Canada's Killing Program

"Once we are no longer productive, the system sees us as a drain on the state and the community."

Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, the supposed great human rights defender, heads a regime of state-sanctioned killing of the poor, traumatised and unwell. When introduced the “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) program seemed a step forward for choice and dignity. But it is beginning to look like a dystopian system that reduces the cost of providing care by removing the needy from society.
​
MAiD recorded just under 32,000 “voluntary euthanasia” cases since its start in 2016. Among those instances were healthy people with no signs of a terminal illness. Plus, a fair number of those euthanised live in poverty.

When a disabled veteran couldn't secure an access ramp for her home, state-sponsored suicide was offered as an alternative. Retired Cpl. Christine Gauthier testified last year that a caseworker told her they could give her assisted dying. This proposal shocked Christine, who is also a former Olympian. While wheelchair-bound, she remains active without a terminal illness or a wish to die.

Likewise, a counsellor offered a veteran with PTSD, assisted suicide to resolve his issues. In another case, a lady who couldn't secure social housing opted for a government-assisted death.

Then you have the story of 61-year-old Alan Nichols. He had a history of mild depression and other medical problems but was otherwise healthy. But, when hospitalised in June 2019, within a month he asked to die and was killed. This is despite concerns raised by his family and medical staff. There are many such examples. So what is going on?

I've before discussed the merits of assisted dying in cases of seriously ill folks near the end of life. Such people could wish to have agency over their final moments, and that may well be the most compassionate option. Yet, the Canadians appear to have taken this to an extreme by extending the option to the vulnerable, who are not close to the end.

The average age at the time of MAiD is around 76 years. Cancer (65.6%) is the most cited medical condition, followed by cardiovascular, chronic respiratory and neurological disorders.

Yet in 2021, 219 individuals opted to die whose natural deaths were "not reasonably foreseeable" — that is the official jargon for otherwise healthy people.

As early as April 2019, alarm bells were ringing. The United Nations expressed "extreme concern" that Canada was not ensuring disabled people seeking state-assisted suicide had viable alternatives. Further, the Human Rights Council warned that "assisted dying must not be seen as a cost-effective alternative to providing services for persons with disabilities."

Moreover, there is evidence that disabled and poor people use the MAiD program because the state refuses to provide them with a quality of life. This is occurring just as discussions are underway to extend the program to unwell newborns and teenagers. So what more could go wrong?

To start, there is a link to the organ donation business, which is a beneficiary of MAiD. Such practices create hidden sinister drivers of an already fraught process.

Left-wing writers Beatrice Adler-Bolton and Artie Vierkant theorise in their book "Health Communism" that a market-driven healthcare system imposes a "eugenic and debt burden" on us all. Once we are no longer productive, the system sees us as a drain on the state and the community. As a result, this surplus population, who cannot cover their health care costs, faced alienation and are made to feel like a burden on the state.

They argue that the expansion of MAiD must be viewed within the context of an economic order that encourages the government to retreat from its responsibilities for the public's welfare. Yet in a perverse move, the state appears generous to provide mercy from the austerity their governance designed. The writers have a point.

Without a doubt, something has gone awry because the safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals aren't working. Canadians may soon find themselves in a legal and medical environment in which human beings can be treated little different from the manner of sick or elderly pets. And with such thinking, humanity truly crosses a moral Rubicon.

To shield themselves and dress up the whole process, the language evolves with terms such as "sunset care" and "assisted exit". Accompanying that is an inversion and perversion of logic that asserts the right to die must be available to all; at all times on request. Don't get me wrong, because there is a place for assisted dying with robust checks and balances to shield the powerless. 

So, let Canada be a lesson in how it can go wrong. And next time Justin Trudeau seeks to lecture us, remember he leads a euthanasia program that attracts Canadian society's weakest and most vulnerable members. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, didn't another regime seek similar outcomes but with less finesse?

​Or are we entering an era when Soylent Green isn't just a movie, it's a guidebook?