Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

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.

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles