Canadian Doctor argues in favor of infanticide being legal

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

If you actually watch the clip, you will find a doctor arguing in favor of euthanasia being an option for parents to request in extremely specific circumstances.

That's what the tweet said if not the subject heading. It's still disturbing because you're dealing with young children who can't consent.

However, this is nothing new in Canada (and it must happen around the world too.)

In 1993/1994 there was the Robert Latimer case in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer

The point I've been making here, that I guess some people are just too slow to pick up on, is that in the nearly 30 years since Robert Latimer and Sue Rodriguez has Canada gone down some slipperly slope where life is no longer regarded as precious?  

The U.S based virtue signallers here might argue so, but this is why we should look at the Covid deaths: Americans died at approximately 2.5 times the rate of Canadians, even though Canada and the U.S are very similar demographically.

This is the U.S, especially those on the pseudo religious right who are so holy against MAID:
Pre Covid: nothing is more important than life!
Covid: nothing is more important than (my) freedom!
'Post' Covid: nothing is more important than life!

Canada isn't perfect, but we demonstrated that we mostly actually cared about each other during Covid. So we have nothing to learn from a bunch of pseudo moralist Americans who virtue signal to pretend they're wonderful, but when actually having to sacrifice a little for the lives of others, show themselves to be an absolutely horrible pro-death cult.

Of course, for many of these same pseudo moralists,it would be more accurate to say:
"nothing is more important than life!" (so long as it doesn't cost me anything.)

In terms of 'slippery slopes', an argument can be made that it's the virtual signalling that leads to being actually pro-death:  "I don't need to wear a mask or get vaccinated, I'm 'pro life' because I support Republicans who are 'pro life.'  That's all I need to do to care about the lives of others." Or "Wear a mask and get vaccinated? I go to church and send thoughts and prayers!"

In regards to MAID, I think there is clearly a problem with lack of consent, and this doctor's position also has uncomfortable similarities with eugenics (as did the anti Covid protection arguments: 'they're just old people, they'll be dead soon anyway') but assisted death is a complex issue with issues of fundamental rights and practical concerns, and anybody who argues it from some absolutist moral position has nothing of value to add to the discussion.

"Yeah, this is a bad thing happening in Canada. But allow me to change the topic and write multiple paragraphs about bad things that are happening in the states, so I can feel good about my country"

This wasn't changing the topic at all. I showed, and you haven't countered, that for all of the concerns about this supposed 'slippery slope' with MAID, that Canadians generally showed concern for life when a pandemic struck.

Since the United States largely doesn't have MAID, and has tens of millions of people who feign concern for life how do you explain how they embraced, unique in the world, a pro-death 'muh freedom' attitude/policy?

Clearly all of their virtual signaling about concern for life turned out to be lies, whereas, even with MAID, Canadians showed concern a genuine concern for the lives of people, especially the most vulnerable.

What actual evidence do you have of this 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy.)

Look, I'm not going to engage you further on the "Americans don't have genuine concern for life and are only virtue signaling" argument, other than to say that I don't care. I wrote extensive posts about this, as a Canadian, speaking about a Canadian issue, arguing that it is not right for Canada. If Americans who agree with me are hypocrites, then shame on them. That does not change the substance of the issue.

Now onto the "slippery slope" thing you mentioned:

I'm not sure why you're talking about slippery slopes, I never mentioned that, and my argument is not a "slippery slope" argument. I'm not speculating on what could happen next, I'm talking about what has already happened. MAiD in Canada was originally sold as something that would be available for people capable of fully informed consent, and now we're talking about people who literally cannot be informed or give consent.

It was also sold as something that would be limited to people with irremediable conditions. I've linked you two cases where a veteran with PTSD was offered assisted suicide without him asking first, and a woman living with ALS chose it but wrote to her relatives before she passed that she didn't really want it, she just couldn't get adequate home care. Neither had "irremediable" conditions. These are the exact concerns highlighted by disabilities advocates, and even if their arguments were slippery slope arguments at the time, it clearly isn't now because it has come to fruition.

The very principles set out by the government in 2016 are being flagrantly ignored with recent expansions of MAiD, and if this proposal ever makes it into a bill, it will be a continuation of that trend. The Canadian people were sold assisted suicide as something that would be restricted to people who have irremediable conditions and are capable of fully informed consent, and this goalpost has been shifted routinely with little public consultation and almost no discussion in election campaigns.

It's actually one medical doctor speaking for one medical organization who is talking about this, not the panel that is listening to him, not the courts and not the government.

To be sure, this isn't just a random minor medical organizaiton, but ultimately he doesn't speak for anybody beyond that.

I'll leave out Covid in the United States, sure, but I think Covid clearly had two impacts on this debate in Canada.

First, I believe you acknowledged earlier, but not here, that the expansion of MAID was based on a Supreme Court ruling that said the original law, passed by the same Liberal government -albeit with a different Justice Minister - didn't go far enough.  So, to state that this is government policy that came about as a result of their initial law that they then 'shifted the goalposts on' to greatly expand, isn't accurate.

In regards to Covid:
1.This expansion of MAID has occurred at the same time as Covid. Clearly Covid impacted people's ability to express their views in public forums and has likely limited the vigorous debate that would have occurred otherwise.

2.Contrary to Dobbs being the reason the Conservatives and Poilievre havent made more out of this, I think it was Covid. Prior to Covid, Poilievre was either known for or regarded as anti-abortion. I think he, unlike the hapless Leslyn Lewis, realized it would be completely inconsistent if he argued 'my body, my choice' in regard to Covid at the same time as remaining anti-abortion or being anti MAID.

I'm glad you recognize the possibility that many Americans are hypocrites on 'life', I think Pierre Poilievre recognized that he would have been as well.

One other factor though is that Evangelical 'Christians' are much larger in the United States than in Canada. I think there has been plenty of debate over MAID on talk shows in Canada during Covid, but it tends to be argued more over both fundamental rights issues and also practical medical realities rather than through Evangelical demagoguery. So, it isn't as sensationalist a debate/discussion.

FWIW, personally I support MAID and I think this medical doctor is wrong with wanting to expand it to people who can't consent and is expressing positions that are consistent with eugenics. In addition to there being no evidence this panel, the courts or the government is moving in the direction of the position of this doctor, I don't see any reason why Canadians in general would not easily hold a similar 'nuanced' position.

I would argue that Poilievre reversing his stance on abortion had less to do with not wanting to seem like a hypocrite on bodily autonomy and more to do with the simple fact that it is a minority opinion and a politically toxic one at that. Covid or no Covid, Scheer's defeat in 2019 basically settled the idea that it wasn't enough for Conservative leaders to simply promise not to restrict abortion, but they had to openly proclaim themselves as pro-choice. I'm not sure I fully agree with this, abortion alone wasn't the reason Scheer lost, but I digress.

I do take your point that the doctor in question is really the only person talking about this, at least that I know of. This isn't a proposal by the Liberal government.

As for "shifting of the goalposts", again you're right that the original law was required to be amended. It actually wasn't the Supreme Court but the Superior Court of Quebec, but the Government chose not to appeal it and just go with the decision, so that's a distinction without a difference. However, the court decision only took issue with the "irremediable" part of the law on Charter grounds. I personally disagree with that, and my instinct might have been to appeal it, but I'm no lawyer or legal expert, it's possible that the Quebec court's decision was in line with the general legal interpretation of the Charter, so whatever.

But striking the irremediable clause wasn't the only change the government made. No court ever mandated the government to expand the grounds for assisted suicide to mental illness, which has really been the most controversial part. That goalpost was shifted irrespective of the court decision, not because of it. Other changes were made as well, generally loosening the criteria, and again not changes required by the court. There have been two federal elections since said ruling, and as a Canadian you know that assisted suicide wasn't really discussed at all in either of those elections. I partly blame the Conservatives for not bringing it up, but responsibility ultimately lies with the government.

Implementation has been a real mess too. We're increasingly hearing about irresponsible applications of assisted suicide, as I have argued with respect to a couple cases. It's possible that these are very rare and exceptional circumstances, but I think it's completely right to worry that the liberalization of euthanasia laws is leading to an ultimately darker and less compassionate future for people with disabilities, and this doctor's recommendation (who yes, is a private citizen who was simply testifying in committee, but as a high-ranking member of the Quebec college of physicians is still a prominent person) demonstrates a pretty tangible example of how things could go horribly wrong if we don't establish clear and unambiguous safeguards.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm spending a lot of time typing these borderline essays, and there's only so much you can talk about suicide in a day

[Benjamin Frank]

If you actually watch the clip, you will find a doctor arguing in favor of euthanasia being an option for parents to request in extremely specific circumstances.

That's what the tweet said if not the subject heading. It's still disturbing because you're dealing with young children who can't consent.

However, this is nothing new in Canada (and it must happen around the world too.)

In 1993/1994 there was the Robert Latimer case in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer

The point I've been making here, that I guess some people are just too slow to pick up on, is that in the nearly 30 years since Robert Latimer and Sue Rodriguez has Canada gone down some slipperly slope where life is no longer regarded as precious?  

The U.S based virtue signallers here might argue so, but this is why we should look at the Covid deaths: Americans died at approximately 2.5 times the rate of Canadians, even though Canada and the U.S are very similar demographically.

This is the U.S, especially those on the pseudo religious right who are so holy against MAID:
Pre Covid: nothing is more important than life!
Covid: nothing is more important than (my) freedom!
'Post' Covid: nothing is more important than life!

Canada isn't perfect, but we demonstrated that we mostly actually cared about each other during Covid. So we have nothing to learn from a bunch of pseudo moralist Americans who virtue signal to pretend they're wonderful, but when actually having to sacrifice a little for the lives of others, show themselves to be an absolutely horrible pro-death cult.

Of course, for many of these same pseudo moralists,it would be more accurate to say:
"nothing is more important than life!" (so long as it doesn't cost me anything.)

In terms of 'slippery slopes', an argument can be made that it's the virtual signalling that leads to being actually pro-death:  "I don't need to wear a mask or get vaccinated, I'm 'pro life' because I support Republicans who are 'pro life.'  That's all I need to do to care about the lives of others." Or "Wear a mask and get vaccinated? I go to church and send thoughts and prayers!"

In regards to MAID, I think there is clearly a problem with lack of consent, and this doctor's position also has uncomfortable similarities with eugenics (as did the anti Covid protection arguments: 'they're just old people, they'll be dead soon anyway') but assisted death is a complex issue with issues of fundamental rights and practical concerns, and anybody who argues it from some absolutist moral position has nothing of value to add to the discussion.

"Yeah, this is a bad thing happening in Canada. But allow me to change the topic and write multiple paragraphs about bad things that are happening in the states, so I can feel good about my country"

This wasn't changing the topic at all. I showed, and you haven't countered, that for all of the concerns about this supposed 'slippery slope' with MAID, that Canadians generally showed concern for life when a pandemic struck.

Since the United States largely doesn't have MAID, and has tens of millions of people who feign concern for life how do you explain how they embraced, unique in the world, a pro-death 'muh freedom' attitude/policy?

Clearly all of their virtual signaling about concern for life turned out to be lies, whereas, even with MAID, Canadians showed concern a genuine concern for the lives of people, especially the most vulnerable.

What actual evidence do you have of this 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy.)

Look, I'm not going to engage you further on the "Americans don't have genuine concern for life and are only virtue signaling" argument, other than to say that I don't care. I wrote extensive posts about this, as a Canadian, speaking about a Canadian issue, arguing that it is not right for Canada. If Americans who agree with me are hypocrites, then shame on them. That does not change the substance of the issue.

Now onto the "slippery slope" thing you mentioned:

I'm not sure why you're talking about slippery slopes, I never mentioned that, and my argument is not a "slippery slope" argument. I'm not speculating on what could happen next, I'm talking about what has already happened. MAiD in Canada was originally sold as something that would be available for people capable of fully informed consent, and now we're talking about people who literally cannot be informed or give consent.

It was also sold as something that would be limited to people with irremediable conditions. I've linked you two cases where a veteran with PTSD was offered assisted suicide without him asking first, and a woman living with ALS chose it but wrote to her relatives before she passed that she didn't really want it, she just couldn't get adequate home care. Neither had "irremediable" conditions. These are the exact concerns highlighted by disabilities advocates, and even if their arguments were slippery slope arguments at the time, it clearly isn't now because it has come to fruition.

The very principles set out by the government in 2016 are being flagrantly ignored with recent expansions of MAiD, and if this proposal ever makes it into a bill, it will be a continuation of that trend. The Canadian people were sold assisted suicide as something that would be restricted to people who have irremediable conditions and are capable of fully informed consent, and this goalpost has been shifted routinely with little public consultation and almost no discussion in election campaigns.

It's actually one medical doctor speaking for one medical organization who is talking about this, not the panel that is listening to him, not the courts and not the government.

To be sure, this isn't just a random minor medical organizaiton, but ultimately he doesn't speak for anybody beyond that.

I'll leave out Covid in the United States, sure, but I think Covid clearly had two impacts on this debate in Canada.

First, I believe you acknowledged earlier, but not here, that the expansion of MAID was based on a Supreme Court ruling that said the original law, passed by the same Liberal government -albeit with a different Justice Minister - didn't go far enough.  So, to state that this is government policy that came about as a result of their initial law that they then 'shifted the goalposts on' to greatly expand, isn't accurate.

In regards to Covid:
1.This expansion of MAID has occurred at the same time as Covid. Clearly Covid impacted people's ability to express their views in public forums and has likely limited the vigorous debate that would have occurred otherwise.

2.Contrary to Dobbs being the reason the Conservatives and Poilievre havent made more out of this, I think it was Covid. Prior to Covid, Poilievre was either known for or regarded as anti-abortion. I think he, unlike the hapless Leslyn Lewis, realized it would be completely inconsistent if he argued 'my body, my choice' in regard to Covid at the same time as remaining anti-abortion or being anti MAID.

I'm glad you recognize the possibility that many Americans are hypocrites on 'life', I think Pierre Poilievre recognized that he would have been as well.

One other factor though is that Evangelical 'Christians' are much larger in the United States than in Canada. I think there has been plenty of debate over MAID on talk shows in Canada during Covid, but it tends to be argued more over both fundamental rights issues and also practical medical realities rather than through Evangelical demagoguery. So, it isn't as sensationalist a debate/discussion.

FWIW, personally I support MAID and I think this medical doctor is wrong with wanting to expand it to people who can't consent and is expressing positions that are consistent with eugenics. In addition to there being no evidence this panel, the courts or the government is moving in the direction of the position of this doctor, I don't see any reason why Canadians in general would not easily hold a similar 'nuanced' position.

I would argue that Poilievre reversing his stance on abortion had less to do with not wanting to seem like a hypocrite on bodily autonomy and more to do with the simple fact that it is a minority opinion and a politically toxic one at that. Covid or no Covid, Scheer's defeat in 2019 basically settled the idea that it wasn't enough for Conservative leaders to simply promise not to restrict abortion, but they had to openly proclaim themselves as pro-choice. I'm not sure I fully agree with this, abortion alone wasn't the reason Scheer lost, but I digress.

I do take your point that the doctor in question is really the only person talking about this, at least that I know of. This isn't a proposal by the Liberal government.

As for "shifting of the goalposts", again you're right that the original law was required to be amended. It actually wasn't the Supreme Court but the Superior Court of Quebec, but the Government chose not to appeal it and just go with the decision, so that's a distinction without a difference. However, the court decision only took issue with the "irremediable" part of the law on Charter grounds. I personally disagree with that, and my instinct might have been to appeal it, but I'm no lawyer or legal expert, it's possible that the Quebec court's decision was in line with the general legal interpretation of the Charter, so whatever.

But striking the irremediable clause wasn't the only change the government made. No court ever mandated the government to expand the grounds for assisted suicide to mental illness, which has really been the most controversial part. That goalpost was shifted irrespective of the court decision, not because of it. Other changes were made as well, generally loosening the criteria, and again not changes required by the court. There have been two federal elections since said ruling, and as a Canadian you know that assisted suicide wasn't really discussed at all in either of those elections. I partly blame the Conservatives for not bringing it up, but responsibility ultimately lies with the government.

Implementation has been a real mess too. We're increasingly hearing about irresponsible applications of assisted suicide, as I have argued with respect to a couple cases. It's possible that these are very rare and exceptional circumstances, but I think it's completely right to worry that the liberalization of euthanasia laws is leading to an ultimately darker and less compassionate future for people with disabilities, and this doctor's recommendation (who yes, is a private citizen who was simply testifying in committee, but as a high-ranking member of the Quebec college of physicians is still a prominent person) demonstrates a pretty tangible example of how things could go horribly wrong if we don't establish clear and unambiguous safeguards.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm spending a lot of time typing these borderline essays, and there's only so much you can talk about suicide in a day

That's fine. You are correct that no court ruled that the federal government was not required to expand MAID to cover mental illness. The government was clearly concerned with losing a charter challenge based on 'equal protection.'

The government report on MAID, including this, is fairly extensive:
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/expert-panel-maid-mental-illness/final-report-expert-panel-maid-mental-illness.html#a2

In light of this de facto limitation of access to MAiD by those with mental disorders, there continued to be debate about whether or not mental disorders were included or excluded from access to MAiD by the SCC’s decision in Carter.In the decision itself, it is written that, “The scope of this declaration is intended to respond to the factual circumstances in this case. We make no pronouncement on other situations where physician-assisted dying may be sought”Footnote12 (SCC, 2015, para 127). Elsewhere it is written that concerns raised in Belgium about euthanasia for persons with psychiatric disorders “…would not fall within the parameters suggested in these reasons [the Carter decision].”However, some observers have noted that the overall analysis in the decision suggests that the federal government’s reasons for excluding people with mental disorders had already been considered and rejected in the Carter decision.

I think it's also necessary to point out that at the same time as MAID came into law, under pressure from the United States, the Canadian government (and likely in other countries as well) greatly restricted access to opioid pain killers, which are far more effective for the pain experienced at end of life than Tylenol and the like.

I have no doubt there would be many less Canadians wanting MAID if they still had access to opioids.

I don't know why California has such lower usage of it's MAID law. It could be the cost involved or it could be the far easier access to guns to committ suicide.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Does 'MAID' stand for 'Medically-Assisted Infant Death'?

[HillGoose]

Does 'MAID' stand for 'Medically-Assisted Infant Death'?

idk, i dont get why candadains want to have a dr help them die anyway.

if i decide its my time to go i dont want anyone else to have assisted, ill tell u that! that is giving someone else control over u in ur most vulnerable moments.

dogs have the right idea running off into the woods and stuff to die, thats how i want to go.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Does 'MAID' stand for 'Medically-Assisted Infant Death'?

"Medical assistance in dying". Classic euphemism treadmill, regardless of how one feels about the practice itself.

[Хahar 🤔]

Does 'MAID' stand for 'Medically-Assisted Infant Death'?

"Medical assistance in dying". Classic euphemism treadmill, regardless of how one feels about the practice itself.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.

[Aurelius]

American Government Healthcare: Helps the old, poor, and veterans and screws everyone else
Canadian Government Healthcare: Kills the old, poor, and veterans and helps everyone else

Canada is having major problems with Medicare at present due to Covid (not that the U.S is much better) but that is a completely innacurate description of the Canadian medicare system.

I could just as easily say with the states banning abortion in the U.S, and the subsequent inabilityof women whose lives are in physical danger to receive medical care that U.S healthcare kills the poor.

And I can just as easily argue that Canada's coerced euthanasia for veterans (which has been documented on multiple circumstances) is bad.

‘Documented multiple times’ apparently being a handful of right-wing tabloids and one employee who was reprimanded immediately afterwards.

Press X to doubt.

Nowadays right-wing tabloids are the ones covering stories that mainstream news refuses to cover until the ship has already sailed. Cuomo's nursing home catastrophe was a feature of right-wing tabloids a year before it became widely covered in mainstream news. The reality of the Rittenhouse case, a year ahead. Hunter Biden's laptop, two years ahead. Months ahead on the Dutch farmers' protests. Many such cases.

Bias by omission is the primary weapon of the MSM.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

If you actually watch the clip, you will find a doctor arguing in favor of euthanasia being an option for parents to request in extremely specific circumstances.

That's what the tweet said if not the subject heading. It's still disturbing because you're dealing with young children who can't consent.

However, this is nothing new in Canada (and it must happen around the world too.)

In 1993/1994 there was the Robert Latimer case in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer

The point I've been making here, that I guess some people are just too slow to pick up on, is that in the nearly 30 years since Robert Latimer and Sue Rodriguez has Canada gone down some slipperly slope where life is no longer regarded as precious?  

The U.S based virtue signallers here might argue so, but this is why we should look at the Covid deaths: Americans died at approximately 2.5 times the rate of Canadians, even though Canada and the U.S are very similar demographically.

This is the U.S, especially those on the pseudo religious right who are so holy against MAID:
Pre Covid: nothing is more important than life!
Covid: nothing is more important than (my) freedom!
'Post' Covid: nothing is more important than life!

Canada isn't perfect, but we demonstrated that we mostly actually cared about each other during Covid. So we have nothing to learn from a bunch of pseudo moralist Americans who virtue signal to pretend they're wonderful, but when actually having to sacrifice a little for the lives of others, show themselves to be an absolutely horrible pro-death cult.

Of course, for many of these same pseudo moralists,it would be more accurate to say:
"nothing is more important than life!" (so long as it doesn't cost me anything.)

In terms of 'slippery slopes', an argument can be made that it's the virtual signalling that leads to being actually pro-death:  "I don't need to wear a mask or get vaccinated, I'm 'pro life' because I support Republicans who are 'pro life.'  That's all I need to do to care about the lives of others." Or "Wear a mask and get vaccinated? I go to church and send thoughts and prayers!"

In regards to MAID, I think there is clearly a problem with lack of consent, and this doctor's position also has uncomfortable similarities with eugenics (as did the anti Covid protection arguments: 'they're just old people, they'll be dead soon anyway') but assisted death is a complex issue with issues of fundamental rights and practical concerns, and anybody who argues it from some absolutist moral position has nothing of value to add to the discussion.

"Yeah, this is a bad thing happening in Canada. But allow me to change the topic and write multiple paragraphs about bad things that are happening in the states, so I can feel good about my country"

This wasn't changing the topic at all. I showed, and you haven't countered, that for all of the concerns about this supposed 'slippery slope' with MAID, that Canadians generally showed concern for life when a pandemic struck.

Since the United States largely doesn't have MAID, and has tens of millions of people who feign concern for life how do you explain how they embraced, unique in the world, a pro-death 'muh freedom' attitude/policy?

Clearly all of their virtual signaling about concern for life turned out to be lies, whereas, even with MAID, Canadians showed concern a genuine concern for the lives of people, especially the most vulnerable.

What actual evidence do you have of this 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy.)

Look, I'm not going to engage you further on the "Americans don't have genuine concern for life and are only virtue signaling" argument, other than to say that I don't care. I wrote extensive posts about this, as a Canadian, speaking about a Canadian issue, arguing that it is not right for Canada. If Americans who agree with me are hypocrites, then shame on them. That does not change the substance of the issue.

Now onto the "slippery slope" thing you mentioned:

I'm not sure why you're talking about slippery slopes, I never mentioned that, and my argument is not a "slippery slope" argument. I'm not speculating on what could happen next, I'm talking about what has already happened. MAiD in Canada was originally sold as something that would be available for people capable of fully informed consent, and now we're talking about people who literally cannot be informed or give consent.

It was also sold as something that would be limited to people with irremediable conditions. I've linked you two cases where a veteran with PTSD was offered assisted suicide without him asking first, and a woman living with ALS chose it but wrote to her relatives before she passed that she didn't really want it, she just couldn't get adequate home care. Neither had "irremediable" conditions. These are the exact concerns highlighted by disabilities advocates, and even if their arguments were slippery slope arguments at the time, it clearly isn't now because it has come to fruition.

The very principles set out by the government in 2016 are being flagrantly ignored with recent expansions of MAiD, and if this proposal ever makes it into a bill, it will be a continuation of that trend. The Canadian people were sold assisted suicide as something that would be restricted to people who have irremediable conditions and are capable of fully informed consent, and this goalpost has been shifted routinely with little public consultation and almost no discussion in election campaigns.

It's actually one medical doctor speaking for one medical organization who is talking about this, not the panel that is listening to him, not the courts and not the government.

-SNIP- (Pile of unhinged r/Canada faux AmericaBadCanadaGood/look at Trudeau so much of a stand up not corrupt leader lol bullsh**t)

So by that logic you can't call America a death cult when only a faction were actively participating in the destruction of society.

And saying that Americans are cold and anti-social people proves you've never met an American. That's precisely why I, an introvert, hate most such people.

[CumbrianLefty]

American Government Healthcare: Helps the old, poor, and veterans and screws everyone else
Canadian Government Healthcare: Kills the old, poor, and veterans and helps everyone else

Canada is having major problems with Medicare at present due to Covid (not that the U.S is much better) but that is a completely innacurate description of the Canadian medicare system.

I could just as easily say with the states banning abortion in the U.S, and the subsequent inabilityof women whose lives are in physical danger to receive medical care that U.S healthcare kills the poor.

And I can just as easily argue that Canada's coerced euthanasia for veterans (which has been documented on multiple circumstances) is bad.

‘Documented multiple times’ apparently being a handful of right-wing tabloids and one employee who was reprimanded immediately afterwards.

Press X to doubt.

Nowadays right-wing tabloids are the ones covering stories that mainstream news refuses to cover until the ship has already sailed. Cuomo's nursing home catastrophe was a feature of right-wing tabloids a year before it became widely covered in mainstream news. The reality of the Rittenhouse case, a year ahead. Hunter Biden's laptop, two years ahead. Months ahead on the Dutch farmers' protests. Many such cases.

Bias by omission is the primary weapon of the MSM.

An almost complete non-story which the "MSM" were totally right to basically ignore.

I accept there may be other cases when this critique is somewhat justified, but the point then is that its not just those on the right/pro-Trumpers who can make such a claim. Mainstream media *is* often biased, but its generally (not always) a bias towards a generic "establishment" mindset - not ideology.