Comments on: Street’s euthanasia bill a grave threat to our community

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:38:00 +0000

reading this made me angry ans very sad, I could never imagine someone having the ability to end my son’s life because they feel he has less value, the person who wrote this bill HAS to be mentally handicapped there for should be the first one euthanized.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:08:02 +0000

It is the certifying doctors who decide mental competance, not the “qualifying person”.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:05:00 +0000

Once an “un-consenting termination of life” has happened, you can’t ask the victim about it, and the offenders aren’t going to incriminate themselves. After the deed is done, the matter of consent is pretty much bogus as an issue.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:17:13 +0000

It’s unsafe and open to abuse as outlined in the blog. You haven’t offered any argument against that presented. Any law that places our community at risk is unacceptable.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 23:17:00 +0000

You stated that this law provides for the “un-consenting termination of life…” The bill provides that the qualified person be mentally competent and take those measures to end his life.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:29:28 +0000

Exactly Stella, the situation in the Netherlands and Belguim is an example of the great risk. This is a good overview http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca/2013/06/belgium-and-netherlands-escalate-their.html

By: Stella McLeod

Stella McLeod — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:48:00 +0000

Sadly, the implementation of our abortion law proves that relying on “two certifying medical practitioners” as a safeguard only enables abortion on demand, so why wouldn’t the same eventually happen with euthanasia? No doubt eventually someone will decide that it is “unfair” if “incompetent” adults and children are denied euthanasia because of their inability to give consent so laws will be modified to allow others to give permission on their behalf. One only has to look to the Netherlands and Belgium for examples.

By: thinkclearly

thinkclearly — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:48:00 +0000

I can’t see anything here that suggest Mike is opposed to euthanasia. He might be. But the main arguments I see are regarding the lack of controls to prevent unconsented deaths. Looks reasonable to me.

By: thinkclearly

thinkclearly — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:46:00 +0000

Thanks Mike, excellent breakdown of the proposed legislation and available loopholes to those wanting to achieve their own ideologies. I personally believe that every life is valuable but if a law is passed for people to choose for MAD then so be it. But, this legislation does not provide enough controls to prevent unconsented killing. It should be scary for anyone not just DS. I mean an X? Really? Heck anyone could be killed.

And as for doctors being trusted …. where have you been?? Do some research on the drugs most doctors are pushing (chemo drugs, anti-depressants etc) and the damage they are doing to our society you’ll see fairly quickly that they don’t have our best interests at heart. The reality is that the Hippocratic oath is a thing of the past. I still laughing at the thought that doctors can be trusted … that’s a good one.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:31:19 +0000

In reality, there is no way a euthanasia bill can ensure that this type of abuse won’t occur. Supporters of the bill are free to demonstrate how they can ensure that such a bill won’t be abused and our people subjected to medical murder.