Euthanasia advocates are keen to point out all the safeguards, guardrails if you like, that they cram into legislation meant to legalize their obsession with death (assisted suicide). As with any other law, it only matters if they have teeth and that someone enforces them and the police do not really exist to keep you safe in real-time, only after the fact. Advertised disincentives and examples made are the deterrents, but nothing about them stops anyone from breaking the law, especially if they think they can get away with it.
And some laws, as well know, are unnecessary and excessive or give or take power they should not. Government-managed suicide law is one such bill or law. It should not exist. Giving the state this power is a bad idea, and the poster child for this is Canada. We’ve provided more examples of how this will be abused or misused than there is space to revise, but you can sift them here. There are many, and some are frightening, to which we can add this.
After more than four hundred identified issues with compliance, ranging from broken safeguards to patients who were euthanized who may not have been capable of consent, {Ontario Chief Coronor Dirk] Huyer’s office has failed to alert the public or take any steps to prosecute offenders. Whether or not these hundreds of “issues” are in fact violations of criminal law is unclear precisely because none of them have been referred to law enforcement for investigation. Instead, Huyer’s office has deemed virtually all of them as requiring nothing more than an “informal conversation” with the practitioner or an “educational” or “notice” email. Even in one egregious case, in which the practitioner was found to have violated multiple legal requirements, and which Huyer himself described as “just horrible,” his office reported the case only to a regulatory body instead of the police.
Practioners are jumping the guardrails, and the enforcer keeps looking the other way. No one is being punished for “suiciding” people who may not have been capable of consent. Of terminating the lives of people who were counseled (pressured) to do so outside the parameters of the law.
Remember that Canada’s ‘experts’ have suggested a widening range of reasons to convince people to let the government kill them. Poverty, homelessness, medical infirmity (being disabled), mental health, drug addiction, vaccine injury, depression, wanting to live with your expensive medical condition, organs that could then be harvested to save the lives of “productive” or “important” people, and the usual suspects; chronic pain or a terminal diagnosis regardless of the time left, quality of life, (or the accuracy of the diagnosis.)
To be clear, the solution to all of this is to let people kill themselves, something they’ve been doing for as long as there have been people. I’m not a fan, but if we are worried about the risk of someone accessing the appropriate drugs for nefarious purposes (to commit murder), how is this worse or more dangerous than agents of the government doing it and pretending otherwise?
The slippery slope is the state or its actors using the power to eliminate anyone it deems a burden, be it to the health system, society, housing, public health, or an inconvenient public position that is contrary to the narratives in the halls of power.
Federal legislation at the time also required a 10-day waiting period between the request for euthanasia and the administered death to ensure that patients really did wish to die, a safeguard that could be waived only if the patient was approved and on the verge either of losing capacity to consent or of imminent natural death. Yet, according to the paper, euthanasia providers recorded expediting deaths for reasons including not only loss of capacity or imminent death but “persistent requests” and “inconvenient timing of the death in relation to other familial life events.”
Canada’s law has continuously expanded, creating gray areas, and the entity responsible for enforcement is disinterested in the duty that includes ignoring the administration of the incorrect drugs, leading to tortured and terrifying final moments of “patients” expecting a peaceful transition.
How many of those are acceptable outliers? How about none? The same can be said for anyone coerced or unable to give consent, and yet the industrial complex that has risen to embrace legalized murder grows, and so does the body count. The preferred method of policing is for the agents of death to report to each other internally. To bury the truth along with the dead.
So, on that note, New Hampshire’s assisted suicide bill is back. Judge Lynn has a request for legislation (2025-0316) relative to options for end-of-life care. The last session was HB1283. We expect the same language with some tweaking to fool the squeamish, but the path remains the same.
We will join the fight against any effort by the government to assist in suicides.
