Progressivism is headed for a nexus that is dangerous for every living being because the ultimate goal is not just political power, it is literally power over life and death.
I know I overuse the thoughts of Albert Camus, but he summed up so much of progressivism’s contradictions when he said, and I paraphrase, that just because everything is permitted does not mean nothing is forbidden.
Individually disturbing, but even worse when taken together, are two current trends that will send people to the same kind of extermination camps the Nazi’s implemented in their “final solution”.
Those are government approved, physician assisted euthanasia and the idea that everything is permissible – from pedophilia to transgenderism.
The Dutch and the Canadians are on the cutting edge of government approved euthanasia.
Yesterday, the Associated Press reported:
“Several people with autism and intellectual disabilities have been legally euthanized in the Netherlands in recent years because they said they could not lead normal lives, researchers have found.
The cases included five people younger than 30 who cited autism as either the only reason or a major contributing factor for euthanasia, setting an uneasy precedent that some experts say stretches the limits of what the law originally intended.
In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to allow doctors to kill patients at their request if they met strict requirements, including having an incurable illness causing ‘unbearable’ physical or mental suffering.”
But Canada has perhaps the most permissive and far-reaching assisted euthanasia laws in the world.
Since 2016, Canada's medical assistance in dying program - known as MAID - had been available for adults with terminal illness. In 2021, the law was changed to include those with serious and chronic physical conditions, even if that condition was non-life threatening. In March of this year, 2023, eligibility was extended to those with a mental illness, also allowing “mature minors” to be euthanized by state doctors without the consent of their parents.
The BBC chronicled the viewpoint of a Canadian doctor, Dr. Madeline Li (and the full article is well worth a read).
Li said she could “recall the first patient she helped die, about one month after Canada first legalized euthanasia in 2016. I remember just how surreal it was," she said.
Li, a psychiatrist at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, recalled checking on her patient that day, asking if she had the right music and final meal, and if she was sure she wanted to go ahead. The patient, in her mid-60s and suffering from ovarian cancer, said she was.
Five minutes later, the woman was dead.
"It was like stepping off a cliff, that first one," Dr. Li said. "Then time passes, and it normalizes."
In 2019, the last year data is available, the sixth leading cause of death in Canada was state sanctioned euthanasia.
Medical ethicists are becoming concerned that such expanded laws allowing what is basically no-fault euthanasia will devalue the lives of disabled people by implying that a serious disability was worse than death, and the policies are creeping forward to encompass the more of the mentally ill, the poor, and soon children.
A number of reports suggest that some Canadians have opted for assisted death, at least in part because they could not afford adequate housing, have also prompted fears that someone may seek out MAID due to poverty, lack of housing, or extreme loneliness.
How long before a government, and Canada and the Netherlands are already pretty close to doing it, comes to decide what defines a “normal life” and decides that any person existing outside that state defined normalcy is of no use?
Just because everything is permitted does not mean nothing is forbidden. We have already heard progressives wish for the elimination of Christians, men, conservatives, etc. This is also part of the agenda of the World Economic Forum. There are people whom they have determined are useless and more importantly, obstacles to their ultimate goals.
What if, as George Bernard Shaw imagined, people would be asked to justify their existence?
Shaw said:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
If you say governments would never do that, just consider how many things have happened in the past few years we all thought could never happen.
As Dr. Li said, "Then time passes, and it normalizes."
My 23 year old stepson has a developmental delay. His academic ability is at a 6th grade level. Under the stated criteria, doctors would be able to "assist" him in dying because someone doesn't value his existence, or, contributions to this world. He also has Type 1 diabetes and Celiac Disease. That is outright criminal in my view.
He is funny. He loves animals, down to the very tiniest bugs. He collects Nerf guns, horse statutes. clocks, hats, and model cars. He is kind-hearted. He is able to tell you what type of tornado siren a town has - make and model. He has a longer memory than I do somedays! He brightens our world everyday.
People only looking at him via a piece of paper would surely miss the humanity he displays. He reminds me that all of God's creations are precious. Life is worth saving.
I have two inoperable benign brain tumors. I have had concentrated radiation (gamma knife) on them both. I no longer "work" in the world. People who devalue my stepson's life could very well do the same to me. While no case is identical, one the slide on the slippery slope begins, where does it end? Who decides where it ends? They would be playing God.
Justin is evil. He is stupid also. But what defines him is his evil. ‘As a country we have to decide whether we tolerate these people’ referencing the non-vaxed!! When a leader of a country decides a group should not be tolerated, clearly he is leaning that way, then what? Kick them from the country? Jail them? Or, kill them? You can’t kick 10 million from the country. Impossible to jail. There is one ‘Final Solution’ that works.