Euthanasia: The Non Precautionary Principle

Euthanasia: The Non Precautionary Principle Pile-On

Hollywood inspired liberalism has always been big on the precautionary principle… slightest shred of doubt as in Twelve Angry Men…and accused criminals must go free, that one albeit highly unlikely innocent man not be convicted i.e. Hollywood men who murder their wives and girlfriends.

Economies of the middle class be damned that a caribou can’t take a short cut across a pipe line… or that fantasy wistful alternative energy sources can’t come close to meeting expectant normal energy demands.

Yet, when it comes to murdering the most vulnerable at their most vulnerable points in life with a broad injection, ‘just do it’ is the populist ‘Crucify Him’ of the day. Make abortion as available as drugstore and profitable clinic mandatory flu shots, oh the humanity that one raped woman might become pregnant and ‘might’ not be emotionally mature enough to raise and appreciate a love of an innocent and precious life. One exception negates all law.

Where’s the precautionary principle there?

That those human beings incapable of preferred enlightened liberalism, like wonderful Down’s Syndrome pre-born and aging (for just one group) should be put to death without input, never mind consent, to not guilt the ‘sensibilities’ of someone else’s notion of what’s best for them.

Where’s the precautionary principle there?

Where is the precautionary principle, that such nuclear bond of moral and ethical intrinsic rights in universal humanity can be cast to the populist winds of Canadian elected populist political parties one- upping all nations of the death culture world by proposing that any doctor refusing a euthanasia or assisted suicide must offer the contact information of doctor who will.

This is clearly another full- sails- to- the- wind launch with a no- return passage, beset upon Canadians by the temporary empowered and disingenuous music men who must invent the last moral and ethical ‘crisis’… having run out of environmental sappy addictions and government approved, and un-astounding-idly, highly enriching revenue market-cornered  ‘sins of opportunity’.  A government looking out for no-one except its own political longevity, only ever moved to action to the tune of media embarrassment.  

Unfortunately, the media like Hollywood and Marxist jugend academia is slave and master to tabloid ‘electrifying’  transient times of emotion to emote tears and fears to be rebounded as hatred and anger for the masses for being misled and/or unnoticed for so long by the very establishment, now re-birthed to understand ‘their pain’.

Of course, brow beating can go both ways and the Trump pony show is the present payback if not anecdote to years of establishment liberalism. The pendulum of shallow populism swings both ways.

The art of applying one person’s albeit impeccably unchallengeable (by taste if not nature) anecdotal moment of despair, guilt, hurt feelings, sympathy etc. in order to open Pandora’s here unto at best, legal hesitancies already fraught with balks, to the full wrath at the behest of the innocent, whether in the murky susceptible and questionable populist societal inventions of gay adoption and abortion convenience , or to accelerate the generational passage of wealth to impatient offspring, is the media paradigm of the day, yet  ‘even one instance’ should be invocation enough for the precautionary principle castle claimed by liberals?

If one person is so-called ‘damaged’ at the liberal altar, that a morally conservative (as in safe) law is flipped with back-slaps all around, that millions can damn well suffer … terminally so…  in many cases... then so be it.

Nowhere, did our own eyes and ears apparently deceive us more than in the Terry Schiavo case, wherein we could see recent images of a brain damaged yet other-wise healthy and ‘happy’ young woman in life, yet were told that her ex-husband now living with another women could (and did) effect her judicially and politically approved ( see Jeb Bush), slow and painful execution topped with the meaningless liberal talking point of ‘death with dignity’ b.s. against Terry’s own family’s wishes, and sensibilities, that he may be free to marry the woman he was living with, in any case.. as though marriage is an institution liberals have respect for, in any case.

Is this to be a common mass blinding misstep favorable to the media (apparently) and a bridge too far, for the precautionary principle? Can today’s brand of media be entrusted to sincerely and intelligently comment on morality, period?

I had a fantasy of my own, that the Canadian Catholic Church would do more than altar speeches and typed form letters to the choir asking them to do something as individuals, but given their proven record, especially the flagship Toronto Archdiocese of total abdication of Catholic education, Catholic medical, and long term care facilities just for starters.

My fantasy gave way to major historical societal upheaval in considerably less than one lifetime.

But, considering a Church that couldn’t even discern Truth ( handed down to it on a golden platter) how could one expect them to be remotely courageous enough to publicly defend it, in any meaningful way?

Paul  Gordon