Friday, 31 July 2020

Physician-assisted suicide in Canada doubled from 2017-2019

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

I find it difficult to understand why today's residents of what were the Allied nations in World War II still regard the Nazis as villains when those nations are increasingly adopting the Nazis' policies. To regurgitate what I said in a previous post: It comes as no surprise to this blogger to see the rabidly antichrist Trudeaupian Canadian government of the Manchurian Pothead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fulfilling my prediction that the slippery slope argument will prove correct in Trudeaupia Canada as it did in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s, with the legalization of euthanasia eventually leading to widespread killing. Doctor-assisted death is rapidly morphing into doctor-initiated death.

As reported by Christine Rousselle of Catholic News Agency, July 30, 2020 (link in original):

Washington, D.C. Newsroom - The number of Canadians killed by physician-assisted suicide nearly doubled between 2017 and 2019, according to a report released by the Canadian government. More than a third of those who opted for “medical assistance in dying” cited concerns of being a burden to family or carers.

The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2019” was published in July. It follows a series of interim reports that were published over the last year.

In 2019, a total of 5,631 Canadians ended their lives through the country’s “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or “MAID” protocols. This amounts for 2% of the total deaths in Canada, an increase from 2018’s percentage. In 2018, the number of MAID deaths accounted for 1.12% of the total number of deaths in Canada.

The report found that cancer was the most common condition among those who ended their lives with MAID, followed by respiratory conditions and neurological ailments. Slightly over two thirds of those who used MAID had cancer as an underlying condition.

Along with having a “reasonably foreseeable” natural death, a person who wished to receive MAID also had to show that their condition was causing them “enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved in a manner that they find acceptable.”

In just over a third of 2019’s MAID deaths, a “perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers” was one of the reasons cited, and in 13.7% of cases, “isolation or loneliness” was a factor.

“When asked to describe the nature of the suffering prompting their request, patients most often reported ‘a loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities’ followed by ‘loss of ability to perform activities of daily living’ reported in 82.1% and 78.1% of cases, respectively,” says the report.

“Inadequate control of pain” was cited in 53.9% of cases, followed by “loss of dignity” in 53.3% of cases.

In U.S. states with legal physician-assisted suicide, less than one half of one percent of deaths are due to euthanasia, the lowest rate in the world. If Canada’s numbers were extrapolated to the United States, approximately 50,000 people each year would end their lives with MAID. This would put euthanasia in the top 10 causes of death for the United States, just above “intentional self-harm (suicide)” and just below kidney disease.

Countries that permit physicians to administer euthanasia and do not mandate self-administration have higher percentages of deaths from euthanasia. Similar to countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, Canadian law permits doctors to administer the lethal dose of medication to the patients. In the United States, the drugs must be self-administered.

While Canadians have the option to self-administer the drugs, the number of people who chose to do so last year was “fewer than seven.”

In 2019, the average age of a person who received MAID in Canada was 75.2 years, but 103 people between the ages of 18 and 45 received MAID.

Last year, 92.2% of requests for MAID were approved, out of a total of 7,336 applications.

Only 3.6% of people who were deemed eligible for MAID withdrew their request.

Of those who were deemed ineligible for MAID in 2019, about a quarter were denied because death was “reasonably foreseeable,” and an additional quarter were denied due to not being “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” Those requirements are likely to change for future years.

In September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found that the requirement that a person who receives MAID have a “reasonably foreseeable natural death” was unconstitutional. The Canadian government later announced that they do not intend on appealing this decision, and a piece of legislation titled Bill C-7 was introduced in February 2020 to further expand MAID criteria.

In addition to removing the requirement of a reasonably foreseeable death, Bill C-7 would also allow for advanced directives.

Cardinal Thomas Collins, the Archbishop of Toronto, released a statement in February criticizing Bill C-7 for expanding the criteria for MAID without expanding the availability of palliative care.

“Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30% of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues,” said Collins.

“If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. But instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand,” adding that doctors will be forced to comply with requests for euthanasia as Canada does not have conscience rights protections for medical professionals.

“We should take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community,” said Collins.

“Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case — there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.”
See also my previous posts:

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down ban on assisted suicide (February 6, 2015)

Canada's largest children's hospital drafts policy that could allow for the euthanasia of children (October 11, 2018)

Canada's antichrist Liberal government plans to study reports on expanding euthanasia (December 23, 2018)

Wednesday, 22 July 2020

200 years ago: The birth of Sir Oliver Mowat

On July 22, 1820, Sir Oliver Mowat, the son of Scottish Presbyterian immigrants, was born in Kingston, Upper Canada. He was a lawyer who articled under future Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, but the two eventually became political rivals. Sir Oliver had a long career in local (Toronto), provincial, and federal politics, but was best known for his time as Premier and Attorney General of Ontario. He governed the province from 1872-1896, the longest tenure in the province's history.

Sir Oliver's time in office was characterized by his consistently successful defense of the constitutional rights of the provinces, in opposition to the strong federal government preferred by Sir John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party and government. He was lauded for his ability to manage differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ontario at a time when such differences mattered.

Sir Oliver resigned as Premier in order to enter federal politics; when Wilfrid Laurier led the Liberals to victory in the 1896 federal election, he appointed Sir Oliver to the Senate, serving as Government Leader in the Senate, while also holding the offices of Minister of Justice and Attorney General in Mr. Laurier's cabinet (1896-1897). Sir Oliver left politics in November 1897 to accept the office of Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario; he died in office on April 19, 1903 at the age of 82.

For the purposes of this blog, it's worth noting--and hard to believe in the multicultural self-immolating monstrosity that still officially uses the name "Canada" in 2020--but a Premier of Ontario--and a Liberal, at that--was also a public defender of the Christian faith. Submitted for your approval, links to free downloads of the texts of two of his addresses:

Christianity and Some of Its Evidences: An Address (1890)

Christianity and Its Influence (1898)

On a related note, July 22, 2020 marked the 70th anniversary of the death of William Lyon Mackenzie King, whose 22 years as Prime Minister of Canada (1921-1926, 1926-1930, 1935-1948) remain a Canadian and Commonwealth record. He was also a Liberal, but with the Communists, anarchists, and nihilists currently destroying any aspect of Canadian and Western civilization they can get their hands on, it won't be long until he's removed from the Canadian $50 bill. Hypersensitive Trudeaupian Canadian readers who can't stand the sight of such an obviously politically-incorrect individual on the currency are welcome to ease their consciences by sending any $50 bills in their possession to this blogger, who isn't afflicted with such hypersensitivity.

See also my posts:

70 years ago: Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King invokes God and speaks in favour of a new world order (September 4, 2011)

75 years ago: Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King calls World War II a "crusade" to "save our Christian civilization" (December 31, 2014)

Saturday, 18 July 2020

150 years ago: First Vatican Council issues decree proclaiming papal infallibility

On July 18, 1870, the First Vatican Council, which had been convened by Pope Pius IX on June 29, 1868, issued Pastor aeternus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ). Pastor aeternus defined four Roman Catholic doctrines regarding the papacy: I. Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter; II. On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs; III. On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; IV. Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff. The doctrine that attracted the most controversy was Chapter IV, the text of which reads:

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ.

Published in the Fourth Session of the holy Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.


...Chapter IV.
Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church confirms, and œcumenical Councils also have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ can not be passed by, who said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'301 these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled. Desiring therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.302

And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and full primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord himself in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also, if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment.303

Finally, the Council of Florence defined:304 That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.305

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in Synod, following the long-established custom of churches,306 and the form of the ancient rule,307 sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith can not fail.308 And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling œcumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognized as conformable with the sacred Scriptures and Apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.'309

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable310 of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public Session solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.

301 Matt. xvi. 18.

302 From the Formula of St. Hormisdas, subscribed by the Fathers of the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople), A.D. 869 (Labbe's Councils, Vol. V. pp. 583, 622).

303 From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second of Lyons), A.D. 1274 (Labbe, Vol. XIV. p. 512).

304 From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of Florence, A.D. 1438 (Labbe, Vol. XVIII. p. 526).

305 John xxi. 15-17.

306 From a letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope St. Celestine I., A.D. 422 (Vol. VI. Part II. p. 36, Paris edition of 1638).

307 From a Rescript of St. Innocent I. to the Council of Milevis, A.D. 402 (Labbe, Vol. III. p. 47).

308 From a letter of St. Bernard to Pope Innocent II. A.D. 1130 (Epist. 191, Vol. IV. p. 433, Paris edition of 1742).

309 Luke xxii. 32. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, A.D. 680 (Labbe, Vol. VII. p. 659).

310 That is, in the words used by Pope Nicholas I., note 13, and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, A.D. 1085, 'It is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged' (Labbe, Vol. XII. p. 679).
The way the doctrine is defined by the Roman Catholic Church, papal infallibility only once (so far): On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII exercised his official infallibility in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, which includes:

...3. Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has "when the fullness of time came"(2) put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority...
2. Gal 4:4.
This reiteration of the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was "from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin" is anything but infallible, as it contradicts the plain words of the Bible:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luke 1:46-47

Mary wouldn't have rejoiced in God as her Saviour if she had been "free from the taint of original sin," because she wouldn't have needed a saviour. So much for papal infallibility.

Sunday, 5 July 2020

70 years ago: Israeli Knesset passes Law of Return

That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.
If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
Deuteronomy 30:3-5

On July 5, 1950, the Israeli Knesset passed the Law of Return:

The Law of Return 5710 (1950)*

1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh**.

2. (a) Aliyah shall be by oleh's visa.

(b) An oleh's visa shall be granted to every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the applicant

(1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or

(2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State.

3. (a) A Jew who has come to Israel and subsequent to his arrival has expressed his desire to settle in Israel may, while still in Israel, receive an oleh's certificate.

(b) The restrictions specified in section 2(b) shall apply also to the grant of an oleh's certificate, but a person shall not be regarded as endangering public health on account of an illness contracted after his arrival in Israel.

4. Every Jew who has immigrated into this country before the coming into force of this Law, and every Jew who was born in this country, whether before or after the coming into force of this Law, shall be deemed to be a person who has come to this country as an oleh under this Law.

5. The Minister of Immigration is charged with the implementation of this Law and may make regulations as to any matter relating to such implementation and also as to the grant of oleh's visas and oleh's certificates to minors up to the age of 18 years.

* Passed by the Knesset on the 20th Tammuz, 5710 (5th July, 1950) and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 51 of the 21st Tammuz, 5710 (5th July. 1950), p. 159; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza'ot Chok No. 48 of the 12th Tammuz, 5710 (27th June, 1950), p. 189.

** Translator's Note: Aliyah means immigration of Jews, and oleh (plural: olim) means a Jew immigrating, into Israel.
The law has been amended twice (1954 and 1970), and has served as a step in the fulfillment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 30.