MAID: A Product of Moral Erosion

The urgent need to uphold collective morality in the face of institutionalized suicide.

Kevorkian: Pushing the Boundaries of Society (History)

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, often referred to as "Dr. Death," was an American pathologist and euthanasia advocate who became famous in the 1990s for assisting terminally ill patients in taking their lives. Kevorkian promoted the idea of physician-assisted suicide for patients suffering from incurable diseases or unbearable pain.

Between 1990 and 1998, he claimed to have assisted in the deaths of at least 130 patients, often using a device he designed called the "Mercitron," which allowed patients to self-administer a lethal dose of medication. Kevorkian recorded many of these procedures and even aired one on the television program 60 Minutes, leading to a public outcry and legal action.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian's conviction for second-degree murder in 1999 stemmed from his direct involvement in administering a lethal injection to a terminally ill patient named Thomas Youk. This case stood out from Kevorkian's previous actions because, in earlier instances, he had used his “Mercitron” device, which allowed patients to press a button and administer the lethal drugs themselves. In Youk's case, however, Kevorkian personally administered the injection, crossing a legal and ethical line that led to his eventual conviction.

The 60 Minutes Broadcast

Kevorkian not only assisted in Youk’s death but also recorded the process on video. He then sent this video to the news program 60 Minutes, which aired the footage in November 1998. The footage showed Kevorkian injecting Youk with a lethal dose of potassium chloride, which caused his immediate death. By airing the video, Kevorkian was deliberately provoking authorities to settle the score. He even challenged the legal system directly, stating that he wanted the courts to address what he saw as an individual's “right to die.”

Legal Repercussions

This case was different from Kevorkian’s previous assisted suicides for a few key reasons:

1. Direct involvement: Kevorkian personally administered the lethal injection, rather than setting up a mechanism for the patient to take the final action themselves.

2. Broadcasted evidence: By sending the footage to 60 Minutes, Kevorkian provided clear, public evidence of his direct involvement in ending a person's life.

As a result, Kevorkian was charged with first-degree murder, but the jury ultimately convicted him of second-degree murder, along with the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance.

The prosecution argued that Kevorkian had crossed the line from assisted suicide to active euthanasia, which was illegal in Michigan at the time. Kevorkian’s decision to act as both doctor and executioner violated Michigan law. It appears that, at this time, the moral fabric of society was still reasonably intact.

“The most heart-wrenching case is the hardest to argue against. I guess the arguments against it is that we can do better than kill people when they’re near the end of life. We can do better with end of life care. [Euthanasia poses a threat to societies most vulnerable people] Euthanasia for the mentally incapacitated, euthanasia for the physically incapacitated, euthanasia for the infants and children who can’t act themselves.“

Dr Mark Siegler (Director of the Center for Medical Ethics)

MAID - Euthanasia Normalized

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is a program in Canada that allows eligible individuals to request assistance to end their lives under specific circumstances. Here’s a brief history of its development:

Legal Context and Early Debates

• 1993: The Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of Sue Rodriguez, a woman with ALS who sought the right to assisted dying. The court ruled against her, citing the Criminal Code prohibitions against assisted suicide.

• 2005: The Supreme Court again heard the case of Twyla R. N. R. O’Briant, which reinforced earlier decisions but prompted discussions about the need for changes in the law regarding assisted dying.

Changing Legal Landscape

• 2010: The BC Civil Liberties Association launched a legal challenge against the criminal prohibition on assisted dying, leading to a gradual shift in public opinion and advocacy for change.

• 2012: The case reached the Supreme Court in Carter v. Canada. The court ruled in 2015 that the prohibition against assisted dying violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Establishment of MAID

• June 17, 2016: The Trudeau government passed Bill C-14, which legalized medical assistance in dying. This law allowed adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions to request assistance to end their lives under specific criteria.

Implementation and Evolution

• 2016 Onwards: The MAID program was implemented across Canada, with guidelines established to ensure safety and eligibility assessments. Physicians and nurse practitioners were authorized to assist eligible patients.

Expansion of Eligibility

• 2019: Amendments to the original law allowed for some changes, including the possibility for patients whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable to access MAID under strict conditions.

• 2021: The government introduced legislation to further expand eligibility criteria, removing the requirement for a patient’s natural death to be reasonably foreseeable. This amendment aimed to include individuals with mental health conditions as a sole underlying condition by March 2023.

• March 2023: The expanded eligibility for individuals with mental health conditions came into effect, though this aspect of the law faced significant debate and scrutiny.

A Slippery Slope

The normalization of suicide over the past three decades represents a disturbing departure from the Biblical commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” As Dr. Seigler poignantly observed, “the most heart-wrenching case is the hardest to argue against.” However, the sequence of events illustrates that the expansion of eligibility for assisted suicide continues unabated, showing no signs of establishing a reasonable boundary. Case law and parliamentary amendments are compounding, with each new decision pushing the boundaries further from what was once considered unthinkable. This shift has effectively altered the Overton Window of public opinion, moving it toward an uncharted destination.

Fourth annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2022 (Source) More reports: (Click Here)

Liz Carr interviews BC doctor specializing in MAID and abortion

In this interview, Liz Carr from the BBC speaks with Dr. Ellen Wiebe, a physician practicing in British Columbia who specializes in MAID and abortions. Dr. Wiebe claims to have been involved in "over 400" deaths (not including unborn babies). While I found the interview disturbing overall, one aspect that stood out to me was Dr. Wiebe's unwillingness to shake Liz Carr's hand at the beginning. As a cultured Canadian, I would be offended by the refusal of this gesture of trust, respect, and acknowledgement from any medical professional whom I am expected to entrust with my life.

Veterans Affected

As a civilization, we are already deeply overextended into unknown territory. Currently, as of 2023, the Canadian MAID program extends to individuals suffering a mental disorders, and since 2021 has been offered to individuals suffering from non-terminal conditions. Reports indicate that MAID has been offered to Canadian veterans suffering from PTSD when they sought help. If this is how the system is willing to treat our wounded warriors, how will it treat the rest of us as its power expands and criteria continue to loosen?

Conclusion

While I acknowledge the desperation for relief experienced by terminally ill patients, I align with Dr. Mark Siegler's position that we can provide better options for end-of-life care than resorting to assisted death. I believe that physicians with antisocial personality disorders may be particularly drawn to practices such as MAID. My research indicates a concerning trend among such individuals, characterized by an obsession with control, a facade of false empathy, and a disturbing sense of pleasure and pride in their role.

This ideology of death is profoundly troubling, even in seemingly compassionate cases. I am horrified by the normalization of suicide and its implications for society as a whole. We must establish firm boundaries to prevent the further erosion of the already tenuous criteria for death, especially during this era of mental health crises and increasing rates of disease, when people urgently need support to live. We must reaffirm a strong collective morality and draw the line in stone, not in sand.