Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Canadian Doctor Who Euthanized 400 People Described It as the ‘Most Rewarding Work’

Canadian Doctor Who Euthanized 400 People Described It as the ‘Most Rewarding Work’

After international criticism, Canada now looks to delay new assisted dying rules for mentally ill.

We have been reporting on news related to Canada’s assisted suicide programs. Our last report featured the ad from Quebec retailer Simons glamorizing and watering down the act.

Now comes a report of a Canadian doctor saying the most rewarding work she has done was overseeing the euthanization of more than 400 people.

Ellen Wiebe, a doctor who works with Dying With Dignity Canada, boasted in a seminar for physicians working in assisted suicide about the time she treated a patient who did not qualify for the end of life service.

A Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) assessor had rejected the unnamed man because he did not have a serious illness or ‘the capacity to make informed decisions about his own personal health.’

But the man eventually made his way to Wiebe, who cleared him, flew him out to Vancouver, and euthanized him, The New Atlantic reports.

‘It’s the most rewarding work we’ve ever done,’ Wiebe said of MAID during a 2020 event in a video that’s since been shared online.

Obstetrician Stefanie Green, a colleague of Wiebe, also revealed that she’s helped 300 people die in Canada’s controversial MAID program, which eclipses similar programs in the US.

Wiebe was one of three panelists discussing the implementation of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada in this 2018 video.

Medical assistance in dying (MAID) has been available in Canada since 2016 and was set to expand in March 2023, extending eligibility to those with a mental illness. However, in light of recent push-back, that expansion has been delayed.

The expansion has come under fire from some experts, who worry that it offers death as an option to people with suicidal thoughts.

Supporters of the measure, however, say excluding people with mental illness is discriminatory.

The expansion of assisted dying to people with mental illness would mean that Canada would have one of the most liberal euthanasia laws in the world.

Canada’s Justice Minister David Lametti acknowledged on Thursday that more time might be needed to get the country’s Medical Assistance in Dying law right.

“We want to be prudent, we want to move in a step-by-step way so that we don’t make mistakes,” Mr Lametti said at a news conference.

The move was made after international criticism of Canada’s program, which critics claim say makes it too easy to conduct euthanasia.

Even before the law’s expansion, there was growing criticism of Canada’s policy. “Human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people, and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it,” The Associated Press reports, adding that there are growing worries that some people choose to die simply because they’re poor.

One highly publicized story featured a man who applied for assisted death because he couldn’t pay for a home. (He later reversed course.)

Criticism has come from beyond the country’s borders. In 2021, a trio of United Nations human rights experts expressed concerns that the broader law might create “a social assumption …that it is better to be dead than to live with a disability.” American conservatives have increasingly expressed alarm, as well.

“Important people … promised Canadians that their rights to autonomy would be expanded,” Alexander Raikin writes in The New Atlantis. “But the picture that emerges is not a new flowering of autonomy but the hum of an efficient engine of death.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

She very well deserves some of her own “medicine”.

2smartforlibs | January 9, 2023 at 9:12 am

These people are sick.

What’s the difference between Ellen Wiebe and Josef Mengele? Nothing really, except Mengele personally killed fewer people.

    Joe-dallas in reply to MarkJ. | January 9, 2023 at 10:07 am

    both are sick

    Mengele while killing fewer, was performing torture and other experiments on the innocent victims.

    The transgender mutilations more closely resemble mengele’s experiments – except the transgender have to live with the mutiliations for the remainder of their lives.

      Olinser in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 9, 2023 at 3:02 pm

      I’d argue Mengele was actually better.

      Nobody that worked for him had any illusions that he was anything other than a butcher who did things to sate his own bloodthirst, and the actual scientists that conducted experiments in the concentration camps (who were disgusting in their own right) UNIVERSALLY held Mengele in total contempt.

      This gleeful psychopath is held up as some kind of hero as she acts like she’s curing freaking cancer by killing people.

      The_Mew_Cat in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 10, 2023 at 11:51 am

      The transgender have to live with the mutilations, but they will require special (read expensive) medical care for the rest of their lives too – which only the Democratic Party will have the government provide. They are useful as permanent dependents of the Democratic Party, pets really, until their votes are no longer needed, and then will be euthanized when budgets are realigned.

    Joe-dallas in reply to MarkJ. | January 9, 2023 at 10:08 am

    A second point is the willingness of the leftist to kill the innocents, both abortion and euthanisa, while being extremely pro-life for guilty murders.

There’s a special place in Hell reserved for this one.

She deserves the “Dr. Josef Rudolf Mengele” award.

    henrybowman in reply to TimMc. | January 9, 2023 at 5:16 pm

    “Supporters of the measure, however, say excluding people with mental illness is discriminatory.”
    The Sisterhood of Margaret Sanger.

Kevorkian went to prison with less of a body count.

“Now comes a report of a Canadian doctor saying the most rewarding work she has done was overseeing the euthanization of more than 400 people.”

Democrats should hire her to come here to implement their equity of outcome agenda.

    Full_American_Immigrant in reply to Paula. | January 9, 2023 at 9:44 am

    Democrats certainly love to administer death, from their ardor for abortion to promoting accelerated death for the aged and the disabled. And in-between it’s Democrats who want war since it’s considered by leftists as one of the best tools for expanding permanent big government (e.g., Wilson WW1, FDR WW2, LBJ Vietnam, Biden Ukraine). A Democrat Truman gave the green light to two nuclear bombs.

      And thank God Truman did! Japan refused to surrender and my father probably would have died along with a million other young American men AFTER fighting in Europe with Pattons 3rd army for years.
      Hell, they wouldn’t even surrender after the first bomb!

        Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | January 9, 2023 at 10:38 am

        Words and Music: Bill Roper
        Copyright 2010
        Hanging Harry Truman
        (Chorus)
        They’re singing just for you as you’re sitting in your cell,
        Even though you didn’t need the warning.
        They’re waiting for the sunrise just to send you to hell,
        ‘Cause we’re hanging Harry Truman in the morning.

        Such a little man! Such a little mind!
        The accidental President we happened to find.
        Haberdasher heir to Roosevelt’s plan
        Turned out to be the dispensable man.

        No one elected you Commander-in-Chief.
        No one expected you would bring us such grief.
        Are you haunted by the faces you betrayed by your hand,
        Our American boys lying dead in Japan?

        Germany fell, Hitler was dead.
        V-E was here, Japan lay ahead.
        Now it was time to get the job done,
        Dying on the beaches of the Rising Sun.

        Nobody knew that you held in your hand
        The secret that could end the war in Japan.
        You thought that the Bomb was too awful to use,
        But how many lives were you willing to lose?

        (Bridge)
        One chance to bring this war to an end.
        One chance to save the lives of millions of men.
        You say it was wrong – you say we’d be cursed,
        But tell me what we did to Dresden wasn’t worse.

        Secrets close held, secrets no more.
        Tried by the Senate and thrown out the door.
        Rayburn backed down, Berlin fell alone,
        And Uncle Joe’s working on a Bomb of his own.

        They called it treason and put you on trial.
        When the sun comes up, you will walk your last mile.
        “To save us from horror,” was the reason you gave.
        Now millions are dead, so what life did you save?

        (Chorus twice)
        We’re hanging Harry Truman in the morning.

        TheOldZombie in reply to gonzotx. | January 9, 2023 at 12:36 pm

        Yes. It would have been a disaster. For America and even for Japan. Japan knew a invasion would be coming and they were literally training civilians to rush the beaches with spears to fight the American landings.

        It would have been a long bloody fight for both sides. Hundreds of thousands of American casualties and millions of Japanese.

The Gentle Grizzly | January 9, 2023 at 9:33 am

What – to me – is even sicker is having some shrunken husk in a bed, machines making hissing and clunking noises, 12 tubes and wires going in and out, human waste containers hooked to personal parts, and artificial breathing.

Variation:some poor bastard is in agonizing pain from some awful form of cancer, but no escape is permitted.

Because, “life is sacred” you know!

I am – for the time being – stable. But, if my cancer takes off in a big way, I see no reason for me to have to do something awful with firearms, trying to find someone who will give me the right pills, or finding an old enough car that it still makes carbon monoxide; I already have a tight garage.

Because, “life is sacred”.

    This was my father in law, who was a long term parkinson’s disease sufferer. He really should have been put out of his misery much earlier instead of being left to starve to death!

    Some times the most compassionate thing to do is to let people go with actual dignity.

    The problem we have today is that there are those in the medical, and most certainly those within the political sphere, who will be more than happy to kill people off just because [insert what ever excuse here about people they hate].

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to mailman. | January 9, 2023 at 10:07 am

      My step-father – who I still miss very much – was on life support. A sensible doctor told my mother that they were no longer prolonging his life, but prolonging his death. He was in a coma. Mom had the proper paperwork to “pull the plug” and did.

        My mother was also suffering and we pulled the plug. She was gone within a minute
        She had suffered so long with MS,
        Very severe form of it. Tried to kill herself 2-3 times.
        I have always thought that I will get my hands on some phenobarbital and rum, find a beautiful place with a view, imagine a rock plateau-in SW, blankets, tent, flashlight and go to sleep at sunset.

        Better not be any clouds lol.

        But having these evil people
        Pumping whatever in me with glee, nah, they are evil evil Karen’s…

          MajorWood in reply to gonzotx. | January 9, 2023 at 3:03 pm

          On one end we have those trying to prolong life to make money for “their system,” and on the other those who are trying to end life to save money for “their system.” A lot of people then suffer in between these two extremes because of rules designed to curb the extremes.

        And did you find that ‘rewarding’ as this absolute psychopath gleefully announces?

        Of course not. You had to make a very difficult decision and I’m sure were both very sad when he was gone.

        Such decisions can be justified. But they have to be made by people that understand the weight of those decisions, not somebody that finds it ‘rewarding’.

    I wished I could give you 1000 thumbs up.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Sternverbs. | January 9, 2023 at 10:45 am

      I don’t think I am alone in this.

        henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 9, 2023 at 5:23 pm

        I would have no compunctions about taking myself out should I decide that it is the least objectionable of all possible futures. But I wouldn’t have the heart to ask anyone I know to assist me, because it’s really too much burden to lay on anybody else, and it’s permanent. Plus I will be immune to legal punishment for it by then, but they won’t.

    There’s a big difference between suicide and killing someone else, even with their consent. Maybe not in God’s eyes, but from the viewpoint of any human system of justice, murder has to be a red line.

    In addition, even if in principle consent would be enough to justify killing someone, reliably determining consent is pretty much impossible. We know that many failed suicides report that they changed their mind at the last moment, and were happy to survive. There must be many more in the exact same situation, who change their mind but don’t survive. Certainly consent given years, or days, or even hours earlier cannot be relied on.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | January 9, 2023 at 10:49 am

      Milhouse, I can see your point but there is a lot of coulda shoulda woulda here. As for changing one’s mind, that will happen. For all I know, I could end up changing mine if my cancer takes off, or this latest neurological thing begins to spread and makes life intolerable. If that is the case, too bad for me.

      If you get any downticks, they won’t be from me.

        Grizz,

        Individual adults who are still lucid and in position to make a fully informed decision should, IMO, be able to do so when faced with a future of excruciating pain and suffering. That said we must make this a deliberately difficult process with several layers of hoops to jump through lest it become easy, ordinary or worse imposed upon the unwilling.

        Frankly there are a great many easily available options for this course outside a clinical setting that don’t involve firearms or sucking the tailpipe of a mid seventies Buick. People do it every day.

          paracelsus in reply to CommoChief. | January 9, 2023 at 12:28 pm

          or, unfortunately, re-testing Galileo’s findings: bodies accelerate downward at the same rate due to earth’s gravity;
          people try to disprove that one every day, too.

        Sorry Grizz but this is not a matter of coulda shoulda woulda. Even if I were to concede that it’s OK to kill someone with their consent, I maintain that it is impossible to know whether they actually do consent. Statements made years or months ago are worthless; the person wasn’t in this situation then, and couldn’t possibly know what they would want now. But it’s dangerous even to rely on statements made half an hour ago; the likelihood that the person has changed their mind and withdrawn their consent is too high, and if they have done so then killing them is outright murder.

        I think it should be legal to give anyone who appears to be of sound mind the means to kill themselves. Then it becomes their decision, and if they change their mind after it’s too late then it’s their problem. But if you are killing them, then their change of mind becomes your problem. The only way to avoid this is to say that consent is not a defense to murder.

    nordic prince in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 9, 2023 at 11:15 am

    There is a difference between letting nature take its course, and actively participating in the killing of an individual.

      paracelsus in reply to nordic prince. | January 9, 2023 at 12:54 pm

      I agree, but…
      I watched, both my mother and my mother-in-law (each with unquestionably terminal cancer, dying at different times in different facilities) be dehydrated, essentially killling them over several days (Oh! you can’t give her water, just let her suck on a little piece of ice).
      Tell me, please! which is kinder, which is more humane: dehydrating them like that or giving them a a quick shot.
      Both ways are deliberate murder.

        gonzotx in reply to paracelsus. | January 9, 2023 at 4:07 pm

        I agree, withholding water is incredibly wrong. I took care of a women dying at home amd it was so awful,
        Words can’t say, the smell, her pain, the family…

        When my MIL was terminal and
        Unconscious my husband and his brother, against my advice, went with the Dr amd withheld water. Withheld water from their own mother….
        Lucky for her it was quick,
        But usually it is not.

    caseoftheblues in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 9, 2023 at 11:51 am

    Try to keep up… in Canada you are encouraged to kill yourself if you are poor or a disabled vet who requests a ramp for your house…, but nice cheerleading and apologizing for the ghouls

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 9, 2023 at 1:05 pm

      I’m not apologizing for a damned thing. You know nothing about me, my thinking, or my condition(s).

      Bugger off.

      nordic prince in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 9, 2023 at 1:15 pm

      I am not unfamiliar with the process. My mother was terminally ill with renal cancer and passed away after a couple of months on hospice. My father and I were her caregivers in the last several months of her life.

      It’s not fun watching a loved one waste away, I know. But it seems that the one thing people fear most about these situations is suffering with unrelentless pain. A good thing about hospice is that the focus on palliative care helps minimize the suffering by providing appropriate pain relievers, etc to improve the quality of life in those final months. This also allows the dying one and his family to spend quality time together instead of cutting it short with assisted suicide.

      There are alternatives to euthanasia.

    Your right.

    But what is concerning is this power in the hands of a Pelosi or a Biden or an Obama or a Clinton: lots of murders by useful idiots who will consider it “their most rewarding work”.

    Think:

    “Cameron David Storer, a trans woman also known as “Nicolette Fait,” was arrested following an investigation by the Portland Fire & Rescue Fire Investigations Unit. The 27-year-old is charged with two counts of first-degree arson, one count of second-degree arson, and two counts of second-degree burglary — all felonies.”
    https://nypost.com/2023/01/06/117-year-old-church-burns-down-in-latest-portland-mayhem/

    Next will be burning churches with people in them.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 9, 2023 at 4:09 pm

    Ajudicated culling “for the good of the tribe” is one thing. Allowing or preventing people from making their own call is something else.

    What’s creepy or worse is the expanding authoritah for C to prune A for the sake of B Like livestock, who have no standing, selected for the good of “the herd”, says the guys who run the herd, not the sub-people in it..

    BierceAmbrose in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 9, 2023 at 4:26 pm

    In a piece of synchronicity, I’m in the process of setting up medical proxy, last treatment wishes, and power of attorney for myself. If you’re at risk and you know it, clap your hands … no, wait, do the forms.

    Myself, I’m asking three couples, all friends of mine for years, to handle things together. Astonishing that I’m comfortable the ball gets tossed to them if and when. More astonishing that there are people to throw to. How weird is that?

    With these people I believe that them wanting the best for themselves, in their terms, is the same as wanting the best for me, in mine. How true is that of reaping-delivery folks, systems of cost, or people remaking the world on a mission from god?

I bet she really wants a spiffy black uniform with some silver skull pins.

Steven Brizel | January 9, 2023 at 10:07 am

This is how socialized medicine works- terminating lives

    Otto Kringelein in reply to Steven Brizel. | January 9, 2023 at 1:38 pm

    This is how socialized medicine works – terminating lives to save money.

    And if you think it’s about anything other than money you’re nuts.

Rupert Smedley Hepplewhite | January 9, 2023 at 10:36 am

Democrats and lefties (but I repeat myself) absolutely love death; they can’t get enough of it … for other people, that is.

What an absolute psychopath.

Whether you think this program is warranted or not, letting somebody that is absolutely GLEEFUL about killing other humans in it compromises the whole thing.

The entire ‘trans’ crap shows just how far the medical establishment will go to get their desired result, where stupid kids are cleared for life-altering surgery after just a handful, or even ONE appointment by doctors that have never actually denied surgery in their entire careers.

This crap will end the same – and it’s going to be 10x worse, because obviously there’s going to be nobody around to say they regretted doing it.

On the one hand, there’s a compassionate case for assisted suicide to help someone with a terminal condition end their suffering.

On the other hand, assisted suicide is cheaper than competent medical care which might have treated that condition before it became terminal.

    Olinser in reply to jolanthe. | January 9, 2023 at 1:09 pm

    And on the gripping hand, the ONLY way that an assisted suicide program can actually be ethical is if it is run by doctors and people that understand that it is NOT a good thing, and only used as an absolute last resort when there are no other options for a terminal patient.

    Not run by a psychopath that brags about how ‘rewarding’ it is to kill people.

      Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | January 9, 2023 at 3:39 pm

      Assisted suicide is not relevant here. As I understand it we are not talking about suicide, with or without assistance, but about homicide. Don’t allow the other side to deliberately blur the distinction.

      I think it should be legal to provide someone who is of sound mind with the means to commit suicide. I think it should be illegal to kill them, even with their consent.

    nordic prince in reply to jolanthe. | January 9, 2023 at 1:22 pm

    I think this is the true motivation behind the “death with dignity” push – offing the “useless eaters” who are “going to die anyway” and are just “taking up resources.”

    You’re a fool if you think bean counters are operating from a place of compassion. That’s just what they say to the ignorant masses. The stark reality is they have no regard for human life.

      CommoChief in reply to nordic prince. | January 9, 2023 at 1:54 pm

      Yes indeed. There needs to be a process and a path for those individuals who, in specific circumstances, have evaluated the options and made their own decisions. What we must not do is normalize this. Euthanasia must remain abnormal but achievable inside a very narrow and rigid band of circumstances.

      If we allow this to become normal then the lines get blurred and the unwilling become targets. The narrow bands become elastic and stretched beyond any real meaningful restraint. Costs to the govt or insurers and burdens to family or others will be used a club to bludgeon the unwilling…. assuming that the unwilling are not simply disposed of out of hand.

        caseoftheblues in reply to CommoChief. | January 9, 2023 at 7:58 pm

        Your cry for a “process” for euthanasia is reminiscent of the cry that abortion needs to be legal but rare….and look at where we ended up with that… this would be no different….they would be retirement homes guilting or demanding older people into it and in our middle schools telling kids how brave and special they are and don’t worry we won’t tell mom and dad…

          CommoChief in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 10, 2023 at 11:19 am

          Interesting argument. Abortion is in the hands of the States, many of which have passed very stringent restrictions on it, some outlawing it entirely. Federalism at it’s best. If you believe your current State would allow some weirdo doc to snuff out the unwilling then you are at liberty to move to another State that won’t.

          Euthanasia/assisted suicide is already occurring in our healthcare system every day. It’s just hidden and not out in the open. So creating a process that sets very strict limitations wouldn’t be creating or expanding it. Instead it would be limiting the existing activity.

          Everyone facing unrelenting pain and suffering should have the legal right to choose to end that. No one should impose their demands upon others re end of life decisions. There isn’t a more fundamental individual liberty than the ability to set terms by which one leaves the world.

        caseoftheblues in reply to CommoChief. | January 10, 2023 at 6:14 pm

        you are oblivious…. You seem to have no idea how abortion has become the absolute centerpiece of our culture…celebrated and praised. A large percentage of politicians have no other issue they care about as much. And tens of thousands of activists had dedicated their lives to make sure the baby killing never slows down. Your argument that many states have all but outlawed it is laughable at best with the courts declaring any restrictions as unlawful or unconstitutional as fast as they can. Oh and let’s not forget abortions by mail, the federal government trying to offer them on federal bases and parks etc oh and the mobile baby killing campers ready to spring into action and come to a border near you or companies flying you to a state of your choosing… but hey if being ignorant works for you.., you be you. And your arguments for euthanasia … aka murdering people is EXACTLY the same the blood thirsty abortion pushers used decades ago. Oh we are so reasonable… we want it to be rare but legal since it’s happening anyway we need to control it… seriously believe us that’s all we want. And your belief that the fundamental human right /liberty is to commit murder…wow just wow….you probably need to do some self examination…. Me …I just find you beyond creepy and never want to interact with you again

          CommoChief in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 10, 2023 at 8:02 pm

          case,

          If you don’t like how your abortion analogy was deployed against you to undermine your argument then pick a better analogy. Abortion FWIW is about two lives in contrast to this discussion which is about each individual making their own end of life decisions. To call that murder is a significant shift of the goal post as well as totally incorrect. We are discussing whether an individual, in a very narrow set of circumstances; chronic and unrelenting pain and suffering, should have the legal right to make their own end of life decisions. Not someone else imposing a decision upon them.

          How you conflate that with murder is beyond me. I have consistently stated the guard rails must be high, that no one should be pressured into this nor should costs or previewed ‘burden’ be included in the decision. Frankly there are numerous instances each year where people are killed in nursing homes and hospitals; we need to recognize that is the baseline not some fantasy that it won’t happen until we pass protection allowing people to decide for themselves.

          Individual liberty is just that, the liberty of each individual to decide these questions for themselves. IMO it isn’t for me or you to say they can’t nor should anyone, including the govt, insurer or hospital say they must. This is a legal issue about individual autonomy and the proposed right of each person to make their own choices.

          I come down on the side of individual liberty. Period. This is the sort of issue where people tend to deviate away from liberty interests and substitute their religious or moral judgment in place of individual liberty and personal autonomy.

          I can understand that impulse but be careful when doing so. If you wish for a code of morality or a religious doctrine to prevail over individual liberty then don’t be surprised if a code of morality or religious doctrine that you find objectionable takes precedence over your own.

Planned Personhood

Well, there has to be work somewhere for people who used to spring the trap door or throw the switch.

RepublicanRJL | January 9, 2023 at 2:39 pm

Nothing says greater job satisfaction and rewards like getting paid to take a life.

I’m sure happy I chose a different profession.

BierceAmbrose | January 9, 2023 at 4:03 pm

If I read the quoted article right, the doctor went venue-shopping with a guy already adjudicated as lacking “‘the capacity to make informed decisions about his own personal health” to enable the rewarding work of taking him out over his lack of objection or agreement, lacking that capacity.

Dr. My Way, imposed her judgment on whether it was time to flip the switch on this guy and who’s decision that was, whether this guy had the capacity to consent and who adjudged his capacity, and whether his consent was needed and who’s call that was. All that vs. standards and an apparatus in place for those decisions.

Killing people because you know better would certainly be rewarding to some people, I imagine.

This reminds me of England’s medical pathway to death. Where the doctors would decide that an old person was too much bother for them to take care of so they would put them on the pathway to death. They put them in a medically induced coma and cut off food and water. One daughter had to get a court order to save her mother who had pneumonia and was difficult for the nurses, so they put her on the pathway to death.

She will get her patients justice when she meets Got I hope

E Howard Hunt | January 9, 2023 at 4:56 pm

A friend of mine is queued up for this service due to the twin evils of rosacea and split ends.

Down in Hell, the shade of Joseph Mengele is thinking “Now,, why didn’t I think of ‘death with dignity’?”

Ted Bundy missed his time place and calling. If he was born into modern Canada he would be the leading physician of his time period.

I’m sure it is rewarding work, if one gets satisfaction from how much he is saving the Canadian Federal Budget by eliminating expensive, unproductive burdens. And this is always the end result of any socialized medical system. Countries will always end up cost constrained, budget priorities will always have other pressing needs, and if the government is legally obligated to provide all medical care, then the only way to make ends meet is to eliminate those who will be too expensive to care for.

I don’t want to hear any more bollocks about how awesome our health care is up here.

Subotai Bahadur | January 9, 2023 at 8:36 pm

Given Canada’s renunciation of their Charter of Rights and Liberties [like our Bill of Rights] and their government sponsored murders of inconvenient people; any free Canadians who want to remain so better get here quick because we are going to have to militarize our borders both north and south.

Subotai Bahadur

When are they going to euthanize Trudeau?