Canada, The Godless Nation Filled With Serial Killers for Doctors.
Jonathan Reggler, a retired Vancouver Island family physician and active MAiD “provider”(Dr who poisons people to death), recently offered a moment of radical honesty in The Atlantic. Reflecting on his discomfort with Track 2 MAiD cases—those involving people who are not terminally ill—he explained how he resolves his moral unease and ill point out that this is how a killers talks.
“Once you accept that life is not sacred and [not] something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in — then … some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it’.”
This is not a throwaway line, that’s an omission. A Godless Dr, and Godless man. It is a philosophical confession and it quietly exposes the real engine driving Canada’s MAiD expansion—not compassion, not autonomy, but a specific worldview that has decided human life has no inherent worth beyond utility, comfort, or consent.
If life is not sacred, then nothing is off the table. The above quote show’s the world who this “Dr” really is.
That belief that God doesn’t exist and he can take life just as God can not stop at the elderly. It does not stop at the disabled. It does not stop at the depressed and it will not stop at children.
Do you remember when MAiD was sold to Canadians as an act of mercy for the terminally ill Those already dying, those in unbearable physical pain, those with no alternatives. That frame has collapsed with stunning speed. Lies, all from the start.
Track 2 MAiD now includes people whose sole underlying condition is disability, chronic illness, or mental suffering. The safeguards keep loosening. The language keeps softening. What was once “unthinkable” has become “complicated,” then “nuanced,” then “necessary.”
This is how ethical lines move. Not with alarms, but with reassurances and continued lies that if you say out loud long enough people somehow believe to be true.
Jonathan Reggler did say what most MAiD killers who say out loud: the only way this system works is if you reject the idea that life has intrinsic value. Thats fairly easy when your a Godless human.
You do not need to be religious to understand why that matters.
The concept of the sacred is not about God—it is about limits. It is the line that says: even when something is inconvenient, costly, painful, or inefficient, we do not destroy it. Once that line is erased, the only remaining question is who decides and by what criteria. Right now the “who” is the liberal government and the criteria is slipping into “who ever feels like dying.”
Today, that decision rests with panels, protocols, and physicians who believe they are doing good while redefining death as care. These are the power hungry, killers of Canada. The “Dr’s” who believe killing is the right thing to do no matter what the alternative. These are the people who get paid by YOUR TAXES to kill people instead of help them. These are the people who wake up every single day of there life wondering how much further they can move the goal post and how many more they can kill before the globe catches onto the fact that Health Canada employees serial killers, not Dr’s.
The wild fact that Canada even discusses kid’s as a an option for euthanasia is one thing, but now defensively, beautiful little souls who cannot defend themselves is a different ballgame. Canada is already discussing “mature minors.” The Netherlands and Belgium already permit euthanasia for children, including infants, under certain conditions. These people are just as sick, but they stay fairly quite about it. Canadian Dr’s on the other hand brag about their kill count. The argument is always the same—unbearable suffering, poor quality of life, compassion and mercy. Angels of death is what they really are. They can look in the mirror and tell themselves whatever they want, their serial killers in white coats.
Notice what is missing: consent. A baby cannot ask to die. So someone else must decide their life is no longer worth living.
If life is not sacred, this is not a moral leap—it is a procedural one. This is no longer a slippery slope anymore, although I’ve always believed it’s been a cliff, this is simply looking at patter recognition. Every expansion of MAiD was once dismissed as fear mongering by the pro death cults. Every warning was called alarmist, or even named as misinformation and every boundary has fallen exactly as predicted.
Not because ALL doctors are evil, although Canada employs some of the worst our world has to offer—but because systems that abandon first principles do not self-limit.
Jonathan Reggler quote matters because it confirms the diagnosis: Canada has replaced the protection of the vulnerable with a cost-efficient, ideologically tidy exit ramp.
If life is not sacred, why stop anywhere? Why stop at age? Why stop at diagnosis? Why stop at consent?
And if the answer is “trust us,” Canadians should be very very afraid—because history is brutally consistent about what happens when the state decides which lives are worth continuing.
This is not healthcare reform.
It is a civilizational choice and we are making it with our eyes open now, well at least some of us are. This is a line I’ve personally seen crossed before and is why I am so painfully vocal about it. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve watched institutions talk about human beings the way accountants talk about numbers—assets, liabilities, acceptable losses. That language always comes before the harm, never after it.
War teaches you something uncomfortable: once a system decides a life is expendable for a greater good, the circle of who counts starts shrinking fast. First it’s the enemy. Then it’s the inconvenient. Then it’s the weak. The justification always sounds reasonable when you’re far from the consequences.
What alarms me about MAiD in Canada isn’t compassion for suffering—it’s the quiet confidence with which professionals now speak about ending life once its “value” drops below an acceptable threshold. I’ve seen where that logic leads when it’s backed by authority and paperwork.
You don’t need faith to know this is dangerous. You just need memory.
When institutions redefine human value, violence doesn’t always arrive with guns. Sometimes it arrives with consent forms, softened language, and budgets that quietly benefit from fewer people needing care.
When the state, the system, and the balance sheet all win by deciding a life is no longer worth the cost, that isn’t mercy.
That’s eugenics.
KELSI SHEREN
- - - - - - - - - - - -
One Time Donation! - Paypal - https://paypal.me/brassandunity
Buy me a coffee! - https://buymeacoffee.com/kelsisheren
Let’s connect!
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@thekelsisherenperspective
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kelsie_sheren/
Substack: https://substack.com/@kelsisheren
TikTok - https://x.com/KelsiBurns
SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS
- - - - - - - - - - - -
MasterPeace - 10% off with code KELSI - MasterPeace.Health/Kelsi
Ketone IQ- 30% off with code KELSI - https://ketone.com/KELSI
Good Livin - 20% off with code KELSI - https://www.itsgoodlivin.com/?ref=KELSI
Brass & Unity - 20% off with code UNITY - http://brassandunity.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHARITY
Heroic Hearts Project - https://www.heroicheartsproject.org
Defenders of Freedom - https://www.defendersoffreedom.us
Boot Campaign - https://bootcampaign.org
Thank you. Tax return netfile specific questions are being placed about organ donations.
They want our organs.
We need to stop pretending that MAiD exists in a vacuum.
In a well-resourced system with timely access to psychiatry, rehabilitation, chronic pain care, palliative medicine, and social supports, the autonomy argument is different. In our current system, autonomy is often exercised in the context of scarcity.
I had a quadriplegic patient referred from the Emergency Department. Instead of coordinated rehabilitation, specialist advocacy, and aggressive functional planning, the pathway he encountered included a MAiD referral. Orthopedics assessed him and suggested MAiD as an option, then disengaged.
He was not dying. He was not untreatable. He was complex. He required access, time, and coordinated care. The system could not deliver that. Death was easier to access than rehabilitation.
When a curable or manageable patient is offered MAiD because care is fragmented or inaccessible, that is not compassion. That is system failure dressed as choice.
We are drifting toward a model where MAiD functions as a pressure release valve for underfunding and dysfunction. It is faster to assess eligibility for death than to secure long-term rehab, psychiatric follow-up, housing, or chronic pain resources. That should alarm us.
Physicians are trained to restore function and relieve suffering. If our response to system barriers becomes medicalized death rather than aggressive advocacy for care, we are redefining our profession.
The debate should continue. But if we expand MAiD faster than we expand access to meaningful alternatives, we are not strengthening autonomy. We are narrowing it.
And that is a dangerous shift.