The euthanasia agenda pretends to be narrow, but in actuality, it is very broad. We have discussed the evidence of this repeatedly over the years at SHS.
Further proof came today when I was asked whilst here in Perth to review the Western Australia Euthanasia Bill 2010. The bill would legalize doctors killing their terminally ill patients who ask for it. But the definition of terminal illness is so broad that people who might live decades would qualify. From the bill:
Terminal illness means a medically diagnosed illness or condition that will, in reasonable medical judgment, in the normal course and wiothout the application of extreme measures [whatever that means], result in the death of the the applicant within 2 years of the date on which the request was made.
Here’s the thing: Doctors usually can’t predict that far out when someone will die. People expected to live two years, might live ten or twenty. Heck, they might not expire of the supposedly condition at all.
Here’s another matter I noticed that is ubiquitous in euthanasia/assisted suicide advocacy schemes, but rarely bring up: The bill gives a blanket priviledge to doctors from criminal and civil liability for performing euthanasia. How ironic: A doctor who treats a patient could face liability for failing to meet the standard of care. The same doctor who killed the patient would not be held to account for any standard of professionalism. That means the bottom feeders who can’t do anything else could easily be attracted–like Kevorkian–to a killing practice.
July 15th, 2010 | 2:43 am
Clearly, this whole notion that one must be “near death”, in order for euthanasia, or “assisted suicide”, to be legitimate, is a ridiculous smokescreen.
These advocates believe that anyone at any point in her life, should be able to end it, for any reaon whatsoever. They know, however, that widespread support for this is nonexistent, but there is, however, sympathy for the belief that terminally ill people should be allieviated of suffering through a painless death.
This “two year” nonsense, is meant to get a “foot in the door”, toward the real goal, which is death for all, (as long as the patient has enough money).
July 15th, 2010 | 3:17 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Lisa. Lisa said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Western Australian Euthanasia Bill Defines Dying as 2… http://dlvr.it/2fHYF #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
July 15th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Hm…six years ago my mom was give a year and a half to live. She is still very alive, with many years ahead of her.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 15th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Indeed, shirley elizabeth: I have a friend who was given three months to live from metastatic lung cancer–eight years ago, and still going strong.
July 15th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
Briefly and beautifully put.
July 15th, 2010 | 7:27 pm
This is employing the same criteria that was applied to Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi. The same Lockerbie bomber who was supposed to be worm food months ago.
Well, I’m satisfied…
July 18th, 2010 | 6:56 am
[...] who judged to die within six month in order to be eligible. But Wesley Smith points out that Australia has stepped it up a notch: The bill would legalize doctors killing their terminally ill patients who ask for it. But the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact