The Right To Be Murdered: Is Euthanasia the New Buzzword?

Related Articles


We are in a very strange place. We are in a place where up is down, where shoddy gene therapy is safe and effective, and where suicide, now, is a social service. And rules for “merciful killing” are written by the people who, at best, are clueless about spiritual matters, and at worst, know exactly what they are doing.

Due to the gravity of the topic, I want to choose words wisely. Dying is sacred. Dying, just like birth, is an ultimate communion with the spirit. For that matter, everything in-between is also communion with the spirit — but birth and death are very special transitions. And they need to — absolutely need to — be revered.

By trivializing death and introducing this absurd “suicide as a service” concept — like we can be mechanically recycled — we are taking the spark out of who we are as human beings. On my end, I am appalled and indignant, and I am registering my passionate and total objection to allowing spiritually clueless (or deliberately cruel) people to have any say in the matter of dying.

It is hard enough to maneuver situations when family members have to make a tough decision to stop life support for their loved ones who are only alive thanks to being hooked onto devices. But being conditioned to normalize assisted suicide based on arbitrary criteria, including loosely defined “mental illness”?! How far from here to what the German Nazi did to the disabled children?

Canada and Some Western European Countries Are Spearheading Medical Murder

Recently, a retired Army Corporal Christine Gauthier, who had competed for Canada at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Paralympics, testified in Canadian Parliament that a Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker offered her the opportunity for a medically assisted death — and even offered to provide the equipment — after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home.

Earlier this year, Shanti De Corte, a 23-year-old woman in Belgium, was euthanized after “unsuccessful” psychiatric treatment of PTSD that, according to the media, the poor woman had acquired after escaping from the site of the Brussels airport bombing. Her neurologist fought for her life but the woman’s mother “supported” Shanti in her decision to stop living. To my senses, this sounds more like a plot by Agatha Christie than a case of mercy.

Also in Belgium, it is legal to euthanize young children. According to a 2018 Washington Post article, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, Belgian physicians gave lethal injections to three children under 18. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor, the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis, and the 17-year-old had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Most of Belgium’s 4,337 euthanasias in 2016-2017 involved adults with cancer. (The population of Belgium in 2017 was 11,419,752.)

In 2017, a member of the euthanasia commission in Belgium resigned in protest because it refused to recommend prosecution after a patient with dementia who had not requested euthanasia was nevertheless put to death at her family’s request.

It seems like euthanasia is a potential treasure for family members with ulterior motives. Some lawyers are pointing that out.

Gruesome Definitions

Different sources cite different technical definitions when it comes to “euthanasia,” and there is no complete agreement. The BBC distinguishes between euthanasia, “the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering — for example a lethal injection administered by a doctor,” and assisted suicide. According to the University of Missouri School of Medicine, there are different types of euthanasia:

Active euthanasia — killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia — intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.

Voluntary euthanasia — with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia — without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.

Self-administered euthanasia — the patient administers the means of death.

Other-administered euthanasia — a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

Assisted — the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person, such as a physician.

There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries.

Mercy-killing — The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit consent to end the patient’s suffering. Some ethicists think that.

Physician-assisted suicide — The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Legality of Different Types of Euthanasia

Today, laws regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide differ across states and countries. According the Healthline, in the United States, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in:







Washington, D.C.

Hawaii (beginning in 2019)

Additionally, similar legislation was signed in New Jersey in 2019 and in New Mexico in 2021.

New Mexico: A “Legal” Suicide Is Not a Suicide, and Not Euthanasia, Either

Notably, in the spirit of newspeak and “rewriting” biological terms, New Mexico’s law states that terminating one’s life under the law is not suicide. (See N.M. Stat. § 24-7C-8).

Quote: “Nothing in the End-of-Life Options Act shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end an individual’s life by lethal injection, mercy killing or euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with the End-of-Life Options Act shall not be construed, for any purpose, to constitute suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, homicide or adult abuse under the law.”

California and Vermont: A Making Murder-Not-Murder Seamless

Different states have different legal requirements for assisted suicide. In addition to the existing laws, many states currently have physician-assisted suicide measures on legislative ballots. Other states are “improving” their already existing state laws to make taking one’s life as easy as making a telemedicine call. Here are the amendments recently passed in California and Vermont.


One of the craziest things is that in California, it seems to be legal to encourage suicide after bill AB282, signed by Governor Brown in 2018, amended the California penal code to “prohibit a person whose actions are compliant with the End of Life Option Act from being prosecuted for deliberately aiding, advising, or encouraging suicide.”

I am just imagining. You visit a doctor, complain about being in pain or being depressed, and the doctor says: “Sounds tough, man, have you maybe considered killing yourself?” Let me ask again: how far from this legislation to what the German Nazi did? A quote from the Death with Dignity website about California laws:

Senator Susan Eggman (D) introduces an amendment to California’s law, End of Life, SB380. Effective beginning January 1, 2022, the amendment:

  • Reduces the waiting period between the 1st and 2nd oral request from 15 days to 48 hours;
  • Eliminates the final attestation form;
  • Requires physicians who cannot or will not support patient requests to tell the patient they will not support them, document the patient’s request and provider’s notice of rejection in the patient’s medical record, and transfer the relevant medical record upon request;
  • Prohibits a health care provider or health care entity from engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive practices relating to their willingness to qualify an individual or provide a prescription for an aid-in-dying medication to a qualified individual;
  • Requires health care entities to post their current policy regarding medical aid in dying on their internet website;
  • Extends the law’s repeal clause to January 1, 2031.


Governor Phil Scott signs S.74, an amendment to the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act into law on April 27, 2022. This amendment:

  • Removes the requirement that medication requests and an examination by the physician be done in person.
  • Removes the requirement that the physician must wait at least 48 hours after the occurrence of certain required events before writing the prescription.
  • Extends immunities to any person who acts in good faith compliance with the provisions of the law.

For a detailed look at U.S. state laws, please check out this list. For a map of the “Death with Dignity” movement in the United States, please see that same Death with Dignity website I cited before. I looked up my state of New York, and wow, check this out their campaign!

“It’s time to pass New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act and expand the right to Death with Dignity to over 20 million New Yorkers. Death with Dignity laws have been proven effective at improving healthcare quality at the end of life. People travel from all over the world to access New York’s doctors and hospitals. New Yorkers shouldn’t have to leave the state to receive the care they need at the end of life.”

And of course, by “care” they mean being killed. It’s like when the mob says they will take care of you. It’s that kind of care! What a treasure for the relatives of well-off folks in weak health whom they want dead! Have the proponents of these laws thought of this? I bet they have.

Cui Bono?

In the United States, the nonprofit I referred to earlier seems to be coordinating the push on a national level, and somebody is paying them for doing that.

Death with Dignity National Center is a “501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that focuses on public education and legal defense. Death with Dignity provides targeted education to a wide variety of groups who have an interest in death with dignity laws based on Oregon’s landmark Death with Dignity Act, including physicians, lawyers, medical students, elected officials, members of the media, college students, and church officials.”

According to Action Network, they are a rather well-funded nonprofit. Their statements and reports are also listed on their website. The listed CEO salary for 2021 was over one hundred thousand dollars, which was also noted by Celia Farber.

Death with Dignity Political Fund is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that acts as the political arm of the National Center. The Fund drafts death with dignity laws based on the Oregon model and campaigns, lobbies, and advocates for death with dignity legislation in the states that lack it.

On a side note, in Australia, there seems to be a nonprofit organization also called “Dying with Dignity Act.” Their stated purpose is to campaign for legislation that would “enable citizens to have assistance to die.”

Somebody is really paying them to “destigmatize” voluntary departure of carbon forms from this world. Industrial recycling next?

The Upside-Down language

What’s striking is the language surrounding this. Somebody in the dark marketing halls decided to insert “dignity” into euthanasia and suicide and to make it sound sweet.

Here is the exact brain-twist they are trying to pull off: They are attempting to redefine the natural death, the noninvasive trajectory of events, as an active act of “torturing” loved ones — and simultaneously, they are trying to redefine the active, invasive act of “helping” somebody die before their time as “honoring their human rights.” Up is down, and peace is war!

A Philosophical Interlude

Philosophically, I don’t want to opine on this very grave theme beyond saying that based on what know, suicide is a horrible idea no matter how bad the suffering may be. Why?

Because, based on the knowledge systems in different cultures, across the world, attempting to transition to another world before one’s time breaks foundational natural laws and thus, comes with suffering that greatly exceeds any suffering one may experience on Earth. That is my belief, and anyone is free to choose their own view of the world.

On my end, I think it’s prudent to go the natural route and not take the chance of making things worse. One may argue scholastically that medicine is also interfering with the natural way. I think it’s a different thing. Medicine supports life, it supports staying in the dimension that we know.

Death is a more mysterious thing, and if the goal is to suffer less, then it’s best to stay in a place we more or less understand until it’s truly our time to go. We are a part of a bigger puzzle in this universe, and it’s wise and practical to respect the spiritual laws.

Death With Dignity During COVID: A Side Note

On the website of the Death with Dignity National Center, there is a page titled, Our Common Mission: Death with Dignity in Times of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Crisis. For a second I thought, maybe they have found some decency and said something in favor of actual death with dignity, as in, not imprisoning people in hospitals against their will and not preventing the family members from entering the hospitals?

No, it’s not that kind of dignity that they promote. Not the real kind. Shame on them. No really, shame on them!

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Outside of the United States

Outside the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal in:

  • Switzerland
  • Germany
  • Japan

Euthanasia, including physician-assisted suicide, is legal in several countries, including:

  • the Netherlands
  • Belgium
  • Luxembourg
  • Colombia
  • Canada


As of recent, Canada, has been making the headlines for new related to “medical assistance in dying” (MAID). I wrote about it earlier this year. And here is a quote from the Canadian government website talking about MAID:

On March 17, 2021, the Government of Canada announced that changes to Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law are officially in force. The new law includes changes to eligibility, procedural safeguards, and the framework for the federal government’s data collection and reporting regime.

Who is eligible for medical assistance in dying?

New changes to the legislation have allowed a broader group of people to be eligible to request and receive MAID. These changes came into effect on March 17, 2021.

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

  • be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)
  • be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself
  • have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
  • make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence
  • give informed consent to receive MAID

Grievous and irremediable medical condition.

To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

  • have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)
  • be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
  • experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable

You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

Canadians whose only medical condition is a mental illness, and who otherwise meet all eligibility criteria, will not be eligible for MAID until March 17, 2023 (see About mental illness and MAID).

Earlier this year, the Spectator published an enlightening article titled, “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?” Quote:

“Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.”

“A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days.”

“Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable.”

“Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages.

Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year — a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report — Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year.

Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’.”

According to the Globe Post, a number of European countries are currently practicing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.


The Netherlands legalized active euthanasia in 2002. Patients must be lucid and experiencing unbearable suffering from a condition diagnosed as incurable by at least two doctors.

In 2020, “the country’s highest court ruled that doctors should be able to conduct assisted suicides on patients with severe dementia without fear of prosecution, even if the patient no longer expressed an explicit wish to die.”

The Netherlands also made euthanasia legal for terminally ill children aged between one and twelve.


Belgium lifted restrictions on euthanasia in 2002 for patients facing constant, unbearable and untreatable physical or psychological suffering. They must be aged 18 or over and request termination of life in a voluntary, reasoned and repeated manner, free from coercion.

In 2014 Belgium became the first country to authorize children to request euthanasia if they suffer a terminal disease and understand the consequences of the act.


In Luxembourg, a bill legalizing euthanasia in certain terminal cases was approved in 2009.


Switzerland allows assisted suicide with patients administering a lethal dose of medication themselves. It does not allow active, direct euthanasia by a third party but tolerates the provision of substances to relieve suffering, even if death is a consequence.


Spanish MPs voted through a law allowing euthanasia in March 2021 under strict conditions so that terminally ill or gravely injured patients can end their suffering. It comes into force in June.


In 2021, Portugal’s top court rejected a law decriminalizing euthanasia that had been approved by parliament in January of the same year. The bill is currently under constitutional review.


Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled in 2019 that it was not always a crime to help someone in “intolerable suffering” commit suicide. Halting medical procedures that maintain life, called passive euthanasia, is also legal.


In France, a 2005 law legalized passive euthanasia as a “right to die.” A 2016 law allows doctors to couple this with “deep and continuous sedation” for terminally ill patients, while keeping euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal up to now.

In September of this year, “French President Emmanuel Macron announced a national debate on the broadening of end-of-life options, including exploring the possibility of legalizing assisted suicide, with the aim of implementing changes” in 2023.

Sweden and Ireland

Sweden authorized passive euthanasia in 2010. Ireland recognizes the “right to die.”


According to the Globe Post, Britain has allowed medical personnel to halt life-preserving treatment in certain cases since 2002. Prosecution of those who have helped close relatives to die after they have clearly expressed the desire to end their lives has receded since 2010.

Austria and Germany

In both Austria and Germany, passive euthanasia is permitted if requested by patients. Austria’s constitutional court ruled in October 2021 the country was violating fundamental rights in making assisted suicide illegal and ordered the government to lift the ban.

It has been reported that in Germany, a person seeking to be euthanized needs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

“Pediatric Euthanasia” and Assisted Suicide

It is very hard to talk about this. I am using dry language so as not to scream. In reality, I am screaming as I am writing this. How did we get to this point?!! In 2018, Pediatrics journal published an article titled, “Should Pediatric Euthanasia be Legalized?” The article is written in the form of a debate:

“Voluntary active euthanasia for adults at their explicit request has been legal in Belgium and the Netherlands since 2002. In those countries, acceptance of the practice for adults has been followed by acceptance of the practice for children. Opponents of euthanasia see this as a dangerous slippery slope.

Proponents argue that euthanasia is sometimes ethically appropriate for minors and that, with proper safeguards, it should be legally available in appropriate circumstances for patients at any age. In this Ethics Rounds, we asked philosophers from the United States and the Netherlands, and a Dutch pediatrician, to discuss the ethics of legalizing euthanasia for children.”

That same year, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article titled, “Medical Assistance in Dying at a paediatric hospital:”

“While MAID is currently available to capable patients in Canada who are 18 years or older — a small but important subsection of the population our hospital serves — we write our policy with an eye to the near future when capable young people may gain access to MAID.

We propose that an opportunity exists for MAID-providing institutions to reduce social stigma surrounding this practice [!!!], but not without potentially serious consequences for practitioners and institutions themselves. Thus, this paper is intended as a road map through the still-emerging legal and ethical landscape of paediatric MAID.”

That’s some ethics alright.

Concluding Words

Calm concluding words are hard. The horror needs to stop. It’s a war on life, and the battle requires strength. This “social service” death conveyor, wrapped in fake “compassion” (as if the Machine can feel) is betrayal of us all.

That is what the slain COVID patients in hospitals went through, alone, when they were effectively imprisoned, sedated, denied good treatments and medially murdered, without family members around. That is where we are at.

I pray that the sadistic people, bringing this horror film to reality for a buck, are individually exposed, and that their influence is fully eliminated from our lives. We are not theirs.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.


Source link