State sponsored suicide is a hot button topic. Some people prefer to call it assisted suicide, or assisted dying, or Euthanasia. The ‘loving’ Canadian government has set the gold standard in revolting language inversion, in bringing eligible citizens into the warm bosom of their MAID program - that stands for Medical assistance in dying.
Privately, I have been met with a great deal of hostility and defensiveness when it comes to discussing this topic - most people I have spoken with are largely pro-euthanasia being legalised. They angrily ask me “don’t you think people should be allowed to die with dignity if they are terminally ill”?
My opinion on whether or not euthanasia should be legalised anywhere under any circumstances is of little consequence. I will say this - I do not believe that the State should have anything to do with this emotionally charged, delicate situation, whatsoever - when it comes to families considering assisted suicide for their loved one who might be in constant pain with a terminal diagnosis.
Why do I think that State intervention and therefore legislation is both unwarranted and wholly dangerous? I hold the view that this global push to legalise assisted dying is just another tool in the depopulation toolbox, by design…
ASSISTED DYING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Reluctantly, we shall grab this via the big brother corporationBBC:
MPs have voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
The bill will face months of further scrutiny and votes in the Commons and Lords before the proposed changes could become law.
At present, laws throughout the UK prevent people from asking for medical help to die.
What is the proposed law on assisted dying in England and Wales?
It proposes giving terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life.
It says that anyone who wants to end their life must:
be over 18 and live in England and Wales, and have been registered with a GP for at least 12 months
have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure
be expected to die within six months
make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die
satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible - with at least seven days between each assessment
Under the proposals, a High Court judge would have to rule each time a person makes a request to end their life. A patient would then have to wait 14 days after the ruling, allowing them to have a period of reflection.
A doctor would prepare the substance being used to end the patient's life, but the person would take it themselves. The bill does not say which drug would be used.
It would be illegal to use dishonesty, pressure or coerce someone into declaring they want to end their life, with a possible 14-year prison sentence.
Ahead of the ‘historic vote’ on this legislation, creepy adverts for assisted dying appeared on the London Westminster underground tube station. Note the manic smiles on the faces of the models used, as if they are simulating sheer ecstatic euphoria:
The historic vote saw 330 MPs vote in favour of allowing assisted dying and 275 against it.
It followed five hours of passionate debate, during which MPs shared personal stories and those against the bill called for better end-of-life care.
MPs were given a free vote on the issue, which meant they could make their own decision rather than follow party instructions. The government is impartial on the issue.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was among those to vote in favour of the bill, as was Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
However, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood all voted against.
Among the Conservatives, Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden, the former prime minister and deputy prime minister, were in a minority to support assisted dying. Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative leader, voted against.
Of course Starmer voted in favour, he must be gagging to emulate Trudeau and outdo Canada in bumping off more ‘useless eaters’ in the UK. *The term ‘useless eaters’ was coined by Henry Kissinger in his memoirs Years of Upheaval - link to internet archive’s digital library to read the book for free.
Kissinger wrote:
“The elderly are useless eaters.”
We will later circle back to how euthanasia ties in with, and has been preceded by, eugenics.
Returning to quote from the BBC article once more:
When could assisted dying become law?
There are still many months of parliamentary activity ahead, but the bill now moves forward with the backing of the House of Commons.
It means such a law has moved a step closer but it must still pass through five parliamentary stages handled by MPs and five more by peers, and further rounds of voting.
MPs heard there would a period of up to two years before any new law was implemented because "it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly".
It is also possible the bill could fall and not become law at all.
[…]
Who opposes assisted dying?
Opponents warn that people could be put under pressure to end their lives and want improvements to palliative care instead.
Paralympian and House of Lords crossbencher Baroness Grey-Thompson is a vocal critic.
She told the BBC she is worried about "the impact on vulnerable people, on disabled people, [the risk of] coercive control, and the ability of doctors to make a six-month diagnosis".
Getty Images
Lady Grey-Thompson is a long-standing critic of legalising assisted dying.
Kim Leadbeater, the MP who introduced the bill, said the law needs changing because some people "have a horrible, harrowing death", however good their end-of-life or palliative care is.
She said her bill includes "the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world".
Cancer patient Nathaniel Dye worked with Ms Leadbeater on her bill. He said it would allow people a death which was "as kind and compassionate as possible".
The Dignity in Dying campaign group said the bill provides the "most detailed, robust proposals" on the issue that "Westminster has ever considered".
According to chief executive Sarah Wootton, the fact that every year "up to 650 terminally ill people end their own lives, often in lonely and traumatic ways," shows that the status quo is not working.
PA Media
Dame Esther Rantzen, who has stage four lung cancer, has joined Dignitas in Switzerland.
"All I'm asking for is that we be given the dignity of choice," Dame Esther told BBC News. "If I decide that my own life is not worth living, please may I ask for help to die?"
However, assisted dying generally refers to a person who is terminally ill receiving lethal drugs from a medical practitioner, which they administer themselves.
Assisted suicide is intentionally helping another person to end their life, including someone who is not terminally ill. That could involve providing lethal medication or helping them travel to another jurisdiction to die.
Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering in which a lethal drug is administered by a physician. Patients may not be terminally ill.
There are two types: voluntary euthanasia, where a patient consents; and non-voluntary, where they cannot because, for example, they are in a coma.
Where is euthanasia or assisted dying legal around the world?
Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942. Its Dignitas facility - which accepts foreign patients as well as Swiss nationals. Between 1998 and 2023 it helped 571 Britons to die.
Assisted suicide is also legal in Austria.
In the US, 11 states - Oregon, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine and Washington DC - allow "physician-assisted dying".
It permits doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for self-administration.
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Canada where it is called medical assistance in dying. It can be provided by a doctor or nurse practitioner, either in person or through the prescription of drugs for self-administration.
It is also legal in Spain and Colombia, both of which also permit assisted suicide.
Assisted dying is legal in some parts of Australia but the law differs across states.
New Zealand's End of Life Choice Act legalises assisted dying and allows adults in their final months of life to request assistance from a medical professional.
Three countries have laws that allow people who are not terminally ill to receive assistance to die: The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
PDF of article:
What Is Assisted Dying And How Could The Law Change
Apologies for citing most of the BBC article, although it is important for posterity and for how it has all been framed - if we are to attempt to deconstruct the messaging versus the insidious agenda, which lies beneath the shiny veneer of feigned compassion.
– For the first year or so it will just be an option, you won’t hear much about it except in articles with headlines like “Assisted dying saved my parent/partner/child from years of pain”.
– After a year or two a report will come out claiming success via some tortured invented statistical measure like “assisted dying boosts patient well being scores in surveyed NHS hospitals”.
– Another will follow claiming waiting lists have improved due to decreased overcrowding in palliative care wards. They might even claim it’s decreased the NHS’s carbon footprint.
– Opinion pieces will appear with titles like “Assisted dying success story shuts down conspiracy theorists”.
– The minimum age to be considered for assisted dying will gradually be lowered. And the list of diseases and conditions for which assisted dying is a “recommended treatment alternative” will expand.
– Eventually non-lethal diseases will be included, then psychological illnesses too. Then physical and mental disabilities.
– Then will come an “emergency” – a fake one, obviously – and the NHS will come out of it shining thanks to resources “freed up” by euthanasia programs.
– Next will come the editorials. “Assisted dying is good for patients and saved the NHS during [fake pandemic], it’s time to make it mandatory”.
– A backbench MP will introduce a bill forcing anyone diagnosed with a fatal illness to be put on an assisted dying list.
– The bill will fail, and most of the press will oppose it, but the government will issue “common sense” compromise regulations where assisted dying is the default, but patients can opt out of if they want.
– It will never actually BE mandatory. But it WILL be harder and harder to get out of. If you choose to opt-in and later try to change your mind, you will be said to be mentally incompetent.
– Patients who don’t want to sign DNRs or opt for end of life care will be branded “selfish” and “irresponsible”. Studies will claim they are a strain on the NHS’s resources.
– Down the line, opting out will incur penalties to your pension payments and mean you are charged for healthcare, making it impossible for many older people to afford to stay alive.
– Then they’ll start panels where patients who are “mentally incompetent” have assisted dying recommended by “mercy tribunals”.
…and the whole time the establishment will claim there is freedom of choice, and no slippery slope at all.
Frighteningly prophetic insights from Kit Knightly.
DEATH PANELS
We can cast our minds back to 2010 when Bill Gates chuckled about ‘death panels’ as he spoke as the aspen institute:
Video transcript excerpt:
“[…]that's a tradeoff society is making because of very very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say you know is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient - would it be better not to lay off the those 10 teachers and to make that trade up in medical cost but that's called the death panel, uh, and you're not supposed to have that discussion.”
Always belief the hearse whisperer when he smirks and chortles about death and depopulation.
CANADA’S MAID PROGRAM
I wrote about euthanasia in April this year with explicit reference to Canada’s MAID program:
The depopulation agenda is so overt once you become attuned to every sinister malevolent governmental act always posing as a ‘greater good’ - doctors and nurses stealthily coming for the mentally, physiologically, and emotionally vulnerable - like smiling assassins offering
The case below reported in March 2024 details the court ruling, whereby details of how a 27 year old woman has met the criteria for MAID have not been disclosed. Her father is understandably distressed and is trying to have the judgement overturned.
A Calgary judge has issued a ruling that clears the way for a 27-year-old woman to receive medical assistance in dying (MAID) despite her father's attempts through the courts to prevent that from happening.
The judge also issued a 30-day stay of his decision so that W.V. can take the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which means the interim injunction will remain in place for the next month.
But W.V. believes his daughter "is vulnerable and is not competent to make the decision to take her own life," according to Feasby's summary of the father's position.
"He says that she is generally healthy and believes that her physical symptoms, to the extent that she has any, result from undiagnosed psychological conditions."
Her only known diagnoses described in court earlier this month are autism and ADHD.
This is a heartbreaking story that feels wholly immoral with state intervention preying upon a mentally vulnerable young person. Imagine being in the father’s position, having his daughter’s lawyer refer to his own flesh and blood as the ‘client’ in such a heartless manner:
Lawyer Austin Paladeau said the case boils down to his client's right to medical autonomy and argued W.V.'s love for his daughter "does not give him the right to keep her alive against her wishes."
This is terribly, terribly wrong. Society has fallen to lower depths of depravity. In a healthy, functioning society, all of the lawyers and judges would be criticising the mere existence of MAID, and promoting a dialogue between father and daughter to explore therapy and other treatment options, actively dissuading the girl from choosing death.
Instead, the system is hellbent on ‘approving MAID’ and obsessed with the victimhood status of this poor confused girl, playing the medical autonomy card in the most ruthless way imaginable.
This is and was just the tip of the assisted dying iceberg.
Now let us consider the warnings that may go unheeded from those opposing the UK’s assisted dying bill, as referenced in the BBC article cited earlier. Specifically, Baroness Grey-Thompson who was quoted as saying she is worried about:
"the impact on vulnerable people, on disabled people, [the risk of] coercive control, and the ability of doctors to make a six-month diagnosis".
As well as Liz Carr who wrote on X:
"Some of us have very real fears based on our lived experience and based on what has happened in other countries where it's legal.”
Here is one reported case which vindicates the fears and worries that Baroness Grey-Thompson and Liz Carr share:
A Paralympic army veteran told stunned lawmakers in Canada when she claimed that a government official had offered to give her euthanasia equipment while fighting to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home.
Retired corporal Christine Gauthier, who competed at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Paralympics, testified on Thursday that the unnamed veterans affairs case worker had offered in writing to provide her with a medically-assisted dying device, the CBC reported.
“I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAID, medical assistance in dying,” Ms Gauthier, 52, told a House of Commons veterans affairs committee, according to the CBC.
Three other disabled veterans are believed to have been offered the same equipment, according to Global News.
PDF of article:
Paralympian Christine Gauthier Claims Canada Offered To Euthanise Her When She Asked For A Stairlift The Independent
Trudeau’s fake apology in the video above immediately followed by his promotion of MAID is sickening, although unsurprising, coming from a demonic parasite of his particular degradation.
Here is the final present day example of MAID in action that needs sharing:
An Ontario man in his late 40s with a history of mental illness died by euthanasia after his assisted death assessors decided that the most reasonable explanation for his physical decline was a post COVID-19 “vaccination syndrome.”
The term is controversial — Canada’s current vaccine reporting system for adverse events doesn’t include “post-vaccine syndrome” — and multiple specialists consulted before his death couldn’t agree on a diagnosis, raising questions as to whether the man’s condition met the criteria for an “irremediable,”meaning a hopeless, incurable condition.
[…]
MAID will become the main vehicle to kill off the COVID-19 vaccine-injured. Logically, it has always made perfect sense. I just didn’t expect Canada to get there this quickly.
If you die from a COVID-19 vaccine injury, for everyone involved in the mRNA vaccine fraud, that is the best possible outcome. Since there are no autopsies and no staining for spike protein, it’s literally the perfect crime. And it’s legal.
The COVID-19 vaccine-injured, however, are an extreme inconvenience. They are living proof of the crime of vaccine fraud, contaminated vaccines, etc. They represent the worst possible outcome of vaccination.
Everyone involved in the COVID-19 vaccine fraud wants the vaccine-injured dead:
the doctors who gave the shots (you can tell by how they treat the vaccine injured).
the scientists who pushed the mRNA fraud (they despise the vaccine injured and viciously attack them online)
the media and propagandists for big pharma (they ignore the vaccine injured as much as possible and minimize the damage done to them – gaslighting)
the compromised health officials (they reject all vaccine injury reports)
the politicians (they pretend vaccine injuries don’t exist and aren’t an issue to be addressed)
Since the vaccine cult is a death cult, it was always going to go this way for the vaccine-injured.
That’s why the vaccine-injured receive no support, no funding, no research, no treatment and no compensation.
It’s not nice to say, but the goal of the vaccine cartel was always to kill them off.
The next step will be scaling up the MAID killings, as hundreds of thousands of Canadians are severely COVID-19 vaccine-injured.
PDF of articles:
Ontario Man Gets Maid For Controversial 'post Covid Vaccine Syndrome' National Post
USELESS EATERS: DISABILITY AS GENOCIDAL MARKER IN NAZI GERMANY
We’ve circled the wagons enough in citing the present whilst predicting the future fallout goals of the push for assisted dying legalisation. Let us now look to the past. A paper that had been hosted by Regent University in Virginia, USA, has been scrubbed with the dreaded 404 - page not found message:
Thankfully the PDF was still retrievable via the internet archive ‘wayback machine’ - although that site has been under attack lately. I have been including PDFs of articles and reports I cite since then, whilst encouraging readers to save everything deemed important to PDF on hard drives.
This is the paper in question:
Quoting key excerpts from this paper:
The methods used for mass extermination in the Nazi death camps originated and were perfected in earlier use against people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities. This article describes the historical context of attitudes toward people with disabilities in Germany and how this context produced mass murder of people with disabilities prior to and during the early years of World War II. Several key marker variables, the manipulation of which allowed a highly sophisticated Western society to officially sanction the murder of people with disabilities, are examined. Important implications must be continually drawn from these sad events as we work with people with disabilities at the dawn of a new century.
[…]
It was clear, however, that extensive, and expensive care could not be expended on people who could not immediately aid Germany’s economic recovery. In practice, this meant that among asylum inmates, attempts were made to distinguish between those who could be at least partially rehabilitated (the “curable”) from those who could not (“the incurable”).
[…]
Euthanasia and Voluntariness
Historically, euthanasia has meant a voluntary request for death without suffering by the patient. However, in the 17th century its meaning was modified to grant the right to alleviatesuffering exclusively to physicians. While the meaning and implications of euthanasia changed somewhat over time, it was universally accepted that the act of euthanasia was always voluntary. That is, when individuals exercised their right to voluntarily choose the timing and the manner of their death as a means of ending their suffering, it was a physician’s responsibility to assist them (Procter, 1988).
However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany, came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary “right to die” was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second, the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia; that is, the economic burden that terminal illness or caring for the insane placed on families, caregivers, and the community was a factor to consider for decisions in euthanasia.
In one sense, therefore, the debate quickly shifted from the idea of a “gentle death” itself to who would request or abet the patient’s demise.
PDF:
Useless Eaters Disability As Genocidal Marker In Nazi Germany
In conclusion, I believe that the rollout of assisted dying legislation is intended to cull the elderly via coercion and incentivisation for doctors to give terminal diagnoses, or eventually for the elderly to ‘opt out’ of life because they will be told they have ‘negative human worth’ and are a ‘drain on society’. Government higher ups will rub their hands together at the savings made on pension pots not paid out for. The same will go for those injured and disabled as a result of the C19 injections - although the parameters for what constitutes a “long covid vaccine syndrome” will become broadly interpreted and flexible for diagnoses and eligibility for the death program to be granted.
It won’t stop there either. We are in the calm before the storm of major economic calamity aka The Great Taking. Millions will become broke and destitute - their hopelessness and despair eventually qualifying as symptomatic for the death program criteria. For those who resist and speak out against the death program or the next scamdemic, the state will have dissidents sectioned and placed in mental asylums - for which euthanasia may not exactly be ‘voluntary’.
If readers cannot see all this for what it really is, I do not know what else to say to you. Just as I no longer know what to say to people who still do not see global democide resulting from the C19 injection rollout. If you do not see it at this stage of the devil’s game, then it is a choice to not see.
The pendulum can always swing back to sanity and righteousness. It is just a question of reaching critical mass, and what the final body count will be before the people express that enough is enough.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
The depopulation agenda is so overt once you become attuned to every sinister malevolent governmental act always posing as a ‘greater good’ - doctors and nurses stealthily coming for the mentally, physiologically, and emotionally vulnerable - like smiling assassins offering
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. Any support is greatly appreciated. If you are in a position to donate a virtual coffee or crypto, it would mean the world of difference. Paid subscribers can comment on articles, videos, and podcasts, and also receive a monthly subscriber newsletter.
Email: nicholas.creed@protonmail.com with information and newsworthy stories for open source intelligence gathering to support this Substack, thank you.
"I will say this - I do not believe that the State should have anything to do with this emotionally charged, delicate situation, whatsoever - when it comes to families considering assisted suicide for their loved one who might be in constant pain with a terminal diagnosis."
I agree 100%. The Government should not have anything to do with the beliefs or decisions within families.
Governments clearly exposed their hate for and disdain for citizens during Covid19 when the legalised murder by injection.
We extend the benevolence of an easy, painless death to our pets whenever we judge the quality of their lives to be unbearable or the burden of life to be too great. I've had to make that call for over a dozen animals over the years, and it's agonizing even when it's without question the best thing left to do for them. I don't understand why we don't extend that benevolence to people. Humans have the power to make that same judgement about their *own* lives. The decision to end one's life is the most intimately personal decision anyone can make and no one has the right to make that call for anyone else. Not a bureaucrat, a politician, a neighbor, or a spouse. "Life no matter what agony it inflicts" is morally and criminally wrong whether the life in question is a human's or an animal's.
Anyone who's appalled by the idea of people offing themselves so they won't "burden society" should re-examine his or her commitment to the morality of altruism, because that's where that bullshit comes from. When people aren't viewed as the means to each other's ends there can be no question of bureaucrats considering the bottom line of entitlement programs, because there would be no entitlements. There would be no bureaucrats with the gall to suggest euthanasia to Paralympians. People like Gauthier wouldn't be considered disposable. But as long as the overriding morality of a culture says that the value of someone's life is defined by how well he "sacrifices to others," then no one should be surprised when that sacrifice includes killing himself for them. In such a culture, death is the point of the whole exercise. The "useless eaters" globalists are just being explicit about taking altruism to its logical conclusion of all cannibalizing all.
"I will say this - I do not believe that the State should have anything to do with this emotionally charged, delicate situation, whatsoever - when it comes to families considering assisted suicide for their loved one who might be in constant pain with a terminal diagnosis."
I agree 100%. The Government should not have anything to do with the beliefs or decisions within families.
Governments clearly exposed their hate for and disdain for citizens during Covid19 when the legalised murder by injection.
We extend the benevolence of an easy, painless death to our pets whenever we judge the quality of their lives to be unbearable or the burden of life to be too great. I've had to make that call for over a dozen animals over the years, and it's agonizing even when it's without question the best thing left to do for them. I don't understand why we don't extend that benevolence to people. Humans have the power to make that same judgement about their *own* lives. The decision to end one's life is the most intimately personal decision anyone can make and no one has the right to make that call for anyone else. Not a bureaucrat, a politician, a neighbor, or a spouse. "Life no matter what agony it inflicts" is morally and criminally wrong whether the life in question is a human's or an animal's.
Anyone who's appalled by the idea of people offing themselves so they won't "burden society" should re-examine his or her commitment to the morality of altruism, because that's where that bullshit comes from. When people aren't viewed as the means to each other's ends there can be no question of bureaucrats considering the bottom line of entitlement programs, because there would be no entitlements. There would be no bureaucrats with the gall to suggest euthanasia to Paralympians. People like Gauthier wouldn't be considered disposable. But as long as the overriding morality of a culture says that the value of someone's life is defined by how well he "sacrifices to others," then no one should be surprised when that sacrifice includes killing himself for them. In such a culture, death is the point of the whole exercise. The "useless eaters" globalists are just being explicit about taking altruism to its logical conclusion of all cannibalizing all.