Medical Ethics

Severely disabled urge Canadian Parliament to protect the vulnerable

‘I’ve gone to the hospital because of illness, and medical staff questioned whether extreme measures were worth it,' James Schutten told a Parliamentary committee.

‘I’ve gone to the hospital because of illness, and medical staff questioned whether extreme measures were worth it,’ James Schutten told a Parliamentary committee.

OTTAWA, May 10, 2016 (Lianne Laurence for LifeSiteNews) — Twenty-one-year-old James Schutten volunteers at a nursing home a few days a week and helps out at an elementary school.

But he also requires “someone to set up my feeding tube, suction my trach, turn me over in bed, take me to the bathroom, and scratch my head,” he told the House of Commons justice committee last week.

“I’m not telling you this to make you feel sorry for me. I don’t feel sorry for myself,” added Schutten, who at age two was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, a degenerative neuromuscular disorder that affects motor muscles and weakens the respiratory system.

“But you need to know that these professionals and family members need to care about my life and whether I live or die.”

The House justice committee heard public testimony on suggested amendments to the Liberals’ controversial euthanasia law last week, and Monday evening began its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-14, which passed second reading May 4.

The bill is intended to amend the Criminal Code to conform with the Supreme Court’s February 2015 Carter decision, which struck down the prohibition against assisted suicide and euthanasia as unconstitutional, and takes effect June 6.

Schutten, who voiced his worries about Bill C-14 on behalf of the Association of Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA), said that he’s “gone to the hospital because of illness, and medical staff questioned whether extreme measures were worth it.”

“This makes me very nervous because I feel like I’m not worth the trouble. Thankfully, my family has my back to speak with the doctors on my behalf,” he said.

“I have anxiety now. How much more if Bill C-14 comes into effect?”


“With this right to die, it makes me feel like
society thinks I should choose to die.”


Schutten asked the committee to amend Bill C-14 to require “that palliative care is meaningfully made available to the patient.”

“I’m one of those people who the Supreme Court of Canada thinks should have this right to doctor-assisted death,” he noted. And “with this right to die, it makes me feel like society thinks I should choose to die.”

“But what if instead I had the right to palliative care or resources to help me continue to be a productive member of society?” he asked.

“What if society started from the perspective that I do have value? What if people didn’t view me as a burden for others to carry?” Schutten added.

“Look past my wheelchair and see that I am an asset in my community.”

Schutten has been volunteering at his brother’s elementary school since 2014, and at a nursing home in Ancaster since last September, at the invitation of a friend who works there.

“I really enjoy it,” he told LifeSiteNews in an email. “I found that because I’m in a wheelchair the elderly felt they were helping me, not vice versa. An example would be when they play bingo, they all want to help ME with my bingo card.”

Or people will “think they are pushing me to activity but actually I am just driving slow in my power chair,” related Schutten, a member of the Ancaster Canadian Reformed Church.

“In a crazy way I have purpose, and I give them purpose.”

Pieter Harsevoort, who was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy on his first birthday, also spoke to the committee May 3 along with James, and friend André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy and general legal counsel.

Harsevoort, aged 32, told LifeSiteNews in an email that “since Bill C-14 will affect my future I was happy to accept André’s invitation to voice my concerns.”

He added: “In general, I’m concerned with the way the ruling devalues the lives of the disabled and aged, and how any legalization of euthanasia leads to abuse of the most vulnerable members of society.”

A special-ed teacher at a Hamilton Christian school, who described himself on a past blog as “a crooked man on a straight path,” Harsevoort told the committee that Bill C-14 lacks “precision in language” and is “dangerously dependent on euphemisms.”

Bill C-14 uses the term “medically assisted dying” to refer to what is actually “physician assisted suicide,” he said, adding that palliative care is, in fact, medically assisted dying.

“I urge you to please use accurate terminology so that termination of life is not confused with palliative medicine,” he said, noting that the bill requires amendments “to ensure that physicians don’t approve euthanasia for vulnerable persons like James and myself in moments of weakness.”

Bill C-14 allows euthanasia or assisted suicide for competent adults who have a grievous and incurable illness, disease or disability which causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under conditions they consider acceptable, who are in an advanced state of irreversible decline, and whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

“The reality is that intolerable suffering is relative,” Harsevoort told the committee. “Suffering is modified by many diverse factors.”

He recommended the bill be amended to require the euthanasia and assisted suicide be approved on “reasonable proof” the person meets the eligibility criteria rather than “mere opinion” they do, and eligibility based on a “specific prognosis” rather than on “reasonably foreseeable death.”

And the bill should include specific oversight to ensure people can revoke their request, he told the committee.

While these amendments to the bill  “will improve the situation for the disabled and ill,” Harsevoort said, the “only true protection of the sanctity of life is a ban on euthanasia.”

“Instead of investing money into a bill which normalizes the choice of death, our country should invest time and money into giving people with illness, disabilities, and old age a will to live,” Schutten observed earlier.

“I don’t believe that anyone has the right to choose exactly when to die, but God alone decides,” he told the committee.

“And He does not make mistakes. He has a purpose for everything.”

UN tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus

Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights

Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Article Author: Pete Baklinski, LifeSiteNews

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 — The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.

South American spread of Zika Virus

South American spread of Zika Virus

Aborting boys because you hate men

6Patrice Lewis on ‘gender terrorist’ who sacrificed son on ‘altar of feminism’

Published: 02/13/2015 at 7:50 PM
Original Article from WND.com

It was a blog post so revolting it sent reverberations across the ocean and shocked even ardent leftists. It was so brazenly horrifying some called it a hoax. Internet traffic was so high it caused the website to crash for a day or so.

It seems a feminist going by the name “Lana” wrote about aborting her baby at five months for no other reason than he was a boy. Her logic? “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.”

What’s so appalling about this incident isn’t just that she ripped an innocent child from her womb for no other excuse than its gender. What is truly shocking is Lana’s scathing, dripping hatred of men, despite the requirements of what it took to get pregnant in the first place.

“In the spring of 2012, I found out that I was pregnant,” wrote Lana on Injustice Stories. “I had a good idea who the donator was, but money wasn’t really an issue, and I knew that I would be a good mother-like figure for the child by myself. I have always believed in the right for all women to have a choice in terminating their pregnancy, but when I confirmed the diagnosis about a month into it, I decided that I WAS ready to have this child.”

(She had a “good idea” who the “donator” was. Holy cow, how many of those “monstrous” donators was she sleeping with?)

And then, while flying to San Francisco to join an Occupy Wall Street rally, poor widdle Lana had a life-changing experience: After telling the man sitting next to her on the plane of her destination (in other words, confirming she’s a social leach), he zinged back with a one-line insult that left her feeling “verbally and emotionally raped.” “By the time we landed, my outlook had changed. I could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause,” she wrote.

OK, fine. Whatever. Life went on. Her baby grew. Lana dreamed of “teaching my daughter from a young age tolerance [cough cough] and feminist ideals. Choosing the right all-girls daycare, then elementary school, all so that she could grow up and thrive in an environment where women are told that they can do anything that they want to do. No man will be around to hurt her progress, no boys there to demean her or call her names.” [Cough. Sorry, had to clear my throat there.]

And then – the horror – Lana learned she was carrying a boy. “I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

(Yes, those “cursed” men. The kind she willingly slept with in such quantity that she couldn’t even definitively name the “donator.”)

Once the shock of the baby’s gender wore off, Lana knew what she had to do: get rid of it. “My fetus became my warden,” she wrote, and so she toddled off to kill it. After the “procedure,” she said: “My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good. …”

And then – get this – Lana was surprised by the outrage over her decision, to which she wrote, “I don’t care. … Most of you reading probably have no idea what it is like to go through the process of debating whether or not to abort a pregnancy, let alone the actual experience of it. To me, the experience was liberating, the emotions I felt when deciding what I should do, and after learning my fetus was male was something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Coming out of it a liberated woman though was more than worth it. … I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male. … If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.”

Pay attention to the language this woman uses. Monster. Worst enemy. Curse. Aborting a boy is positive. Good. Freeing. Liberating.

This, my friends, is what extreme feminism is all about: a seething hatred of anything with a Y chromosome and contempt for the “patriarchy.” Even helpless unborn babies are not immune to this hatred. Even one’s own flesh and blood is not immune.

“I don’t hate men,” Lana claims. [Cough cough] “I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.”

Well, good news, Lana: Your offspring will never contribute to that patriarchal oppression because you chose to rip him apart and flush him down a toilet. You literally sacrificed your son on the altar of feminism. Congratulations. You’re a Real Woman.

Alleging surprise at the fury that rolled toward her, Lana replied, “I cannot believe some of the emails that have been forwarded to me. Do people really exist who want to see me dead because of what I chose to do with my own body? Those are the minds of mentally disturbed individuals.”

No, Lana; people aren’t mad because of what you did to your own body. They’re livid because of what you did to your son’s body.

Lana has no legitimate, logical “excuse” for her abortion. She cannot plead poverty, since at the beginning of her post she says “money wasn’t really an issue.” She also wrote that “carrying the banner of the Feminist Movement” meant eschewing a career, suggesting a degree of financial independence.

Nor can she plead medical reasons, since apparently she was in blooming health during her pregnancy. Nor can she plead birth defects, since she admits her baby was “progressing in a healthy manner.”

No, she’s merely ticked off because an unknown “suit jockey” on an airplane several months before gave her a one-line insult. For this, she kills her own innocent baby.

Is it sane and normal to loathe half of the earth’s population merely for possessing a Y chromosome? Tell me, who is mentally disturbed?

Lana’s taunting lack of remorse and pride in her actions are what apparently shocked people. “If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.” There’s a certain tone of “Nyah nyah, you can’t stop me!” that is both childish and odious.

As one commenter put it, “She committed a hate crime with her child as the victim.” Another man wrote, “You have topped every horrible thing I’ve ever seen during my three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. It takes quite a bit to shock me these days, and you managed to do it.”

I’ve often lamented the evils feminism has wrought on our society. It’s clear Lana is extreme even by leftists standards, but I don’t hear many feminists protesting about abortion (excuse me, reproductive health) in general or sex-selective abortions in particular. Therefore I must conclude they tacitly approve.

Face it, Lana. You killed your son because you are a petulant brat who isn’t mature enough to handle a stranger’s insult. You took it out on the innocent baby you conceived by slutting around. You are not a feminist; you are a gender terrorist. Pray for forgiveness. Pray very very hard.

And please … stop having sex. Or at least get sterilized, lest you conceive another “monster.”

Ohio may become second state to ban abortion based on Down Syndrome

5February 11, 2015
Steven Ertelt
Columbus, OH
Original article

The percentage of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth and who eventually become victims of abortions is outlandishly high. Studies show
somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are victimized by abortions.

North Dakota eventually became the first state in the United States to ban abortions on babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome. With the governor’s signature on the ban in 2013, Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple took that state in a decidedly pro-life direction.

Eventually a judge dismissed a legal challenge abortion activists brought against the legislation.

Now, the state of Ohio is considering a similar ban on abortions of babies with Down syndrome. Naturally, abortion backers have no problem with aborting babies simply because they have the disability.

Only one U.S. state, North Dakota, has a ban on abortions after the discovery of a fetal anomaly. Indiana lawmakers introduced a similar bill last month, although a bill much like it died in 2013.

Anti-abortion activists aren’t trying to prohibit women from receiving fetal diagnoses through amniocentesis, said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. But they fear women are making decisions to terminate pregnancies after receiving only a preliminary screening, even before they have amnio.

“We’re never opposed to people having as much information as they can have about their baby,” Krider said. Many times, Krider said, “Those are just screening tests,” citing a December investigation by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.

“We think there’s a lot of misinformation out there,” she said.Abortion rights activists condemned the proposal as over-reaching.

At the time North Dakota adopted its bill, Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest praised it.

“A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability.  We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it,” she said. “Women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Rep. Bette Grande and the legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.”

Yoest said that, while federal and state laws protect women and the disabled from discrimination, the unborn are not similarly protected.