Since I’m on the subject of euthanasia, I thought that I’d just mention that Bill 52 received “approval in principle” from the Quebec National Assembly yesterday. This is similar to Second Reading, and means the bill now goes to committee for study.  So hold on to your bootstraps, everyone.

However, according to my sources (I just say that to make it sound official), all it not lost just yet as some of those “yay” votes were in fact “nay” votes.  The reason being that they wanted the bill to pass Second Reading to get it to committee where is can be worked on and fixed.

And some people who we have not heard from till now, are being called out of the woodwork to speak to this issue, clarifying what those nasty little terms like “terminal palliative sedation” and “medical aid in dying” really mean.

Philippe Couillard, the leader of the Quebec Liberal party and a former neurosurgeon, stated in a press conference yesterday that Bill 52 does not have sufficiently strict guidelines.  More on that subject here.

This video from the Christian Medical and Dental Society gives a different perspective on the euthanasia issue – definitely worth viewing.  It shows the human side of suffering, that it can be used to make us better, to purify our love, to prepare us for another place.  Most importantly it shows two people who didn’t fear the end of life, and didn’t resorting to killing as a means of coping with their pain.

See the video here.

Hello Edmonton! Woah: It’s minus seven (I just checked) and the weekend is coming. What are you going to do? What about this conference. Scott Klusendorf is speaking and that is worth the price of admission alone.

Saturday, November 2, 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM 

Pre-registration by October 29, 2013: $25.00 (lunch and snack included)
Late or Walk-in registration: $25.00 at the door (may bring a bag lunch or purchase lunch in the cafeteria)
Pastors are FREE (pre-registration required by October 29 for lunch and snack to be included)
Students are FREE (with student card; pre-registration required by October 29 for lunch and snack)

As Quebec wades into ‘end of life care’ with their vote (2nd reading) today, LifeCanada issued this press release, noting that a majority of Quebec residents are NOT in favour of what the government terms “medical aid in dying” (a euphemism for euthanasia).

Specifically, in the poll conducted by Abingdon Research (October 23-28), 47% said Bill 52 requires further study, while another 14% expressed opposition to the idea of allowing doctors to kill their patients. Only a minority 35% were in favour of the bill.

Respondents were concerned with the actual rate of ‘non-consensual patient terminations’ (aka death without knowledge of the fact that you are about to be snuffed out) that has occurred in other jurisdictions, like Belgium, for instance.  Doctors (and nurses) actually admit to killing their patients without their consent, in about 1/3 of the actual REPORTED euthanasia deaths that occur in that country.  Bearing in mind that there would be a percentage of doctors who would not report their acts of “non-consensual patient terminations”, for fear that the authorities who are supposed to be minding the “safeguards” might actually take notice.

Here’s a little quote: (see article here)

The researchers found that a fifth of nurses admitted being involved in the assisted suicide of a patient.

But nearly half of these  –  120 of 248  –  also said there was no consent.

‘The nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession,’ said the report’s authors in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

It is likely many nurses ‘ under-reported’ their involvement for fear of admitting an illegal activity, the study said.

But it added that many were probably acting according to their patients’ wishes, ‘even if there was no explicit request’.

That’s consoling…  the patient “probably” wanted to die, even though they didn’t actually ask for it.  I think this illustrates very nicely one of the problems with legalizing euthanasia – in the eyes of those administering it, it actually becomes a medical act that needs to be prescribed.  And the doctor always knows best.

Keep in mind that Bill 52, the Quebec Bill to legalize euthanasia, is actually modeled on the Belgium law.

As many Ottawa activists know, electronic petitions cannot be submitted to the House of Commons. Only old fashioned paper and ink petitions are permitted by House rules.

However, in February, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart introduced a motion that would change this. His motion is M-428. The issue is being debated this week in the House.

Here are more details on what the motion proposes:

Maclean‘s magazine reports, “Currently, MPs can table paper petitions with at least 25 signatures, and the government must respond within 45 days. Kennedy’s plan would allow e-petitions, if they garnered enough names and the support of at least five MPs, to ignite actual debates in the House.”

Stewart explains that with his motion, “Certified electronic petitions receiving a certain number of signatures – for example, 50,000 – and sponsored by at least five MPs would trigger a debate (similar to a ‘take note’ debate) in the House of Commons.”

Considering how many pro-life petitions are submitted to the House on a weekly basis (and yes, I monitor this trend), this a motion the pro-lifers should look into. Imagine that – our little signatures triggering a formal debate in the House?

For more information on the motion, a Q&A is available here.

(Anyone see a downside to this motion? At first glance, I don’t.)

This is a really important event. I have the book in hand. It looks really good, thorough.

This is important research, important information.

Annual Free Lecture

Dr. Priscilla Coleman on Abortion vs. Childbirth: The Latest Evidence on Psychological Risks

Thursday, November 7, 2013

7pm

University of Toronto Campus, Fr. Madden Hall, Carr Hall, 100 St. Joseph Street, Toronto M5S 1J4

Registration required; space is limited.

I always love running into Andrea at pro-life, pro-family events. We live on virtual opposite ends of the country so it’s a treat to see her. The Conference has done its job, namely to re-invigorate us, so I feel inspired to get posting again on PWPL. The Conference is well underway and has been a great success.

Dr. Wally of MaterCare International whom Andrea refers to is well worth noting. He does incredible work in Africa, attending to women in desperate need of obstetric care. His work with pregnant women in Africa, setting up both the clinics and the infrastructure to get women to them, is an amazing feat.

Death from the lack of proper care to women having their babies is a very prevalent problem – in fact 91% of those deaths occur precisely because they cannot get care during the last trimester of pregnancy and birth. What is even more tragic, however, is that his appeal to the Canadian government for aid (from CIDA) has fallen on deaf ears for years now.

MaterCare International has frequently been asked to brief government officials about this issue, but has never been given a cent in aid money. Instead, funding has gone to Planned Parenthood and other organizations whose only mandate is to provide contraception and abortion.

So. You may think that Andrea Mrozek, she’s so bold. She is comfortable talking about her issues no matter where or how. Not so, I say, but yesterday I experienced a (baby steps) victory.

After the day’s proceedings at the national LifeCanada conference, I went for a run, as I do. And I aimed to get to the water. It was further than I thought. I ran and I ran. And way later than I thought I did hit the ocean. So much later, however, that I had to take a cab back.

The cabbie I flagged down was a woman. Down to earth. Kind. She asked me what I was doing here. I said: “I’m at a Life Canada conference.” That was Bold Moment Number 1. For I rarely tell people about pro-life this or that. But now, I had just opened the door. The cabbie asked me how it was going. What to do? Be vague? Say not too much? I opted to be concrete. “Well,” says I, “I learned a lot.” I told her about Dr. Walley’s presentation of MaterCare. How we take the modern healthcare we get for granted, given maternal mortality overseas.

The cabbie says to me that she would never consider abortion, but she would never judge someone else for their choice.

All day long at the Life Canada conference I’d been listening to kind, compassionate, non-judgemental people speak about their desire, pure and simple, to help mothers. So it is worth noting that in the world at large, that message doesn’t get out as much as it should. It still comes down to an issue of “judging.”

I told the cabbie I totally agreed. That I would never judge women either. I applauded her compassion.

I added, however (this is Bold Moment Number 2) that I didn’t think abortion was ever a great solution.

She said she would never deny women that choice.

I said “if women get full information, because abortion does some women a lot of damage.”

Then my cab ride was over and I thanked her for rescuing me.

Finally, a gave her a 40% tip. (Really people, don’t preach at your cab driver and then be stingy.)

So those are my bold moments, things I rarely do. Baby steps.

PS PEI really really does have very red soil.

A neat little piece by Brian Dijkema at Cardus about politics. I tend to see things a bit too black and white, but here he asks us to consider what choices we have:

When we come to political solutions, it is important to note that it could be done otherwise. Even if we agree on the end of a particular political issue—public education or the accountability of trade unions, for instance—there are almost always multiple ways to address and achieve that end. The most basic negotiating exercises still allow for a wide variety of solutions.

Like it. He doesn’t ask us to discard politics, but rather to see what else can be done, alongside, as well. I have never liked the binary nature of politics though. Bad rhetoric doesn’t sit well with me. And you get a lot of that in politics these days.

I’m at the LifeCanada conference on PEI. All the talks have been interesting, but this struck me the most today.

If you think of amniocentesis, you will likely think of in utero genetic diagnosis of things like Down’s Syndrome, for example. To me it’s something negative, since such a high percentage of babies that aren’t “perfect,” are aborted after amniocentesis.

But today I learned that the doctor who pioneered this technique was Dr. William Liley, and he did so in order to help unborn babies live:

Liley began his research on Rh incompatibility in the early 1960s by becoming proficient in the technique of amniocentesis. He believed that testing the amniotic fluid was actually testing the fetus and its environment. Liley was sure that amniocentesis was the most accurate way to assess the course of the hemolytic disease in Rh-impaired fetuses. Repeated tests of the amniotic fluid, along with other with other measurements, indicated whether the condition was stationary or whether anemia was worsening, and if so, if doctors had to induce labor.

Sadly, he ended his own life when he saw how his technique was being used both for “search and destroy” missions and to inject saline in a saline abortion.

The public did not always respond well to the activist Liley, and the strain of his dual roles may have partly caused him to end his life on 15 June 1983, at age 54. At his funeral, officiated by both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches’ highest leaders in New Zealand, at Auckland’s Holy Trinity Cathedral, Liley was recognized for his great contribution to saving the lives of the unborn sick with new techniques, while living his life to protect all potential new lives.

This info came courtesy of Dr. Walley of MaterCare.