Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The death lobby sells the concept of giving doctors the right to kill their patients (euthanasia or assisted suicide) by assuring legislators that the killing will be limited to rare circumstances. In Canada, the death lobby argued that medical homicide would be limited to terminally ill people who are fully competent, freely choosing and suffering. The original Canadian euthanasia law claimed to have “tight” safeguards that including a restriction based on having a “terminal” condition.

The Globe and Mail published an opinion article on June 13 by Dr Konia Trouton titled: Why are the rules different for MAiD depending on what you have? Trouton is not only a euthanasia doctor but she is also a co-founder and past president of CAMAP (Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Practitioners) and she helped develop the curriculum for training doctors to poison (kill) their patients.

Trouton’s article justifies euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill, but living with mental health conditions, something that is never promoted when a jurisdiction is debating the legalization of medical homicide. Trouton is arguing that John Scully who is living with chronic mental illness, should have equal access to medical homicide as someone who has other chronic conditions.

In her article, that seems to be clearly written by a professional team, Trouton explains why Scully who is living with mental illness, qualifies to be killed. She writes:

Many chronic illnesses, diseases and disabilities impact a person’s independence and function over time. It was clear to me that at this point, John was in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability. The parts that are important in that phrase are “advanced” and “irreversible.” “Advanced” means there are aspects of one’s life that are no longer self-managed: finances, housing, meal preparation, personal hygiene, medications, etc. John, a highly successful professional, had been unable to work for many years and required a personal support worker, as well as help from family and various organizations, to help navigate the days and weeks of a life with diminishing quality.

I understand that John wants to be killed, but according to Trouton, who is a euthanasia lobby leader, qualifies to be killed based on the concept that he can no longer self-manage his life and he needs a personal support worker to help him live his life.

This definition represents a very wide group of people who deserve to receive societal support (caring) not medical homicide but Trouton’s comments are also very eugenic. Trouton is willing to kill Scully because he has a diminishing quality of life. But almost every elderly person or person’s with disabilities have a diminishing quality of life.

Trouton’s medical homicide approval criteria opens the door to medical homicide to the many not the few.

When debating the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the death lobby sells the concept of legalization as being for the hard cases, the few who are suffering and nearing death. Once legal, the death lobby moves to expand the law. Trouton is arguing that euthanasia should be approved for people with a mental illness alone.

I oppose killing people, but the next time a jurisdiction debates the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the opposition needs to refer to Trouton’s article which proves that the death lobby believes that medical homicide should apply to not only terminal conditions, but also chronic conditions and mental health conditions.  

The death lobby wants medical homicide for the many but will sell it by claiming that it will be for the few.

Further information on this topic: