Thank you, Ryan, for engaging. Somehow you found this site. And for your own reasons, you felt compelled to debunk the claim that Canada is moving towards euthanasia for children. When challenged, you expand your comment to include the introductory phrase "although mature minors should probably have the right..., there is no group lobbying for that ".
From where I sit it looks a whole lot like YOU are lobbying for that, Ryan. And trying to make the task easier for yourself with reassuring statements that your opposition has no justification for mobilising. Don't believe your lying eyes (as they say). Well, fact is, we are not that dumb. When a consensus driven administrative state like Canada comes to the point where a joint panel says that this or that should be "looked at", then you can be sure that initiative is already baked in the cake. Because here, the voting citizen is the last one to know.
One other point about debates here and in Europe: People all around the world are discussing this issue. Canada usually stands out as a horrible example. But advocates of euthanasia say not to worry. This is not Canada, we would never do that. However, water runs down hill just as certainly wherever one is located. It is thus heartening to see Europeans shaking their heads at the mature minor (children) thing.
Actually, the big news is not only mature minors, but also young ones. The Groningen Protocol. In the Netherlands (yes, a different country, Ryan, but totally relevant). The gobbly-speak ivory tower term GC was used, a few years ago, to introduce infanticide for babies up to twelve months. Since then, the protocol has been expanded to 12 years. Meanwhile, mature minors has no age requirement. It is a judgement call where 12 years is often cited as acceptable. So we now have infanticide and mature minors over-lapping.
Back in Canada, in a recent Quebec review, the Quebec College of Physicians went on record (yes, Ryan, an actual group, actually lobbying) to suggest "neo-natal" euthanasia for severely ill or handicapped babies. This has the interesting effect of erasing the line between abortion and euthanasia, as there is now a continuum of "therapeutic" killing across the birth divide. But it is also interesting that the College used the magic words, "Groningen Protocol", and setting a limit not immediately after birth, but at 12 months. They also did not point out what was said above: namely, that the GP has already been modified in Groningen to go up to 12 years. Quite obviously, in choosing to use that name, they are setting us up for the same here.
So we are now looking at a perfectly clear path to a continuum of therapeutic killing from fetal screening on.
No we are not over-reacting Ryan. We are lucidly anticipating future events, based on extensive prior experience.
When we have isolated individuals like yourself simultaneously defending the death program and counselling us not to "get over our skies" in opposing it. When "multi-party" review bodies are suggesting we "look" at things. And the highest level of academic/professional actors like the Quebec College are making precise recommendations using already internationally accepted terminology. Then, frankly, it really is time to have a "debate in Canada".
But the problem with that is that Canada does not like real debate. To see what is going on here, you actually have to look to foreign sources like the one John cited.
Which is why this conversation is happening here on Kelsi's substack rather than the first page of the Globe and Mail.
Long story short. Yes this is happening. Yes there is a media black out on the whole phenomenon. Yes we are here to speak out. No we will not be affected by hollow assurances from people such as yourself who are already deep in the death tank.
While mature minors with terminal illnesses and exhibiting capacity should probably have the right to decide to die on their own terms, there is no group lobbying for that. Multi-party panel said it should be looked at, nothing further has happened. Let's not get over our skis.
To act like that’s still not children. That’s the slippery slope that got us here in the first place. We could never fathom targeting the mentally ill but here we are again. I’m not over my skis on this one. I’m ahead of the damn curb screaming at you before we go too far, which in my opinion we didn’t just go to far. We dove head first into the cliffs.
Looks like the debate it’s already in full swing though Ryan:
„In response to the increase in euthanasia of persons with disabilities in Canada, the Committee recommends, among other things:
‘repeal Part 2 of the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation, including the commencement of MAID in 2027 for persons whose “only underlying medical condition is a mental illness”’;
‘not to support proposals to extend MAIM to “mature minors” and advance requests.’“
Thank you, Ryan, for engaging. Somehow you found this site. And for your own reasons, you felt compelled to debunk the claim that Canada is moving towards euthanasia for children. When challenged, you expand your comment to include the introductory phrase "although mature minors should probably have the right..., there is no group lobbying for that ".
From where I sit it looks a whole lot like YOU are lobbying for that, Ryan. And trying to make the task easier for yourself with reassuring statements that your opposition has no justification for mobilising. Don't believe your lying eyes (as they say). Well, fact is, we are not that dumb. When a consensus driven administrative state like Canada comes to the point where a joint panel says that this or that should be "looked at", then you can be sure that initiative is already baked in the cake. Because here, the voting citizen is the last one to know.
One other point about debates here and in Europe: People all around the world are discussing this issue. Canada usually stands out as a horrible example. But advocates of euthanasia say not to worry. This is not Canada, we would never do that. However, water runs down hill just as certainly wherever one is located. It is thus heartening to see Europeans shaking their heads at the mature minor (children) thing.
Actually, the big news is not only mature minors, but also young ones. The Groningen Protocol. In the Netherlands (yes, a different country, Ryan, but totally relevant). The gobbly-speak ivory tower term GC was used, a few years ago, to introduce infanticide for babies up to twelve months. Since then, the protocol has been expanded to 12 years. Meanwhile, mature minors has no age requirement. It is a judgement call where 12 years is often cited as acceptable. So we now have infanticide and mature minors over-lapping.
Back in Canada, in a recent Quebec review, the Quebec College of Physicians went on record (yes, Ryan, an actual group, actually lobbying) to suggest "neo-natal" euthanasia for severely ill or handicapped babies. This has the interesting effect of erasing the line between abortion and euthanasia, as there is now a continuum of "therapeutic" killing across the birth divide. But it is also interesting that the College used the magic words, "Groningen Protocol", and setting a limit not immediately after birth, but at 12 months. They also did not point out what was said above: namely, that the GP has already been modified in Groningen to go up to 12 years. Quite obviously, in choosing to use that name, they are setting us up for the same here.
So we are now looking at a perfectly clear path to a continuum of therapeutic killing from fetal screening on.
No we are not over-reacting Ryan. We are lucidly anticipating future events, based on extensive prior experience.
When we have isolated individuals like yourself simultaneously defending the death program and counselling us not to "get over our skies" in opposing it. When "multi-party" review bodies are suggesting we "look" at things. And the highest level of academic/professional actors like the Quebec College are making precise recommendations using already internationally accepted terminology. Then, frankly, it really is time to have a "debate in Canada".
But the problem with that is that Canada does not like real debate. To see what is going on here, you actually have to look to foreign sources like the one John cited.
Which is why this conversation is happening here on Kelsi's substack rather than the first page of the Globe and Mail.
Long story short. Yes this is happening. Yes there is a media black out on the whole phenomenon. Yes we are here to speak out. No we will not be affected by hollow assurances from people such as yourself who are already deep in the death tank.
Feel the love,
Gordon Friesen, Montreal
There is no MAID for minors happening in 2027. That's not true.
Re read, they are lobbying for them and have been for awhile
While mature minors with terminal illnesses and exhibiting capacity should probably have the right to decide to die on their own terms, there is no group lobbying for that. Multi-party panel said it should be looked at, nothing further has happened. Let's not get over our skis.
To act like that’s still not children. That’s the slippery slope that got us here in the first place. We could never fathom targeting the mentally ill but here we are again. I’m not over my skis on this one. I’m ahead of the damn curb screaming at you before we go too far, which in my opinion we didn’t just go to far. We dove head first into the cliffs.
Looks like the debate it’s already in full swing though Ryan:
„In response to the increase in euthanasia of persons with disabilities in Canada, the Committee recommends, among other things:
‘repeal Part 2 of the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation, including the commencement of MAID in 2027 for persons whose “only underlying medical condition is a mental illness”’;
‘not to support proposals to extend MAIM to “mature minors” and advance requests.’“
https://www.ieb-eib.org/en/news/end-of-life/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/canada-un-recommends-banning-euthanasia-for-people-whose-death-is-not-reasonably-foreseeable-2341.html
That's a European organization weighing in on what should or should not happen in Canada, not a debate in Canada. Cheers.
This is one of many. Canada is loosing it.