Kill the elderlies for the planet.
I interviewed Véronique Hivon in 2014 about the End-of-Life Care Act. I wanted to know what the government would do to avoid stepping on a slippery slope, like the Belgians and the Dutch who easily grant euthanasia (and who are not afraid of words).
An alcoholic or depressive can get euthanasia in the Netherlands, where the pain is taken into account, not the end of life, to give help to die. Belgians, for their part, admit having lost control over the application of the law.
The clause "end of life" was going to protect us from all drifts, assured me Mrs. Hivon, while admitting that a scientific committee was already working on the help to die anticipated in the cases of Alzheimer.
Here we are: unstoppable progressives, two-thirds of Quebecers want it.
The spirit of the law is yet clear: "To ensure end-of-life care that respects their dignity and to recognize their right to respect for their wishes expressed clearly and freely. "
It should therefore resume the process to legalize these new "pre-arrangements". This is not a clause added to a table corner.
At Second Regard, a Dutch doctor who practices euthanasia said he found this practice "unbearable": "Forgive the expression, but you must kill someone who does not understand what is happening to him. Who does not remember having signed a paper once, not necessarily suffering or unhappy?
But someone will have to decide when it will be appropriate to kill that person. From what criteria? Science does not know everything about Alzheimer's disease. The economy, yes.
Overall, I always thought, and wrote, that physician-assisted dying would open the door to excesses as long as not everyone has access to palliative care.
Between spending the full time in a CHSLD and receiving a drug that puts an end to the daily indignities of dependent people, not to mention the suffering that is not always well managed by the medicine that fears to create drug addicts (!), In more than releasing loved ones from a burden, what would you choose?
Presented thus, it is no longer a choice. Quick, the sting!
And now the fanatics of the environment come to put their grain of salt. A Dutch "Green" MP, Corrine Ellemeet, 43, recently proposed reducing health care for the elderly, helping the planet and saving money at the same time. A geriatrician would make the decision to treat, or not, patients aged 70 and over.
This is called medical degrowth, the new fad of radical ecologists opposed to what they call "capitalistic medicine of performance" and which place the needs of the Earth before those of Humanity.
They are the same people who believe that we must not have children to save the planet.
Think about it, a beautiful Earth empty of humans, but liberated from any moral and ethical conflict facing death, what progress!