Those pushing for a legislative outcome on euthanasia and assisted suicide will always include ‘safeguards’ (or guidelines) as part of any bill tabled.

These ‘safeguards’, we are lead to believe, are there to restrict the application of the legislation to ‘only a few’ persons and only in specified circumstances.

But the evidence from places where euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is practiced with some level of legal protection/sanction tells us a different story.  Little wonder that opponents of the practice and law have surmised that such ‘safeguards’ are really ‘false assurance’, that they’re simply there to make MPs (and all of us) feel a little better about institutionalized killing of the aged, the infirm and the disabled.

“Well yes, I would be uncomfortable with the idea of euthanasia if it were not for the fact that we’re including safeguards to ensure that it’s only for those with a terminal illness at the end stages.”  Wrong!

It stands to reason that, once a bill that gives ‘rights’ to a select few in the community passes into law, that sooner or later, someone will say: “Hey, wait a minute! what about me?”  Once the genie’s out of the bottle, there’s no putting it back.

Let’s face reality here: While some may genuinely believe in limited access under limited circumstances, why is it that, with bill after bill in our legislatures each is a modified or different version? The intent is to see a bill passed by gaining majority support!