When governments dictate ethics on (inter alia) Euthanasia and Abortions

How did we end up in a world system where the employees (in this case, our governmental structures) dictate to the employers (in this case, us) how we must run our lives and our ethics?

What has happened to the concept of individual freedom of choice to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of another?

In this instance, we are speaking about a forced takeover of a hospital (Calvary Public Hospital in Canberra) where the choice has been made, for spiritual and moralistic reasons, not to participate in elective-aborting of babies or administering drugs that end life. This is their choice based on their ethos. If a person wants these procedures, they can get them elsewhere.

Where Calvary Public Hospital's freedom of choice has been denied them is that the ACT Government has decided that they, the government, are now going to be the arbiters of this hospital's ethics, and are planning to compulsorily acquire the hospital. "On May 11, ACT Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith introduced laws to the ACT Legislative Assembly that would acquire the hospital and bring it into Canberra Health Services by as early as July 3". Calvary Public Hospital was not included in any negotiations. To do what the ACT Health Minister promotes is to suspend the ACT Land Acquisition Act 1994.

An example of governmental overreach:

Read this article from The Catholic Leader entitled Petition to stop Calvary Hospital takeover reaches 25,000 signatures. “There is a rising fear, also, that this extraordinary and completely unnecessary government intervention could set the scene for future ‘acquisitions’ of any faith-based health facility or, indeed, any faith-based enterprise, including education or social welfare.”

The "Powers That Be" have their own plans for humanity, where choice is not an option (unless you 'choose' their option), where freedom is a word that only applies to them in practical terms. If you choose to abort your baby full-term, or wish to leave this reality early, they will assist you greatly. They will even compulsorily acquire hospitals to mandate these full-term abortions and euthanasia.

What is the reason for this promotion of both full-term abortions and euthanasia - is it to do with population reduction and population-management? Or is it to do with steering the mindset and ethics of humanity in a particular direction - their direction? There is never just one reason for any action that is taken by the Powers That Be, but it can be perhaps all be stored under the umbrella of desire to control and make these topics of easy death, an acceptable choice within society.

Dr Philip Nitschke (aka Dr Death)

Australia has for decades pushed back against Euthanasia, the aforementioned Doctor was vilified in the media, jailed and fined for his support and involvement of assisted suicide, why the sudden turn around in moral stance by the government for this easy way out, particularly for those who are NOT terminally ill.

"He's a controversial assisted dying advocate who's been labelled "Dr Death", but those who support him say Dr Philip Nitschke is a saint."

In this article, some of his followers say severe restrictions and red tape should not be put on those who experience extreme pain, and simply want to pass on via euthanasia. Dr Nitschke has a very interesting website called Exit International which can be found here. In some of his articles including this one from May 2023, there seems to be a new 'duty' of the police to do 'wellness checks' on old people, but at strange hours of the night like 11pm to 2am when these elderly people are already in bed. It would be interesting to know exactly why such visits are made at night, not to mention why made at all!

Dr Philip Nitschke's new assisted suicide capsule can be read about here. It has been legally approved for use in Switzerland.

Easy access to voluntary death and the reduction of those who are a burden on society is Bill Gates's Death Panel - Nazi wet dream. See video below.

Psychiatrist-assisted suicide for the mentally ill

This article goes into detail about the ramifications of laws being implemented (with the emphasis on amendments to Canadian law in this regard) where a psychiatrist can authorise or not authorise an assisted death for a mentally ill patient. These laws are fraught with potential for abuse or misdiagnosis, and puts huge pressure on psychiatrists to have that burden of decision to bear.

A few days ago, a 30-year-old patient with very treatable mental illness asked me to end her life. Her distraught parents came to the appointment with her because they were afraid that I might support her request and that they would be helpless to do anything about it. It’s horrific they have to worry that by going to a psychiatrist, their daughter might be killed by that very psychiatrist.

www.psychiatrictimes.com

"Patients as young as 12 can seek euthanasia with parental consent"

From this article, we can again see the ethical and moral dilemma that we are forced to face in how euthanasia laws are implemented:
"The law’s directives are few and broadly drawn. Aside from obtaining formal consent—a patient’s request must be “informed” and “voluntary and well considered”—the doctor must be “satisfied” that two conditions are met: The patient has “unbearable suffering, without prospect of improvement,” and there is “no reasonable alternative” to address it.

The doctor must use the euthanasia medications properly, and she must consult an independent physician—though she is not bound by this outside consultant’s opinion. Indeed, as long as the patient is at least 16, no other person’s consent except the patient’s is mandatory. Parents of 16- and 17-year-olds are involved in the discussion, but their permission is not required. Patients as young as 12 can seek euthanasia with parental consent. In about 10 cases since 2002, children ages 12 to 17 have received euthanasia".

In some European countries assisted suicide for depression or other mental health illnesses are becoming acceptable and legal.

The ACT's proposed voluntary assisted dying laws

There is much debate about the proposed voluntary assisted dying laws being discussed in the ACT here in Australia. Read this article which shows the opinions of a palliative care nurse, a representative for hospices run by the Catholic Church, and people who are keenly watching how these laws progress.

NSW has already passed these laws and there is much debate, however, what can be seen in these discussions is a very loose moral approach to what determine what is "unbearable or intolerable suffering or untreatable'.

Ethics and Morality around Euthanasia will be a forever-debate

This is an interesting article by Marko Mavrovik that examines and acknowledges the difficulties with the ethics and morality of euthanasia laws, both from the point of view of the person who wants to utilise this method of dying, and those who wish for the law to make those decisions one way or the other.

If you care about freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought, please consider signing this petition to save Calvary Hospital. While no-one can realistically prevent procedures being carried out that are not in line with personal ethics, a hospital whose emphasis is on the sanctity of life also cannot be expected to compromise their values by a government that seeks to impose its own (lack of) values and morals by forcing a takeover of an independent hospital.

Also check out Wikipedia's description of a dictatorship, and ask yourself if it sounds so similar to the governmental controls increasingly being imposed here in Australia.