The culture of death marches on.
Apparently the fine folks over at The Economist looked across the pond at Canada's government-funded assisted suicide program and thought, "Hey, we need that here," cuz check out this hot garbage:
Yeah, how dare Parliament vote against a government program to kill people!
Honestly, what's a financial magazine doing endorsing government-funded killing?
Here's The Economist:
This newspaper believes in the liberal principle that people should have the right to choose the manner of their own death. So do two-thirds of Britons, who for decades have been in favour of assisted dying for those enduring unbearable suffering. And so do the citizens of many other democracies — 18 jurisdictions have passed laws in the past decade.
Despite this, Westminster MPs look as if they could vote down a bill on November 29th that would introduce assisted dying into England and Wales. They would be squandering a rare chance to enrich people's fundamental liberties.
This is liberalism?
A "rare chance to enrich people's fundamental liberties"?
Are you sure you want to own this one, liberals?
Again...
Will England model their program off of the very dignified Canadian "MAID" program which offers this "liberty" to Canadian citizens?
Because ...
Back to The Economist:
Critics also raise concerns about the risk of coercion. But that is not credible in this case. In Ms Leadbeater's bill a person with around six months to live must make sustained requests approved by two doctors and a judge. The idea that an evil relative might go to great lengths to kill someone who will shortly be dead makes no sense ...
Even if opponents of the bill are reassured by these arguments, some cannot shake the fear that Ms Leadbeater's law would be a slippery slope. If they mean that the criteria would sneakily be broadened to include the mentally ill or disabled without further legislation, then the facts are against them. In no case has an assisted-dying law restricted to the terminally ill expanded in this way. In Canada the scope widened, but that was because the courts enforced broad eligibility criteria derived from the country's existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Killing the terminally ill is already a grave evil. But the slippery slop is real. This is how it always starts: With terminally-ill patients.
Then it expands ...
Once you've decided that euthanizing people is acceptable, you've degraded the gift of life such that there's no limiting principle.
The Economist is ignoring Canada, THE primary first-world example of socialized medicine mixing with assisted suicide and promoting people's "liberty" to end their lives. Sure, Britain may have to pass another law after this one, but once the cat's out of the bag, how do you put it back in?
You can't.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
