News

The war aimed at swaying Quebecers to favour bill 52 turned its rhetorical canons today at the anglophone community.

The Gazette Quebec Bureau Chief, Kevin Dougherty hands a bouquet to the bill's proponents in a  complimentary article - "Bill 52: Veronique Hivon's long battle," about the legislation that will permit the practice of euthanasia of our fellow citizens.

(Above: Quebec minister Veronique Hivon waves as she is applauded by members of the legislature after she tabled Bill 52. Photo by Jacques Boissinot, CP)

Dougherty (pictured below) argues that the inter-party concord that has prevailed over the process leading up to the tabling of the proposed law is a sign of the merit of this legislation.

Unfortunately Mr. Dougherty's professionalism is lacking on three fronts.

• His logic. It does not follow that if political parties agree on a particular law, then that law is a good one. History is rife with examples: apartheid, segregation, ...
• His objectivity. He subordinates his journalistic duty to that of being a mouth-piece for the government as he spouts the bill's objectives of solidarity, compassion, and respect. Is one really being compassionate when killing a patient to end his pain? Is this really respectful of their dignity?
• His ethics. Finally, through his copious references to anglophone MNA Geoffrey Kelley who endorses the bill, our columnist wishes to sway readers by appealing to a kindred authority figure.

Dear Mr. Dougherty, no institution or government agency should be given the right or power to take the life of an innocent human person.

(Bill 52, entitled "An Act respecting end-of-life care," was tabled this past June 12, 2013, and will be debated when the provincial legislature reopens this Fall, at the conclusion of the Summer recess. You may consult the 20-page proposed legislation by clicking here as well as leave your comments about it.)

Will you watch one hour with me?

You are invited to sign up for an hour of reparation prayer as part of a campaign to help our same-sex attracted (SSA) brothers and sisters.

This worthwhile initiative, their second, is coordinated by Courage Reparational Group Toronto and EnCourage Toronto to coincide with Toronto's yearly Pride Week.

Participants can register for a time slot in which to pray, fast, and offer sacrifice by visiting the coordinator's website.

Three prayer intentions are being offered. These are:

 Charity: We repent of any ways in which persons with SSA or gender identity conflicts have been the object of unjust discrimination, including violent malice in speech or in action, and have been abandoned, rejected, or denied unconditional love. We affirm that there is a place in the Church for persons with SSA and gender identity conflicts, who are included in the universal call to holiness.

C​larity: We repent of any distortions of Church teaching as properly expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357 to 2359. We affirm that same-sex acts cannot be approved under any circumstances; that same-sex inclinations are objectively disordered, signifying concupiscence and yet not in and of themselves sinful; and that persons, regardless of their inclinations and acts, are made in the image of God, have intrinsic dignity, and are to be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Chastity: We repent of any sins against God’s plan for male and female complementarity and the gift of human life, including, but not limited to immodesty, masturbation, artificial birth control and artificial reproductive technologies, abortion, pornography, sexual abuse, adultery, fornication, polygamy, prostitution, no-fault divorce, and same-sex acts. We affirm the unitive and procreative meanings of authentic married love; and the treasure of holy celibacy as lived by single persons, religious, and priests.

Related stories may be found here:

• Reparation Toronto;
• Lifesitenews; and
• Socon or Bust. 

 The title for this blog is taken from Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet. Juliet, the speaker, is saying that names of things do not matter, only what these things "are."

This is pertinent to the current discussion about Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care" tabled by the Quebec government this past June 12, 2013. 

Bill 52 is not about the sweet smell of roses but rather euthanasia or as the Quebec government prefers to call it, "medical aid in dying," or MAD to use an acronym coined by Margaret Somerville.

Ambiguity in language is one example that Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill Univeristy, noted in her commentary on Bill 52 which appeared in The Globe and Mail this past June 19, 2013.

Somerville's commentary about this dangerous bill (her descriptor) is "intended simply to identify some of the arguments, reasoning and strategies that it manifests and issues it raises."

 Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," was tabled this past June 12, 2013, in the National Assembly, days prior to the end of the legislative session.

In today's opinion section of the Gazette, two professionals speak out against this legislation, arguing that its goal is nothing other than active euthanasia.

A couple points which Dr. Marc Beauchamp and Me. Michel Racicot make about the bill include:

1. its use of misleading language 

 [T]he government terminology is not based on any semantic recognition in known literature, or in our country's case law. (...)

Bill 52 introduces the concept of "terminal palliative sedation" a concept not defined in the bill, and one that causes a lot of confusion. Inasmuch as the goal of such sedation is to cause death, not to relive pain, it is also another form of active euthanasia.

It therefore appears clear that the bill essentially aims, using this newly invented terminology, to eliminate a prohibition ... on a physician voluntarily ending a patient's life.

2. mistaken notion of compassionate

[The government argues that not permitting] euthanasia would be a sign of a lack of compassion on the part of medical staff. Such an affirmation, false and otherwise improper, undermines the recognition of all those who provide care, with humanity and dedication, to suffering patients in Quebec, and who believe the medical staff should not offer euthanasia to end-of-life patients, or cause their death.

The writers, one representing the Physicians' Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia and the other a board member of Living with Dignity Citizens' Network, make several more points before urging elected officials to "share the responsibility for protecting the population" and vote against this law.

Dr. Frank Humphrey may play an important role in discussions about Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care."

In a previous blog, I noted that on Wednesday, June 12, 2013, days prior to the Summer recess, the Quebec provincial government introduced Bill 52, a bill if passed will permit euthanasia.

Section 26 of the 20-page bill presents four criteria authorizing euthanasia. These are:

1. be of full age, be capable of giving consent to care and be an insured person within themeaning of the Health Insurance Act;
2. suffer from an incurable serious illness;
3. suffer from an advanced state of irreversible decline n capability; and
4. suffer from constant and unbearable physical or pyschological pain which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.

Dr. Humphrey, a quadriplegic, may play an important part in the discussions because he fulfills all four of these criteria.

Dr. Humphrey has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gerig's disease).

ALS is a neurodegenerative disease, akin to muscular dystrophy. In Dr. Humphrey's case it has progressed over the past eight years.

Further after a recent six-month stay in a hospital dealing with pneumonia, his wife Daria was told by a number of physicans that maybe it was time for her husband to die.

Yet, Dr. Humphrey, until recently pastor with the Peoples Church of Montreal, is an accomplished author. He has recently published a text on origins of the universe, melding science with faith.

Bill 52 is a failure for it ignores the giftedness of the person as manifested not only by those who have published works of science but also by simply being a member of the human family.

For a couple of stories about Dr. Humphrey and issues related to the proposed legislation, see Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice and the Suburban newspaper.

There is cause for rejoicing in a report about trends in abortions in New Zealand.

Michelle Kaufman reports that abortions have declined for the 5th consecutive year in that southern country and that numbers are the lowest since 1995.

Yet, the story tempers our joy as little is known about chemical abortions - i.e., abortions after fertilization but before surgical abortion.

Further statistics will found in this article.

The May 2013 edition of the Knights of Columbus newsletter - Knightline, carries an article on how to be supportive of moms, entitled "Meals for Moms."

The article is providential. This afternoon I received a call on our toll-free line (1-855-871-4442) from a young woman, 23 weeks pregnant seeking help for her rent and food.

To end abortion we need to be supportive of women and their children.

We spoke twice, the first time to gather information about her circumstances and the second, to transmit some helpful phone numbers to her.

Also, we made tentative plans to meet tomorrow mid-day so as to see how her calls panned out and how we at the Quebec Life Coalition can be of further help. Please keep us in your prayers.

As for the KofC article, here are some excerpts from the article.

As part of your council's outreach to the community, consider launching a program to provide meals for mothers in need in your area. Hosting such events throughout the year will not only help meet the physical needs of these women and their children, but also act as testimony that there are people concerned with their welfare who are there to support them.

These meals can be served at the council hall or in conjunction with another local group such as a crisis pregnancy center, a shelter for women or similar type of organization. The program should be opened up to women at these facilities, the mothers in the community who are in need or lonely with no place to do.

The council program should be announced in advance and advertised at participating organizaton, in local news ...

As an added touch, when possible, try to have volunteers serve the mothers (and their children) rather than having them move through cafeteria-style lines. It will be just one more way to show that the Knights are there to help.

This past Wednesday, June 12, 2013, the Quebec government tabled Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," legislation aimed at permitting euthanasia.

Not a law yet, it will debated this Fall for the purpose of becoming law.

In an effort to bring clarity to the discussion, within my own mind at least, I've come across a couple of good commentaries.

(To view the 20-page proposed legislation, learn about the stages of consideration, and leave a comment about the bill, visit the provincial website.) 

First, the following points come from Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, appearing in a letter and then in a subsequent blog.

• Contrary to the comments by many media outlets and some media releases from prolife groups, Bill 52 does not authorize assisted suicide (Section 241 of the Criminal Code).
• Bill 52 legalizes euthanasia under the euphemism medical aid in dying. Euthanasia is a form of homicide. The difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is: Euthanasia is an act whereby the physician or someone else causes your death (homicide) and Assisted suicide is an act whereby the physician or someone else provides the means (lethal dose) and you take it yourself (assisting a suicide).
• The bill is clear, the doctor administers, that means euthanasia. Assisted suicide is when the doctor prescribes.
• The supposed safeguards that the Quebec government have chosen are nearly identical to the current Belgian model.
• The Belgium model differs from the Netherlands model in the way it is administered and paid for. The Belgian model administers and pays for the act of euthanasia through its palliative care system. The Belgian model only authorizes euthanasia by physicians, but assisted suicide does occur sometimes.
• The Quebec government is defining euthanasia as a medical act, within the continuum of palliative care.
• The palliative care system may or may not accept euthanasia within Quebec, but it is being defined in that manner.

In the blog, his introductory note on why we should oppose the practice of euthanasia is well worth repeating. These are:

1. No person, institution or government agency should be given the right or power to take the life of a human person.
2. The power of one person, to cause the death of another person, will be abused. Human interaction often includes some level of abuse. In this circumstance the abuse results in the death of a human person.
3. Discrimination exists towards identified groups of people or individuals. Legalizing euthanasia, for instance, threatens the lives of people with disabilities.

Regarding the second of these three points, Schadenberg cites in this blog several studies indicating as much in Belgium.

A second writer who provides commentary on different sections of the bill ist into the nitty-gritty of Bill 52 is Wesley Smith. He has written two pieces found here and here. In these two articles he examines sections - 3, 8, 26, and 29.

Once again, Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," may be viewed here.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Dear Friends of Life,

I need your help.

The French daily La Presse reported this past Thursday, June 6, 2013, that the Provincial government would be tabling, the very next day, legislation permitting the practice of euthanasia in our province.

This isn’t anything unexpected. Under the previous government, a liberal one, we witnessed two signs that our government was moving in this direction – the recommendations of the select committee Dying with Dignity which endorsed the deadly procedure and the report of the Ménard committee on the legal implementation of the select committee’s recommendations which outlined how to circumvent federal jurisdiction.

Friday came and went without any new legislation. Yet because the parliamentary session ends this Friday and breaks for the summer, we expect that the legislation will be tabled in a few days.

We need to act. Would you to call or email your member of the National Assembly in order to tell him or her about your opposition to permitting ‘medical aid in dying’ legislation – a.k.a., euthanasia and assisted suicide.

To find out who your elected official is, you need only enter your postal code in the appropriate box at the Assemblée nationale page.

Else, at this same web address, we can enter other search parameters which will permit you to find out who your elected representative is.

Finally, you can get the same information by calling:

1-866 Députés (1 866 337-8837)

It is important to act, preferably by phone, if not, by email, or both. We need to tell our elected officials that we will not stand for this contradiction to health care.

Creeping euthanasia

Some say euthanasia is already present in Quebec. I have heard tales of unscrupulous health care professionals, cowering under the title of multi-disciplinary committees to avoid taking personal responsibility, who have disregarded their Hippocratic Oath to ensure the health and safety of their patients. I have heard of at least 2 cases.

Teresa has experienced how the health care network has failed her, her parents, and her family. The death of her parents was the result of either a series of unfortunate inept decisions by the people intended to care for their well-being or worse - a deliberate and coordinated plan to play god with the more vulnerable of our society – our elderly.

The case of inept individuals include: an overzealous and territorial CLSC social worker, a pastor more respectful of governmental guidelines than pastor-parishioner care, a family doctor also cowering to CSSS pressures rather than caring for the patient, and a medical researcher and administrator more interested in medicating their research subjects rather than respecting their Hippocratic Oath.

In a second instance, Pierrette wrote to me about the death of her mother. Her experience with a provincially-run long term health care facility has left bitter feelings. She concludes that “euthanasia is a money portfolio in that inheritors and the government both stand to gain.”

She described the deterioration in the care given to her mom at the nursing home – beginning with the disappearance of personal and family heirlooms– as well as arbitrary rules preventing Pierrette to inquire about personal matters related to her mother.

Yet there is hope: Many physicians have not been silent about the pending dangers. Over 500 have signed a manifesto pledging total refusal of euthanasia. And this past May 18, 2013, the Springtime March attracted 1700 persons to Quebec City to voice their disapproval with the government’s orientation. Now, in light of the legislation, the same organizers of the May 18 event are planning a further civic action. Details are be forthcoming.

In the meantime, please contact your local MNA to voice your disapproval with the direction of our provincial legislation.

Yours Respectfully,

Brian A. Jenkins

P.S. Thank you for your ongoing support, both spiritual and financial!

June 2013 Newsletter >>

Dear Brian,

I wish to protect the elderly and the vulnerable from assisted suicide and euthanasia. Here's my donation to allow QLC to continue its important work.

Opinion

The following letter appeared in the Monday, June 3, 2013 print edition of the French daily LaPresse.(p. A14). I translated it with the help of Google translator.

Feminist and Pro-Life

Can you be a feminist and against abortion? I am in favour of the equality of the sexes. But can we talk about equality when a father has no say about the birth of his child? Yes, I am for the free choice of women to study, marry, have children - or not, including having recourse to contraception - but for abortion, no.

Over the past centuries many women made great strides in acquiring rights for us, women. Yet, I firmly believe that "choice" must be exercised prior to conceiving the child. The woman’s "choice" should not trump the right to life of the child (or the cluster of cells).

For some, this may seem a paradox to be pro-life and a feminist at the same time. However, I was brought to earth by the LaPresse reporting in on female gendercide and sex-selective abortion practices in some countries. There seemed to be a consensus that we should ban abortion based on the sex of the child. I totally agree. I wonder whether there is a real difference between two women who have abortions of female fetuses, one because she knows the sex of the child, and she insists on having a boy, and the other, because she prefers to focus on her career and not have children yet.

Ultimately, the result is the same: abortion. What are the legitimate reasons for doing so? Can we judge that one woman is right because she prefers to save the honor of the family and the other not? And above all, if abortion is such a boon for women, why do they feel so guilty afterwards?

While condemning selective abortions, we praise Dr. Henry Morgentaler who, I admit, has changed the face of Canada. Of course, he was a brave man and full of conviction, but has he made a difference for the better? Why such a refusal on behalf of the media and politicians to reopen the abortion question, to assess, in hindsight, whether it has been beneficial for Quebec society?

Dr. Morgentaler stated that he carried the fight so each child would be desired by their parents at birth. I do not agree. I do not think a child needs to be desired in order to exist. I think of this Indian woman in the story of Isabelle Hachey who took in forty girls abandoned at birth. All these had been rejected, and yet we see that they are happy and they want one thing, to live.

Maude St-Laurent (student in political science)