This disturbing case is the reason why euthanasia should be opposed by
all Christians.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15489605/canadian-woman- euthanized-ontario-maid.html
The "maid" of the URL is not some cute girl in a short dress, but an
acronym for Medical Assistance in Dying - in other words, doctors giving people a lethal dose to bump them off because they are inconvenient.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The husband was an elderly man, who simply could not cope. He was
entitled to say that he simply could not have her home again. That's a decision you might deplore, Ken, but it was his to take.
neither you nor I nor any Christian organisation on the spot in Canada
did anything to help her.
That's the disgrace. In the circumstances, bereft of hope, the lady
changed her mind and elected a dignified and painless end.
Dr Coelho wrote 'Hospice and palliative care teams should have been
urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation.' But, that's
just wishful thinking, not any sort of solution.-a The hospice presumably had no space, and the palliative care team were already on the job.
The point of all this is that, if you are against something you need to provide a really practical alternative.
On 26/01/2026 11:36, GB wrote:
The husband was an elderly man, who simply could not cope. He was
entitled to say that he simply could not have her home again. That's a
decision you might deplore, Ken, but it was his to take.
No, I don't deplore that decision. Indeed, I have sympathy for it after
my own experience with my wife. I would merely point out that if he had
been offered support and help before things reached that desperate
state, he might have been glad to continue caring for his wife.
There was no hospice place for the lady, nor a hospital place. And,Ken,
neither you nor I nor any Christian organisation on the spot in Canada
did anything to help her.
1. I am not in Canada.> 2. Did any of the organisations you refer to even know about the case?
You can't blame them for not taking action if they were unaware of the situation.
That's the disgrace. In the circumstances, bereft of hope, the lady
changed her mind and elected a dignified and painless end.
The point is that she did not change her mind - or if she changed her
mind in favour of death, she subsequently changed it again but was
killed anyway.
Dr Coelho wrote 'Hospice and palliative care teams should have been
urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation.' But, that's
just wishful thinking, not any sort of solution.-a The hospice
presumably had no space, and the palliative care team were already on
the job.
Were those the only two options? As you point out, other options - such
as churches - were not approached or investigated.
The point of all this is that, if you are against something you need
to provide a really practical alternative.
The problem is that there is no incentive to provide alternatives when
one can simply kill the person causing the problem. Why go for a
difficult and expensive solution when one little jab will solve the
problem forever?
In this country, where there is no jab, carers are often left to manage
as best they can. It's a big problem, as you are aware.
Where do you get that from? I didn't see it in the DM article.
On 27/01/2026 10:22, GB wrote:
In this country, where there is no jab, carers are often left to
manage as best they can. It's a big problem, as you are aware.
Quite apart from the fact that I loved my wife and treasured every
moment with her, as a Christian I would never kill her just for my own convenience. I admit that if she was in terrible pain I'm not sure what
I would do, but that was not the case here.
On 27/01/2026 10:22, GB wrote:
Where do you get that from? I didn't see it in the DM article.
The headline of the article reads: "Canadian woman was euthanized
'against her will' after husband was fed-up with caring for her". Easy
to overlook a headline in 36pt bold, of course.
The text of the article states: "However, she told the assessor she
'wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values
and beliefs' and instead wanted inpatient hospice care."
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I wasn't suggesting it's okay to do away with relatives because they areI was commenting on the fact that apparently this woman was killed
a nuisance. I was saying that it's important to support carers, and I
don't know why you have taken umbrage with that?
The text of the article states: "However, she told the assessor she
'wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values
and beliefs' and instead wanted inpatient hospice care."
I can see where I went wrong. I read the article, rather than relying on
the headline! Thanks for putting me straight. :)
The case is far more nuanced than you are making out, and the lady very understandably changed her mind a few times. In those circumstances,
they should have delayed until she was quite sure.
The article doesn't explain clearly what the hurry was, but presumably
the hospital refused to admit her to a ward, and nobody else would take
her. So, maybe she should have been thrown out on the street, but at
least she would not have been euthanised.
On 28/01/2026 12:31, GB wrote:
The text of the article states: "However, she told the assessor she
'wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values
and beliefs' and instead wanted inpatient hospice care."
I can see where I went wrong. I read the article, rather than relying
on the headline! Thanks for putting me straight. :)
Or as the above quote shows, you read neither the headline nor the
article! You should have read one or the other - or you could have been
like me and read both.
The case is far more nuanced than you are making out, and the lady
very understandably changed her mind a few times. In those
circumstances, they should have delayed until she was quite sure.
Your final sentence is my based position - and nuances be blowed.
The article doesn't explain clearly what the hurry was, but presumably
the hospital refused to admit her to a ward, and nobody else would
take her. So, maybe she should have been thrown out on the street, but
at least she would not have been euthanised.
At the very least advertise the case so that the various groups you mentioned in an earlier posting could have had a chance to intervene. Instead of which she was bumped off as quickly as possible and despite
her protests. There should be a murder charge in there somewhere.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Whether you approve or not, some people definitely do want an easier
death, and they don't mind curtailing their lives in order to get that. You're wrong to seize on a particular case in Canada to try to deny that
to them.
On the other hand the case does demonstrate that we need robust
safeguards in place if we do allow such a system in this country.
You keep making this grisly comment, but it's cruel.
At Dignitas, people are rigged up with a cannula, but it is they who
press the button to start the pump that injects the drug into
themselves. You appear to be approving of that?
So, you want to harm many, because of some vague fear over the few.
On 30/01/2026 14:09, GB wrote:
At Dignitas, people are rigged up with a cannula, but it is they who
press the button to start the pump that injects the drug into
themselves. You appear to be approving of that?
No, I don't approve of suicide in any form. I merely point out that if someone wants to commit suicide, there does not need to be a change in
the law, a change which can be abused - as in the case I highlighted.
So, you want to harm many, because of some vague fear over the few.
I don't want to harm anyone. I want everyone to receive a good standard
of care. Bumping people off is not "care".
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with aThe usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity so they can be free from pain?
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with a
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
The usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule. Furthermore a Christian will accept that God is in control
and will put an end to suffering when He sees fit. To anticipate Him
must surely be a denial of faith.
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with aThe usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule.
On 02/02/2026 06:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with a
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
The usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule. Furthermore a Christian will accept that God is in control
and will put an end to suffering when He sees fit. To anticipate Him
must surely be a denial of faith.
For a Christian that's maybe true, however I smile ryely, because when I
was a new Christian me and my mate were chatting to an Elder in his
garden discussing a problem, and my mate said Que Sera, Sera, to which
the Elder tersely replied, that's not in the bible!
Your other points are, to be fair, valid, although I think being bumped
off for covenience is likely to be a minor issue. I would imagine most
cases would be to relieve the sufferer of acute pain.
For a Christian that's maybe true, however I smile ryely, because when I
was a new Christian me and my mate were chatting to an Elder in his
garden discussing a problem, and my mate said Que Sera, Sera, to which
the Elder tersely replied, that's not in the bible!
Your other points are, to be fair, valid, although I think being bumpedI am sure that under the present law acute pain is indeed the
off for covenience is likely to be a minor issue. I would imagine most
cases would be to relieve the sufferer of acute pain.
I sympathise with that POV, but Ken rightly anticipates that it's not an argument that will resonate with the majority of other people in this country. Hence, he puts forward scare stories of the system not working
well in other countries. That sounds more rational, but it's overdone.
Next thing is he'll want people with red flags walking in front of allNo, that's Sadiq Khan and the Labour government. We're already
motor cars!
There's physical pain, but there's also mental pain, which you're not
taking into account.
On 02/02/2026 11:14, GB wrote:
There's physical pain, but there's also mental pain, which you're not
taking into account.
The cure for mental pain is some form of talking therapy. I agree that
it is cheaper to kill all those who are mentally disturbed, but I'm not
sure if that is what you have in mind?
Next thing is he'll want people with red flags walking in front of allNo, that's Sadiq Khan and the Labour government.
motor cars!
It rains a lot in Wales. Do you blame Sadiq Khan for that, too?No, I blame him for his "war" on motorists in London. I blame the Labour government in Wales for the ridiculous 20mph speed limit. I am not
Some people would be intensely distressed and wish to die if they became totally incapacitated. These are people who you say should throwI don't want anyone to kill themselves, but if they insist upon it,
themselves from a car park.
On 04/02/2026 19:24, GB wrote:
It rains a lot in Wales. Do you blame Sadiq Khan for that, too?No, I blame him for his "war" on motorists in London.
I blame the Labour
government in Wales for the ridiculous 20mph speed limit.
On 07/02/2026 14:26, John wrote:
Where on earth would you travel 30 miles through an entuirely 20mph
zone? I think you'd be hard pressed even if it was there and back. I
marvel that you can do a constant 30mph in 5th gear. On my car it
tells me (1) to change at 42mph, I can only just go into 4th at 30 mph.
30 miles through an urban area is hypothetical, but doing 30 in 5th is
not. Of course, you can't accelerate hard in that combination, but just drifting along, not a problem.
At 20mph it would take an hour and a half,...
So set off half an hour earlier!!!
Which conveniently ignores the point about increase pollution. But of
course I wouldn't expect you to engage with anything that would upset
your smugness.
Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph actually causes less pollution, notYou are mistaking the extra fuel burned by driving at high speed.
more. Prove me wrong.
30 miles through an urban area is hypothetical, but doing 30 in 5th is
not. Of course, you can't accelerate hard in that combination, but just drifting along, not a problem.
On 08/02/2026 15:12, John wrote:
Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph actually causes less pollution, not
more. Prove me wrong.
However the difference between 20 and 30mph is minimal.
On 06/02/2026 18:31, GB wrote:
I am a motorist living in London. Is there a war against me that I'm
not even aware of?
Do you drive an older car or are you fortunate enough to afford a new
one?
Have any of the streets in your neighbourhood been closed to
traffic, allegedly to save pollution.
It's a dreadful job, being Mayor, but Sadiq is doing a good deal
better than that buffoon Boris. Whose idea was it to put Boris in
charge of the country?!
Er - what are the statistics on knife crime under both men?
I have just bought a new car, but until last month was driving one
that's almost 20 years old. It met all the ULEZ requirements very easily.
Er - what are the statistics on knife crime under both men?
No idea.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:44:29 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,291 |