It’s happened, folks.
Not only is killing unborn babies legal in most of the Western world, but the left is now pushing for the “rights” of ill children to “choose” whether to be treated or killed by their doctors!
Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children has just unveiled plans to extend physician-assisted suicide to patients under the age of 18 to allowing them the option of euthanisia.
And, get this – the hospital is arguing that “capable” minors do not need to have their parent’s involvement, consent, or even let them know about their “end-of-life” decision before going through with it.
Underneath the proposed euthanasia program for children, the parents of the minor who chooses the path of assisted suicide will not be notified until their beloved child is already dead.
“Usually, the family is intimately involved in this (end-of-life) decision-making process. If, however, a capable patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although health care providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected,” argue the doctors proposing the twisted plan.
Christian Post has more details on the sickening plan:
Doctors from a Toronto children's hospital recently published policies on physician-assisted suicide for children, revealing that in some cases, parents won't be notified until after the child has died.
"Usually, the family is intimately involved in this (end-of-life) decision-making process. If, however, a capable patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although health care providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected," said pediatric doctors at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, administrators and ethicists in a Sept. 21 paper published in the British Medical Journal's J Medical Ethics.
"The article appears just three months before the Canadian Council of Academies is due to report to Parliament on the medical consensus about extending voluntary euthanasia in circumstances currently forbidden by law," Crux reported. "The Canadian Council of Academies is specifically looking at extending so-called assisted dying to patients under 18 ..."
According to The Catholic Register, the proposed policies listed in the journal "argue that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between a patient choosing to refuse burdensome treatment and accepting an inevitable death versus patients who choose to die by chemical injection before the disease brings on death."
The province of Ontario does not require parents to be involved in a "capable" minor's decision to refuse further treatment, and therefore, "there is no legal reason to require parent involvement in an assisted death," the Register added.
Presently, assisted suicide and euthanasia are only available in Canada to individuals who are aged 18 and older; it has been legal there since 2016.
Bioethicist Bridget Campion said she wasn't surprised by the developments and is concerned about conscience rights for medical providers.
"It's a tough thing to know what to do next under the circumstances," she told the Register. "In my opinion, if we are committed to building a culture of life, forget the legislation. That ship has sailed. There are some things that we absolutely must make sure stay in place — that there can be Catholic health care, that there can be conscientious objection. But, to me, the biggest thing is, 'OK, how do we build a culture of life? How do we build a culture of care?' If we can do that and make it so that people don't want medical assistance in dying, then we will have achieved something."
Daily Signal gave more insight into the slippery slope the proposed plan for euthanising children could go down:
Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children recently unveiled a plan for how to terminate the lives of terminally ill kids—with or without parental consent.
This next step for physician-assisted suicide in Canada is shocking, yet unsurprising, given international trends.
European countries that have legalized physician-assisted suicide frequently expand the practice from the elderly or terminally ill to other populations.
These countries frequently practice nonvoluntary euthanasia as well.
That Canada is considering allowing children to take their own lives is in keeping with this sequence.
The article detailing the Toronto hospital’s plan was published three months before the Council of Canadian Academies is due to report to Parliament on expanding physician-assisted suicide to additional cases; namely, “requests by mature minors, advance requests, and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.”
According to this plan, so-called “minors” under 18 who desire confidentiality may conceal their wishes from their parents, and their families would not be informed of their decision until after the patient was dead.
The proposed policy for Sick Kids argues that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between a patient choosing to refuse burdensome treatment and accepting an inevitable death versus patients who choose to die by chemical injection before the disease brings on death.
Legally, Ontario does not require parents to be involved in a capable minor’s decision to refuse further treatment; therefore, there is no legal reason to require parent involvement in an assisted death, according to the Sick Kids policy.
It is not difficult to imagine how such a protocol could wreak havoc on society.
When a culture differentiates between lives worth living and lives worth ending, the consequences to vulnerable populations—the young, the old, the sick, and disabled—are disastrous.
Suddenly, those who most require our compassion and protection become the most likely to be pressured to prematurely end their lives.
That is why disability groups are at the forefront fighting against physician-assisted suicide, because they are the first casualties of this dangerous practice.
No one should receive suicide assistance instead of suicide prevention—especially not children.