In my 22 years of anti-euthanasia advocacy–I had NO idea what I was getting into–I have noticed that the death pushers don’t give a fig about democratic processes.
They want to win. Exclamation point!
If democracy gets them their way, fine. If not, they go to courts. If that doesn’t work, some engage in illegal surreptitious assisted suicide or open law defiance.
And eventually, they wear decency down.
“I think the court did a spectacular job,” says Jocelyn Downie, Schulich School of Law professor and recent recipient of a prestigious Trudeau Fellowship to research law, policy and practice around end-of-life care in Canada.
“It’s a brilliant, thoughtful, careful, and responsible judgement,” she says of the decision. “Up until now, people have been in oppositional camps around whether we should allow physician-assisted death. Now we can work together to figure out the how.”
Careful? Responsible? No, deadly and life disparaging.
The Supreme Court has opened Canada to a radical, Belgium-style, open-ended, wild euthanasia, and a law professor happily applauds because her side got what it wanted.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
And as a technocrat, Downie is thrilled she gets to help make up the euthanasia rules–that will, of course, be broken without consequence.
Democratic deliberation? We don’t need no stinkin’ democratic deliberation.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.