Euthanasia Activists on the March in Quebec

The Province of Quebec, having thrown off the Christian faith, is now in the terminal stages of moral and spiritual decline. The culture of death has taken root so strongly there that the medical association is now leading the charge for Dutch-like euthanasia with provincial politicians playing along. This makes Quebec a treat to the rest of Canada insofar as some of the "death as a solution to social problems" activism is conducted in our national Parliament.

Margaret Somerville, professor of bioethics at McGill University in Montreal, has an excellent article, "Getting the Facts Right about Euthanasia," pointing out that the pro-euthanasia campaigners, tied up in knots by the continual use of euphemisms, cannot speak coherently and factually about the issue. The Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons does not even know how to define euthanasia accurately!

"The Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons has “tentatively proposed” legalized euthanasia. The college says that it could be seen “as part of appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.” As a result, the Quebec Legislative Assembly has established a multi-party committee, “La commission de la santé et des services sociaux” (the Health and Social Services commission) consisting of 20 members of the Assembly.

Recently, Dr Gaétan Barrette, the president of the federation of Quebec medical specialists, Dr Yves Lamontagne of the Quebec College of Physicians and Yves Robert, secretary of the College gave evidence before the commission. The first two men are clearly on the public record as supporting euthanasia, and the third appears to hold the same view.

There is a saying in ethics that "good facts are essential to good ethics."

But if Dr Barrette, Dr Lamontagne and Yves Robert, secretary of the College, are accurately reported, none of them had his facts straight in giving evidence before the commission.

Dr Barrette said that in caring for terminally ill people, "doctors are aware they can be charged with murder if they administer a 'palliative sedative' before a patient is on his or her last breath." This is not euthanasia, although, like Dr Barrette, 49 percent of Quebec physicians recently polled mistakenly thought it was.

Palliative means the sedative was necessary to relieve pain and suffering and was not given with an intention of killing the patient. That cannot result in a murder charge, or any other legal charge, unless the patient refused it.

Indeed, unreasonably failing to provide necessary treatment for pain and suffering could constitute unprofessional conduct with resultant disciplinary measures, medical malpractice and legal liability for damages, and, in extreme cases, criminal negligence. It is now also widely recognized that for a healthcare professional to negligently leave a patient in serious pain is a breach of fundamental human rights.

Dr Barrette also said, "We want legislation in tune with the wishes of the public." But just because the public wants something or a majority votes for it doesn't mean it is ethical - or even wise. Democratic decisions and ethical ones are not necessarily the same.

The Montreal Gazette reported that Dr Barrette and Dr Lamontagne "told the committee that doctors do not want to perform assisted suicides."

"We are not there to execute people," Lamontagne said.

This boggles the mind. They are recommending that euthanasia be legalized. What do they think euthanasia involves? And if, as they are proposing, killing patients is acceptable, why is helping those patients to kill themselves not acceptable? At least accepting both would have the virtue of consistency."

Read the rest here.

As any student of Thomas Aquinas knows, sin makes you stupid. And as any progressive or left-wing subversive knows, giving things their proper names hinders social acceptance of proposed "advances" that involve killing human beings.