The War Against the Devaluation of Life Through Euthanasia

Life is an inherent good; we understand this as people because we constantly legislate laws and adopt practices that are supposed to protect life indiscriminately – this is why we provide basic necessities like food and healthcare to people who are convicted criminals in prison. This is also why, for instance, we do not allow minors to drive as a protectionist approach to preserving their life. In addition, we criminalise murder and even the killing of a person without malice or forethought because we generally accept that terminating life is irrefutably wrong. IN FACT, the right to life is considered (correctly so) an inalienable right, because it governs a state of living and being alive that comes from God, and no government should have the purview to take away.
This is not to say that governments and people alike have not infringed on the right to life or legislated a way to undermine it, they certainly have – we see this with the death penalty, abortion and euthanasia. However, there was a protruding trend with euthanasia being portrayed as a passionate act, like we saw with the recent debate and bill in the UK. However, what this (really) is a devaluation of life.
EUTHANASIA IS BASED ON A MISGUIDED NOTION OF COMPASSION AND DIGNITY
And now onto our main discussion, and in the so-called developed world there are those who are advocating for the social and legal recognition of euthanasia. In light of this, the case of a deceased quadriplegic had been used for years in this pro-euthanasia cause. He was repeatedly presented to public opinion as someone who was being denied a fundamental right to voluntarily stop living a life of suffering that he no longer considered worthy of being lived. Instead, those who oppose the recognition of this supposed “right” are accused of repressing freedom and of being insensitive to suffering staff and to the increasingly common sentiment of society. In recent days, this campaign has been relaunched (so to speak), especially when we look at the recent debate and passed bill in the UK.
And I should state now that I will be using the word euthanasia as synonymous with medically assisted dying (or MAID) or even assisted suicide – because they are the same. They try to present the “nuance” that MAID is inclusive of medical practitioners, but that is mere semantics, like paedophiles wanting to be called minor attracted persons. In fact, in many places where euthanasia is legal, there typically is a condition for medical practitioners to be involved. So it really is the same thing in principle, and often in practice.
Now, first of all, it must be realised that the case of the quadriplegic, that was hammered into the public eye as among the early justifications of euthanasia, is in fact a rare case! People who are regarded as quadriplegics are neither wishing to die nor, much less, asking to be eliminated. For instance, the National Federation of Associations of Spinal Injuries and Severely Handicapped Persons expressly stated that the vast majority of disabled people are AGAINST euthanasia. And so, the image that has been given of such persons (especially when considering the deceased quadriplegic’s case) actually does not correspond to reality! They are not and do not consider themselves unworthy of life. On the contrary, there are often cases of quadriplegics who are admirable for their spirit of self-improvement. But one of the tricks of the so-called “struggle or activism” for the social and legal recognition of euthanasia is precisely that: to pass off as normal and common what is extreme and rare. Because for the extreme and rare there would then wither be no need to legislate, or less resistance to normalisation.
Secondly, this is why the Bill in the UK is a problem (in addition to its name, being the “End of Life” bill). But, in essence, this bill is being portrayed in many places as a product of compassionate and heartfelt debate, but really it capitalises on the fact that laws in any country are typically a socialisation agent, that is used to systematically nudge society to think a particular way. This is to say that the passing of this Bill creates (directly or indirectly) a perception that euthanasia is acceptable because it is no longer legally wrong.
And so, it does not come as a surprise that the social recognition of euthanasia is often presented as a novelty, as a so-called “liberation” from the oppression exercised by reactionary powers over free individuals who are becoming aware of their rights and are demanding them more and more decisively. HOWEVER, we must also remember that social acceptance of euthanasia is nothing new. In various historical societies, and also in ancient Greece and Rome, euthanasia was not frowned upon by society. The elderly, the allegedly incurably ill or those tired of living could commit suicide, apply to be disposed of in a more or less (quote-unquate) “honourable” way or were subjected to eugenic practices and rites. In fact, the appreciation of all human life was a real progress introduced by Christianity – you see this in how the Master Jesus treated for instance people who had deformities or were lepers, in comparison to the people in His time. And so, the attempted sensationalisation of euthanasia in the present is, in reality, a step backwards! There is nothing compassionate or dignified about euthanasia. In fact, euthanasia is not even addressing a medical issue, rather it is being used as an incongruent solution to an existential issue.
CANADA CASE STUDY: EUTHANASIA FOR THE TERMINALLY IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE
Typically, euthanasia is discussed in light of people who suffer terminal illnesses – however, it is a gross misconception to think that is typically where it ends. In fact, Canada has been a painful and upsetting case study. More specifically, Canada boasts one of the world’s highest euthanasia rates, supposedly enabling the terminally ill to die with dignity. It is so bad that deaths by euthanasia have surpassed guns in Canada! However, this suicide program increasingly resembles a dystopian replacement for care services, exchanging social welfare for euthanasia – which is where the slippery slope comes in.
For instance, for want of a mattress, a man in Canada is dead. That’s the story, in sum, of a quadriplegic man who chose to end his life in January this year through medically assisted suicide. Normand Meunier’s story began with a visit to a Quebec hospital due to a respiratory virus. Meunier subsequently developed a painful bedsore after being left without access to a mattress to accommodate his needs. Thereafter, he applied to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program. Meunier spent ninety-five hours on a stretcher in the emergency room — just hours short of four days. The bedsore he developed “eventually worsened to the point where bone and muscle were exposed and visible — making his recovery and prognosis bleak.” And then, the man who “didn’t want to be a so-called burden” chose to die at home, followed by an internal investigation on the matter.
This exposes the slippery slope: in Canada, euthanasia moved from being an option for the terminally ill (which is wrong on its own), to being a medical option for people without access to adequate healthcare services. But, this was a predictable outcome! When they legalised euthanasia for the terminally ill, it was a window to allow a principality that disregards life to gain access. But, the devil does not have respect for boundaries, which is why we ought never to give him room, because once you give him access to kill on the basis of euthanasia for the terminally ill, he will not stop there – and the proof is Canada! In fact, not just on the basis of Normand Meunier’s case, but also in relation to a 2022 development where a new euthanasia law at the time enabled a man 23 years in age, who expressed depression, diabetes and not having a girlfriend as reasons for wanting to be killed, was actually passed!
EUTHANASIA DEVALUES THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE GOVERNMENT’S MANDATE
Based on these discussed practices, it is easy to note that euthanasia devalues the right to life (especially by making it appear as though all people with terminal illness or disability support euthanasia, and that this is somewhat a compassionate or dignified act). BUT, advocates of those with disabilities have been warning for years that euthanasia puts people at risk. They warned that the risk of people choosing death — because it’s easier than fighting to survive in a system that impoverishes people, and disproportionately does so to those who are disabled — is real. Underinvestment in medical care will push people up to and beyond the brink, which means some will choose to die instead of “burden” their loved ones or society at large. And they were right. In essence, Normand Meunier’s case exposes that euthanasia makes death a seemingly easy option for people, and erodes the mandate and incentive for the government to make life healthy or better for citizens.
Meanwhile, there are now even social media influencers making so-called inspirational videos about euthanasia. In the following video, the influencer in question even goes on to ask her grandmother “Are you excited?”, like this is something to look forward to!
Furthermore, the erosion of government mandate and the financial corruption at play is evidenced by the fact that killing people through euthanasia in Canada costs the same as 2 therapy appointments; which means that the government has made it very inexpensive for it to kill people! This is a system that capitalises on issues like mental illness and pain because it is cheaper for the government, in comparison to providing adequate healthcare, to allow people to die. And the easy, fairly accessible financial requirement for euthanasia is a means that the government employs to prey on vulnerable people who are sick. We know that it can be difficult to live everyday with a heavy heart or depression; it is in a number of instances hard to have a disability that makes you dependent on others – we’ve seen people talk about the previous experiences before they received healing during the Healing Streams Live Healing Services with Pastor Chris. This use of euthanasia to erode the government’s duty to care for its citizens is really what we see at play, especially considering Normand Meunier’s case.
Dr Ellen Webie is comfortable with distant greetings with a person she is about to have a lengthy and sensitive conversation with. In her work, she says she is proud that she has euthanised over 400 people, and is also an abortionist. This is indicative of a cold and distant approach that comes with people who professionally kill people, which is that they cannot afford to make a connection with others. Secondly, in being an abortionist herself, Dr Ellen Webie makes the same argument that supporters of abortion make, which is the claim it is about autonomy and control. This is worth noting because it tells of the fact that this is the work of a principality that is anti-life – you’d recall that 1 Corinthians 15:26 tells us that death is an enemy of God, it precisely states that death is the “last enemy that shall be destroyed”.
Finally, Dr Ellen Webie makes the already refuted argument that when denying euthanasia, we are condemning people to unbearable suffering. [PAUSE] No, because we’ve established that most people with terminal illness or disabilities do not want to die. However, I would go a step further and say that euthanasia is not something that should be made a right even for individuals – there should never be a right to die, for a number of reasons.
First, there is little ability to measure genuine informed consent, because if the person is in pain, there is a big likelihood that the pain is a motivator and not a genuine desire to die. For instance, when a person is being tortured their communication of information is often not voluntary, but is in response to a desire for the torture to end. Second, it’s doctors who have the last say and not the patients when it comes to euthanasia. This is to say that it is doctors who determine the success of the procedure and not an objective evaluation of the progress and satisfaction of the patient, because the patient is dead! This is why euthanasia cannot be a right or legislated privilege. With rights, we measure the benefit and enjoyment of their utility, which helps us determine how essential they are. For instance, we value free speech because not only is it a God-given inalienable right, but also because we have empirical evidence of what society and the world at large is like without it! Therefore, doctors are not in a position to say without a doubt that their actions were merciful and just, if they cannot measure the impact of their euthanasing work after the patient’s death. They have no basis to make that claim objectively!
EUTHANASIA IS TIED TO THE DEPOPULATION AND TRANSHUMANIST AGENDA
But, we have prayed and have cancelled the works of the powers and principalities of darkness in our world. Their plan to use the euthanasia laws in Canada, the UK, the US and other nations to execute their anti-life and depopulation agenda are vain imaginations. But, it must not be lost on us that euthanasia certainly is tied to the depopulation agenda, in fact, the BackRock CEO made that apparent. In particular, he explained how the real goal of depopulation (through Covid19, Remdesivir, “vaccines”, euthanasia, abortion, and even the Ukraine proxy war) is to make it easier to substitute humans with machines.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso