeBellefeuille, a Bloc Quebecois MP, then claimed that he was “stunned” by what he had heard, stating that Jansen had been misleading “by claiming that the law allows for medical assistance in dying when major mental illness is the sole underlying disorder” when the “member knows that in 2027, a joint committee of members and senators will make a decision based on the recommendations of the Department of Health.” While he did, somewhat surprisingly, agree that “the medical community is not ready and will probably not be ready in 2027,” he insisted that Jansen “has simply found a way to assert her opposition to medical assistance in dying.”

“We simply do not have the medical grounds to declare that a life is beyond hope,” Jansen responded. “We have already seen cases where people were approved for MAID not because their condition was truly irremediable but because they lacked housing, treatment or basic support. That is not medicine; that is a system misreading desperation as destiny. … When a person is standing on the edge, the role of a responsible nation is to pull them back.”

Juanita Nathan, the Liberal MP from Pickering-Brooklin, gave a speech essentially reiterating the government’s talking points. More research is needed, she said, but fundamentally the “panel concluded that the existing Criminal Code safeguards, when supported by the development of MAID practices standards and the implementation of other recommendations, are adequate to allow for safe provision of MAID to people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.”

MP Andrew Lawton recounted his own suicide attempt, in which he almost lost his life and spent seven weeks in the hospital, during which he was resuscitated multiple times and on life support. He noted that on that “horribly dark and sad December day in 2010,” he could never have imagined that he would one day be standing in the House of Commons, happily married with a successful career. It is that experience, he said, which spurs him to speak so forcefully for Bill C-218—because “if the laws that are coming into force in 15 months had been there 15 years ago, I would probably be dead right now.”

When Bill C-218 was introduced, Lawton launched the “I Got Better” campaign, inviting Canadians to share their own stories.

He shared several with the House—while a number of the Liberal MPs talked loudly with each other across the House, even laughing out loud at each other. He shared the story of an Ottawa lawyer, who feared using MAID if depression should return. He shared the story of a man who struggles with mental illness and has attempted suicide and is afraid of what he might do if MAID is available. A woman who had been in a long-term abusive relationship told him that she would have used MAID if it had been available.

Lawton detailed several other stories and reminded his colleagues of testimony they had previously heard. “Dr. John Maher testified before Parliament that 7% of those who attempt suicide die by suicide,” he said. “That means that 93% of people who, at one or multiple points, want to end their life eventually get over that. The success rate of MAID is 100%. By design, this is a policy that will give up on people.”

Lawton’s closing lines summed up the stakes. “These are real people,” he said. “There are faces to this. If Bill C-218 does not pass, people will die. We have a right and a duty to stand up for those who need it. I will be proudly supporting this bill, and I thank my colleague so much for introducing it.”

You can support Bill C-218 and submit your own story to MP Andrew Lawton here.

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

Trending

X