Maclean’s is hosting a national dialogue on euthanasia.  I plan to attend the event in Vancouver.  There are events happening in Regina, Whitehorse and Mississauga.  For more information go here.

Since I last posted, questions about the criminal nature of Baby Mary’s death by starvation in a Toronto hospital have arisen.  Here is a follow-up post from The Protection of Conscience Project about what could be done.

It is now too late for charges to be laid for failing to report a child in need of protection as the limitation of action period has expired.7 On the other hand, there is no limitation period for criminal negligence causing death or murder, so it is still possible for police to investigate the allegations and lay criminal charges if appropriate. Assuming that the Journal article has accurately stated the dates of the birth and death of Baby Mary, it should be possible to determine her actual identity by searching Vital Statistics records for the months of October and November from 2012 and earlier. Records of her birth and death would provide police with the names of the parents and the institution where she died, and they would then be able to pursue the investigation by questioning the authors of the Journal article and health care workers involved with her care.

While the Journal article raises very interesting questions from the perspective of freedom of conscience and religion for health care workers, it is prudent to withhold further comment on the allegations until it is clear what action, if any, will be undertaken by state authorities in the Province of Ontario.

The Toronto Police have been notified.

We often forget how distressing the pervasive pro-death mentality, that often inhabits modern medicine, can be for pro-life health care workers. As one of our ProWomanProLife commenters wrote on my last post: “it is much easier to say what someone must do when you know that it will never be you who has to put the needle filled with poison in someone’s arm and watch the life drain out of his face. Or that it will never be you who suctions mutilated pieces of a baby out of someone’s body.”

This piece, again from The Protection of Conscience Project (quickly becoming one of my favorite “go to” sites for information) is a brilliant analysis of moral distress defined as:

” … painful feelings and/or the psychological disequilibrium that occurs when nurses are conscious of the morally appropriate action a situation requires, but cannot carry out that action because of institutional obstacles; lack of time, lack of supervisory support, exercise of medical power, institutional policy, or legal limits.”

The actual case study, however, is utterly tragic and I presume, totally illegal.  It is the story of Baby Mary, a newborn starved to death in a Toronto hospital, over the span of 27 days. Prepare to be heartbroken, to say the least.

Quoting Pope Emeritus Benedict in Caritas & Veritate:

…openness to life is crucial to the development of society… a society that moves towards the denial or suppression of life ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good.

This just in from The Protection of Conscience Project: Sean Murphy’s post Entrenching a ‘duty to do wrong’ in medicine responds to a blog entry on Impact Ethics by Prof. Carolyn McLeod, The denial of ‘artificial’ contraception by Ottawa doctors.

Prof. McLeod heads up Let Their Conscience Be Their Guide: conscientious refusals in reproductive health care, funded by the Canadian government through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Briefly, the goal of the group is to force physicians to provide abortion, contraception, etc. or to facilitate the procedures by referral or other means. However, the same reasoning is being used to justify forcing objecting physicians to provide or refer for euthanasia and assisted suicide.  In fact, two leaders of the McLeod group are on record on that point through the Royal Society of Canada  panel report on euthanasia.

Professor McLeod warns that physician freedom to act on moral or religious beliefs is limited, explaining that, if it were not, Muslim physicians would refuse to accept female patients, and Catholic physicians would deny care to women who have had previous abortions. These assertions are surprising – and erroneous. In fact, Muslim physicians may treat patients of the opposite sex,6 and a previous abortion is morally irrelevant to treatment decisions by Catholic physicians.7 Her suggestion that the religious beliefs of Muslim or Catholic physicians would make them “uncomfortable” in such circumstances bespeaks a complete lack of intellectual engagement with Islamic medical ethics and with Catholic moral theology. There is a significant difference between discomfort that might arise in real circumstances of ethical conflict, and principled and rational decision making based on religious or moral convictions.

Following nicely on Andrea’s post, this from the Run with Life Blog:

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth’s Motion which:

“asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth.

I am speaking at a conference this week in Cleveland, Ohio where I have been asked to explain the Canadian situation to the Americans.  They don’t understand how it is that in over forty years no legislation has been passed what-so-ever, that would protect unborn human life, or the mothers themselves who are involved in abortion.

I think this will serve as a good example.

Loneliness and feeling unloved are twice as likely to kill you as being overweight.

As death becomes something that you choose, rather than something that happens to you, people will ask for it just because they can.

Around 16 per cent of the people who use ‘right-to-die’ organizations such as Dignitas have no underlying health problems listed on their death certificates.

Read it here.

We just issued a press release on the amazing turn of events that took place yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly.  Here it is below:

Democracy triumphs, at least for now, over Bill 52

In a surprising turn of events yesterday, the Quebec government was unable to get Bill 52, a bill to legalize euthanasia, to a vote.  The result is that the vote has been moved to March when the National Assembly reconvenes.

The drama was something to behold.  The Liberal Party leader Philippe Couillard, did not cave under Parti Quebecois pressure to get the Bill to a vote. Couillard maintained that given the grave nature of this Bill, it would only be fair to allow all MNAs to vote according to their conscience, and to go on the record publicly, in the Quebec National Assembly, to each explain their views. The Liberal Party advised the Assembly that MNAs would require time to fulfill this important duty: they would allot 10 minutes to each MNA.

And it was that pro-conscience, pro-democracy decision that became the sticking point.

The Parti Quebecois did all they could to cut short the debate time, and force Bill 52 to a vote, but to no avail.

Parliament is now, in a two-week recess. It is widely expected the PQ will soon call an election in which they are hoping to win a majority.

To his credit, Mr. Couillard refused to budge from his principled position. This earned him scathing public criticism from the PQ House leader, Mr. Bédard.

If an election is held, and the PQ wins, of course Bill 52 will come back to life. If somehow the Liberals win, the fate of Bill 52 is uncertain.

“This was a very exciting day for democracy and for conscience rights.” said Natalie Sonnen, executive director of LifeCanada.  “This Bill to legalize euthanasia is lethal and threatens the well-being of the most vulnerable in our society, those to whom we should extend the greatest of care, not killing.  The suspension of the National Assembly allows people more time to become educated about the harms of this proposed legislation.”

Lila Rose really has a gift for being relentless and on-the-ball in live television debates.

I like this one because she is making an excellent point (related to my last post) about women’s health that actually stumps her opponents.

Why are women not being told about alternatives to hormonal contraceptives that significantly harm their bodies?  Why is Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-choice America, not informing women about the lawsuits against the manufacturers of Yasmin and the alarming side effects of this contraceptive?  Ms. Hogue doesn’t really have an answer.
As of March 2012, approximately 12,000 lawsuits have been brought against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the manufacturer of Yasmin, Yaz, Beyaz and Safyral, alleging an increased risk of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE)) and gallbladder problems, just to name a few of the health concerns.

If you have the time to see this video, it’s worth it.

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPIgsGmDcU]

This is an excellent ‘must see’ trailer of a documentary that is coming out on reproductive health sciences that may shake-up the ‘establishment’ a bit.  For decades, women have been prescribed synthetic hormones that have often harmed, not helped their fertility.  Now, thanks to the incredible work of Dr. Hilgers, we have a health science that truly helps women understand their cycles, achieve and avoid pregnancy, and treat most fertility problems.  It’s natural, it’s inexpensive, and it’s incredibly effective.

This is a MUST for all women:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Stxc5WdjU]

I loved this article.  Suresh is a “Hindu who trends more toward the orthodox side of Hinduism.”  He was born between Hindu temples, a mosque and a cathedral, and if anyone would know about multiculturalism or interfaith issues, it would be him.  It was refreshing to see him remind us that we ought not take Christ out of Christmas for the sake of political correctness, so as to make Christmas inoffensive to other peoples.

He writes:

If the political fashion designers of religions believe they are doing minorities any favour by “Christcleansing,” they are dead wrong. They are actually disrespecting us and making us feel guilty of something we have never asked them to do.

And he makes a good point because he knows if Christianity is on the “chopping block,” his religion might be next.

This is firing me up to speak up again and exert my rights to hear about Christ in Christmas. Who knows? Today it is Christmas, tomorrow I might see Diwali or Id or Vaisakhi dissected for political correctness.

Echoing these very sentiments is MP Nina Grewal, a Sikh, also pleading her case for us to respect Christmas as a Christian feast.  See her Statement in the House of Commons which she bravely made just a few days ago.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRhnJdF_nM]

So Merry Christmas everyone!  And remember, whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Sikh, Jane or a Hindu, or a non-believer, Jesus is the reason for the Season.