Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Killing to stop the dearth of death
First, a little mood music:
Canada is killing people with an almost German efficiency.
“Wanting to meet a growing need, Needham began to offer rooms for rent at his funeral home where MAID procedures could take place.
“Since early 2020, Needham has provided rooms for 23 medically assisted deaths. ‘Family members can be right there with their loved ones,” he said. “I suggest they can make it how they want it, bring some of your favourite music, bring flowers, bring some food or if you like, bring a bottle of wine. This is this person’s last day on Earth. You want to take everything into account and consider as many things as possible.’
“Darcy Harris is a professor of thanatology — the study of death and dying — at King’s University College in London, Ont. She also worked as a hospice nurse earlier in her career. She says the trend makes sense.
“‘Funeral homes are usually very nicely appointed and the staff are service-orientated and are comfortable talking about death,’ she said.”
Portugal is getting in on the act of killing disabled people, and doing so with gusto!
“The new version [of the law], approved in a 138-84 vote with five abstentions, has a much fuller description.
It refers to a ‘serious injury, definitive and amply disabling, which makes a person dependent on others or on technology to undertake elementary tasks of daily life.’ The bill states there must be ‘very high certainty or probability that such limitations endure over time without the possibility of cure or significant improvement.’”
Dutch death doctors blind to the slippery slope.
“The latest apologia is published in JAMA Internal Medicine in response to an article demonstrating that the “slippery slope” in the Netherlands is very real. […] Three Dutch doctors respond that “the slippery slope is nonexistent.” Good grief. From their letter:
“‘On performing EAS [euthanasia, assisted suicide], physicians invoke force majeure, a legal concept based on an emergency situation instigated by a conflict of duties. This moral conflict consists of a physician’s duty to protect life and a physician’s duty to relieve suffering. . . . As such, physicians’ assessment of unbearable suffering ensures due care in carrying out EAS. . . .
“‘According to the due care requirements, the patient’s request should not only be voluntary, but also well considered. This again pinpoints narrative ethics that enable patients’ clear insight into illness to make careful assessment of their story based on sufficient information provided by the physician.’
“Oh, please. Here’s a recent example of a so-called ‘emergency situation’ (hit the links for greater details). A dementia patient had indicated she would want euthanasia, but she wanted to decide when. After becoming incompetent, she never asked to be killed. Moreover, when the doctor brought it up, she repeatedly said no.
“So what happened? Her doctor drugged the patient — and when she woke up and resisted the lethal jab, she had the family hold her down so the killing could be completed! How a woman who clearly fought to live — and indeed, who, according to the killing doctor, said no three times — was experiencing ‘unbearable suffering’ is beyond me.”