Naheed Dosani, Mandatory Vaccines, PEACH, End Of Life, Care For The Homeless

The above tweets are quite chilling. Here, we have someone who is angry that Doug Ford announced that proof of vaccination will end in January. The rationale is that if unless people are pressured to get it, they will just “wait it out”. This attitude is sick and twisted, yet people like this are allowed to care for vulnerable patients.

This isn’t a one-off from someone showing poor judgement. Nor is it some troll being a twit online just for kicks. This man is treated as a medical expert by the establishment.

If a person repeatedly posted comments about pedophilia, would you let them near your children? Of course not. Then why is someone who frequently writes in favour of forced medical procedures allowed such a power as a doctor?

Another day, another look at a doctor on the media circuit. This time, it’s McMaster University Professor, Naheed Dosani. Any time an “expert” is all over the news, pushing vaccines and public health measures, it’s worthwhile to do a bit of digging. Dosani is quite obviously on board with the “pandemic” agenda. Dosani’s Twitter feed is full of social justice issues, mocking the “anti-vaxxers” and retweeting people being called racists.

There is a lot of these comments in Dosani’s feed, and it’s downright creepy how readily he wants to impose his will on others. He seems to have no real respect for bodily autonomy.

Regarding some of these tweets, Dosani employs a common tactic: he’s gaslighting people by claiming if they “wait for the mandates to end, it undermines efforts to force injections”. While true, it undermines the validity that these are even necessary.

We obviously can’t have people shopping around for a less harmful “vaccine”. Things like blood clots, leaking capilaries, Bell’s Palsy, or heart inflammation aren’t that serious anyway.

Dosani received a Meritorious Service Cross from the Governor General for his work with (PEACH), Palliative Education and Care for the Homeless (PEACH). Apparently this was a model to be replicated in other cities around the world.

On its own, Dosani’s work with homeless and vulnerable people seems quite noble and admirable. However, given his obsession with pushing these experimental concoctions, it’s fair to ask whether he will be pushing them on those groups he claims to want to help? Will these lead to pressuring people into accepting them? Given his animosity towards people trying to exercise free will, one has to wonder how he behaves with his own patients.

This person has also called for UBI, or a universal basic income, to be implemented. He says that in the long run it’s much cheaper for everyone. Kwame McKenzie of the Ontario Science Table, previously was the research chair for the 2017 Ontario pilot project. Strange, if this is just a coincidence.

Dosani received his MD at McMaster University in Hamilton, and he’s listed as an Assistant Clinical Professor there. This university has received substantial amounts of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years.

Kashif Pirzada is another pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine personality who’s frequently on the news. He’s also a Faculty Member at McMaster, and more information about the school is available. A quick tidbit: McMaster’s endowment fund is managed by Blackrock.

In July 2021, Dosani co-authored an opinion piece in the Toronto Star, calling for the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. In the article, they comment that workers can use paid sick days to take time off work to recover from the side effects.

Of course, this should not detract in any way from the often repeated talking points that these vaccines are safe and effective. Remember, the correct vaccine for you is the one you’re offered first.

Many health workers may not be aware that they can use paid sick days (called the Ontario COVID-19 Worker Income Protection Benefit) to take time off to recover from vaccine side effects. Unfortunately, only three days are available. This means that if a health worker had already taken time off to go get a COVID test, or to look after a family member with COVID-19, they would have no sick days left.

The piece was cloaked in a plea for compassion for marginalized people, and had the same usual social justice talking points. What was noteworthy was that one of the co-authors was Sabina Vohra-Miller. She and her husband, Craig Miller, started the Vohra-Miller Foundation. More background information on them is available here.

The Institute for Pandemics, which opened in August 2020 at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, is working to strengthen co-ordination, communication and collaboration between science and government—an approach rooted in evidence-based policies that will support quicker responses to future pandemics.
.
The Vohra Miller Foundation’s investment to launch the Institute for Pandemics was just the start of its extraordinary new partnership with the University. In February 2021, the couple once again made history—for the University of Toronto and for public health in Canada—with a $5-million commitment to help create First Exposure, an innovative new research network and information hub for maternal, reproductive and child health also housed at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

The Vohra-Miller Foundation was a major financier of the “Institute for Pandemics“, run by the Ontario Science Table, at the Dalla Lana School for Public Health, at the University of Toronto. Dosani himself received training at UofT. His profile still lists him as a lecturer there. Certainly an interesting connection that they know each other.

He was part of a group of researchers that received nearly $1 million from the CIHR on behalf of the University of Victoria to study homelessness, life limiting illness, and vulnerable populations.

Dosani appeared before the Canadian Senate on Bill C-7, to expand MAiD, or medical assistance in dying. He spoke out how many people who consider this only do so since they face many other problems in their lives. It was quite the compelling piece to watch. Of course, will he view that certain medications are needed to maintain a certain quality of life?

Journey Home Hospice, an end-of-life centre for people who are homeless, opened up in 2018, due largely to Dosani’s efforts. PEACH was also founded in 2014 by Dosani.

Bit of a side note: until recently, Dosani was a physician at the William Osler Health system. This place previously challenged the VOM or “vaccinate-or-mask” policies. This is basically the opposite of what Dosani supports. Of course, this was in the days when the Ontario Nurses’ Association actually stood up for its members.

Dosani’s work with homeless people is something (by itself) to commend. However, given his attitude towards mandatory injections, and his connections, where exactly is this heading? Considering that he supports coercing people into taking experimental drugs, does he really have humanity’s best interests at heart?

(1) https://twitter.com/NaheedD/status/1404545461621604360
(2) https://twitter.com/NaheedD/status/1456241478313955330
(3) https://twitter.com/NaheedD/status/1452619441406189571
(4) https://www.gg.ca/en/honours/recipients/136-53077
(5) https://globalnews.ca/video/7502145/poverty-is-expensive-toronto-doctor-says-universal-basic-income-actually-costs-society-less
(6) Toronto doctor says universal basic income actually costs society less
(7) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/07/21/yes-vaccines-should-be-mandatory-for-health-care-workers-heres-a-compassionate-and-equitable-way-to-make-that-happen.html?rf
(8) Yes, vaccines should be mandatory for health-care workers.
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-university-of-toronto-institute-for-pandemics-funded-by-millers-merck-run-by-ontario-science-table/
(10) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/vohra-miller-foundation/
(11) Chancellors’ Circle of Benefactors
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabinavohramiller/
(13) Sabina Vohra-Miller _ LinkedIn
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/naheedd/
(15) Naheed Dosani _ LinkedIn
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.html
(17) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=425077&lang=en
(18) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=365753&lang=en
(19) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=419201&lang=en
(20) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SHCJaRsU_U
(21) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/palliative-care-team-helps-the-homeless-die-with-dignity-a-healing-circle-helps-them-grieve-1.5048409

BC Pharmacy Association Funded By AstraZeneca, Partners With myDNA; Dix; Sharkawy; Tieleman; Sterilization

The B.C. Pharmacy Association has been lobbying the Provincial Government as of late. It’s interesting to see just who some of these people are, and where the money is coming from. The public at large is completely oblivious to the bigger picture.

As for the people in the above photo, they are very much connected to the B.C.P.A. We will explain all of these players.

  • Bonnie Henry: B.C. Provincial Health Officer
  • Adrian Dix: B.C. Health Minister
  • Abdu Sharkawy: Paid operative on speaking circuit
  • Bill Tieleman: Ex-B.C. Gov’t Official, current B.C.P.A. lobbyist

The B.C.P.A. describes what it does as “advocacy“, or trying to educate the public on certain health matters. Here is their own explanation:

The BC Pharmacy Association is the voice of community pharmacy. Through our organization, we collaborate and advocate for the role of community pharmacists in B.C.’s health-care system.

The Association works with stakeholders like the Ministry of Health, the College of Pharmacists of BC, the University of British Columbia, private insurance payers and other groups to raise the awareness and understanding of community pharmacy in British Columbia.

We have struck working groups on such issues as the role of pharmacists in medical assistance in dying (MAiD), Medication Review Services, Clinical Services, Residential Care and Schedule 1 and 2 medications, to name a few.

Nothing is apparently off limits, as the MAiD, or medical assistance in dying market is growing. Essentially, this is assisted suicide. At least they are honest that some drugs are lethal. There’s also an MLA outreach program, to get Provincial politicians on board with whatever is going on.

Bill Tieleman works as a lobbyist for the B.C. Pharmacy Association. His goal is getting more money for the group, and in pushing the Government to buy more of his client’s products (and products of their supporters). Tieleman is, strictly speaking, a drug lobbyist. He runs a politically themed blog as well, but there is little of substance there.

Tieleman is apparently also pretty chummy with Premier John Horgan. That’s no surprise, given his other BCNDP connections.

It gets even more convoluted because he worked in the Office of the Premier in 1996, according to mandatory disclosures. Adrian Dix was at the time Chief of Staff to Premier Glen Clark, and he later became Leader of the NDP. Dix clearly has clout, even as Health Minister, and Tieleman is an old colleague of his.

As for the idea that lobbying is harmless, it’s been disclosed that the Federal Government (or taxpayers) contributed $176,000 to the B.C.P.A. Tax money was handed over to a private organization that lobbies politicians for greater influence of the drug business.

While the B.C.P.A. likes to present itself as standing up for small pharmacists, they deliberately gloss over an important detail. The bulk of the financing actually comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Here, AstraZeneca and Merck are listed as major sponsors.

Abdu Sharkawy, an easily recognizable TV doctor, has spoken to the B.C.P.A. on at least 2 separate occasions. Once was March 19 of this year, and the other was on May 6. The Association clearly thought that his clout was work the money to bring him there.

Sharkawy is actually a professional speaker, and can be hired out through the National Speakers Bureau, or the NSB. According to a reply from NSB, his speaking fees for a virtual appearance runs at $12,000. That said, he’s hardly the only one to engage in such a side business.

RxOme Pharmacogenomics Canada Inc., is a joint venture between the BC Pharmacy Association and myDNA, a genetic testing and interpretation service provider. Together these companies aim to make pharmacogenomic testing and interpretation services available to Canadians through community pharmacies. Empowered with this genetic information Canadians, with their pharmacist’s help, will be able to make better informed decisions about their medications, health and wellness.

Imagine if before taking a medication, you could walk into your local pharmacy and take a test that could accurately predict whether the medication would work for you and the dosage best suited to you—all based on your DNA.

myDNA uses a simple cheek swab to analyze a patient’s genetic profile. The test is ordered by the accredited pharmacy and then the results are sent to the patient, nominated health care professionals and accessible through a secure portal.

The B.C.P.A. is partnering with myDNA, a firm that claims to be able to determine what medications would be needed in the future, based on a person’s genetic profile. It seems like there was a time not too long ago when such an idea was dismissed as baseless conspiracy theories.

Of course, this also raises serious privacy concerns like where will the data be stored, who will have access to it, and will any 3rd parties be able to purchase the data?

Also, will certain drug companies be able to get preference for certain types of disorders, or will it be shared equitably?

The B.C. Pharmacy Association promotes drugs (obviously), and doesn’t seem too concerned about the long term impacts of them. Of course, when such companies, like AstraZeneca, are your primary donors, it’s best not to rock the boat.

Thank you to whoever made this clips available. This information needs to be shared.

Previously: Jean-Marc Prevost used to be work in B.C. Public Health, alongside Henry and Dix. He left, and joined lobbying firm called Council Public Affairs. He then lobbied the B.C. Government — which he was recently a part of — on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions, the manufacturer of AstraZeneca. Also, take a look at the conflicts of interest Doug Ford has been involved with.

It’s an open question whether of not Henry and Dix had any issue with this sudden change, however it seems unlikely.

After all, Henry apparently saw no issue with putting in an exemption for indoor wine tasting, when she co-owned a winery in Keremeos.

This is just a lay opinion, but a lot of this doesn’t exactly sound legitimate. At a minimum, where are the disclosures to the public? And shouldn’t the side effects like mass sterilization be covered a little bit more?

As an update, thank you to those commenting. Always more information to flesh out. See page 233 in the 2019/2020 report.

(1) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(2) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=514&regId=56558364&blnk=1
(3) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/
(4) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/advocacy
(5) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/advocacy/mla-outreach-program
(6) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/conference/sponsors
(7) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/about/rxome
(8) https://www.nsb.com/speakers/abdu-sharkawy/
(9) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/conference/agenda-speakers
(10) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/news/bcpha-2021-conference-highlights-dr-abdu-sharkawy
(11) https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/20/MemoMistake/
(12) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Dix
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbell/
(14) https://www.keremeosreview.com/news/similkameen-winery-co-owned-by-dr-bonnie-henry/
(15) https://globalnews.ca/news/7732090/indoor-wine-tastings-bc-covid-restrictions/
(16) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/government-finances/public-accounts/2019-20/pa-2019-20-crf-detailed-schedules-of-payments.pdf
(17) BC Public Accounts 2019 to 2020

TSCE #13(E): Gates, Trudeau Using Other People’s Money To Finance Genocide Globally

It’s bad enough that successive Governments waste the public’s money. It’s far worse when used to finance the genocide of babies, both domestically and abroad. Instead of being direct about this, it’s cloaked in misleading labels like “reproductive health”. Here are some specific cases.

Bill Gates believes there are too many people on the planet. It’s also the case that aborted fetal tissue, (from dead babies), is also used in manufacturing vaccines. If only there was a common solution to all of these problems.

See this article for more background information.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Gates Funds Planned Parenthood Groups

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
April 1998 PP Federation Of America $115,000
April 1998 PP of Western Washington $500,000
June 1998 PP Federation Of America $2,600,000
August 1998 International PP Federation $1,730,000
November 1998 International PP Federation $1,492,400
August 1999 PP Canada $569,000
April 1999 PP Federation Of America $5,000,000
August 1999 International PP Worldwide $2,845,268
November 1999 International PP Federation $1,492,400
June 2000 PP of Central Washington $75,000
October 2000 PP Federation of America $3,000,000
January 2001 International PP Worldwide $8,865,000
November 2002 International PP Worldwide $800,000
December 2002 International PP worldwide $800,000
September 2005 PP of Western Washington $1,000,000
November 2005 International PP Europe $3,024,011
June 2006 International PP Worldwide $10,000
December 2006 PP Of Western Wshington $200,000
July 2007 International PP Europe $7,023,160
July 2007 International PP Worldwide $14,990,698
September 2008 International PP Europe $23,000
November 2010 International PP Europe $7,298,377
October 2011 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2013 International PP Europe $6,973,371
November 2014 International PP Europe $431,947
August 2016 International PP Europe $11,021,872
July 2018 International PP Worldwide $490,000
September 2018 International PP Worldwide $99,000
October 2018 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2018 Shanghai Institute of PP Research $1,628,290
July 2019 International PP Worldwide $500,000
October 2019 International PP Europe $599,221
March 2020 International PP Worldwide $500,000

These dates and amounts are available directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. They’ve been at this for over 20 years now. And in case someone thinks that this doesn’t financially cost Canadians, we pay for groups like GAVI.

3. Canadian Taxpayers Funding Abortion Abroad

DATE ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
Oct. 1, 2014 MCPHAIL, Deborah $230,130
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Jul. 1, 2015 Loutfy, Mona R $1,586,064
Dec. 15, 2015 UN Population Fund $54,200,000
Jan. 20, 2016 Plan International Canada $59,406,343
Feb. 8, 2016 ADRA – Adventist $25,820,973
Mar. 8, 2016 World Vision Canada $46,185,312
Mar. 10, 2016 L’Oeuvre Léger $8,975,663
Mar. 15, 2016 Primate’s World Relief $19,683,960
Mar. 17, 2016 CARE Canada $22,217,442
Mar. 10, 2017 Ministry of Finance (Tanzania) $87,300,000
Mar. 30, 2017 University of Saskatchewan $16,986,886
May 1, 2017 Carew, Jenna N. $17,500
Jan. 29, 2018 CCISD $8,799,485
Feb. 26, 2018 CCISD-CHUM $20,850,786
Feb. 28, 2018 Pathfinder International $18,500,000
Mar. 2, 2018 UN Population Fund $25,000,000
Mar. 23, 2018 UN Population Fund $21,354,000
May 7, 2018 Action Against Hunger – Spain $2,000,000
Aug. 9, 2018 Oxfam Canada $17,959,000
Oct. 22, 2018 The George Small Project Foundation Inc $19,912
Mar. 1, 2019 Money, Deborah M $24,906
May 3, 2019 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 4, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $1,500,000
May 6, 2019 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
May 7, 2019 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
May 29, 2019 CARE Canada $2,500,000
May 30, 2019 International Rescue Committee $4,000,000
Jul. 3, 2019 Partners In Health Canada $11,149,825
Jul. 25, 2019 UN Population Fund $10,000,000
Sep. 9, 2019 UN Population $57,000,000
Sep. 30, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Oct. 30, 2019 CAUSE Canada $1,903,735
Dec. 3, 2019 Ghana Rural Integrated Development $1,331,880
Dec. 20, 2019 WHO – World Health Organization $2,000,000
Dec. 20, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Jan. 31, 2020 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights $10,887,328
Feb. 19, 2020 World Relief Canada $4,000,000
Feb. 24, 2020 CARE Canada $4,500,000
Feb. 25, 2020 World Vision Canada $2,000,000
Mar. 10, 2020 Doctors of the World Canada $4,500,000
Mar. 11, 2020 University of Calgary $3,449,579
Mar. 27, 2020 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
Mar. 27, 2020 CCISD $19,970,246
Mar. 28, 2020 Development and Peace $2,000,000
Mar. 20, 2020 CARE Canada $4,800,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Apr. 6, 2020 Université de Montréal $19,998,232
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Apr. 21, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,500,000
Apr. 23, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
Apr. 23, 2020 CARE Canada $1,250,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $2,600,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,500,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 18, 2020 Rise Up Feminist Digital Archive $24,990
Jul. 9, 2020 UN Development Programme $3,000,000
Sep. 4, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
Nov. 10, 2020 World Health Organization $2,236,000

While these groups do serve other purposes, they will often include terms like “sexual rights”, or “reproductive care”. These are euphemisms for abortion most times.

4. Conservative Cuckery On Abortion

This is the sad state of “conservatism” in Canada. There’s no moral or ideological objection to infanticide. Instead, they choose to virtual signal about how it’s wrong to do if it’s based on sex. Apparently being viewed as a misogynist is worse than being a murderer.

Males and females are to be treated equally, and apparently that applies to them being equally expendable.

5. Euthanasia, Medical Assistance In Dying

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
Jul. 20, 2017 Canadian Association for Community Living $399,895
Mar. 9, 2018 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
May 1, 2018 Moon, Christine $150,000
Oct. 1, 2018 Li, Madeline $818,550
Nov. 30, 2018 ADJEF, NB $14,000
Sep. 1, 2019 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
Sep. 2, 2019 ADJEF, NB $49,626

While we’re at it, let’s see what has been spent Federally on the topic of MAiD, or medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. 2 of the grants apparently cover mass euthanasia of cattle, and other farm animals.

Definitely some strange uses of taxpayer money.

Euthanasia #3: Bill C-7 To Expand Scope Of Assisted Suicide Beyond “Reasonably Foreseeable Death”

Bill C-7, the expanded version of the assisted suicide bill (or “euthanasia 2.0), is currently being discussed in the Canadian Parliament. It broadens the scope laid out in Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament. A Quebec Court ruled that Bill C-14’s requirement that a death be “reaso

1. Assisted Suicide (MAiD), Euthanasia

CLICK HERE, for #1: Court says referral or service must be provided.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia).

2. Important Links

Bill C-14 Introduced In Parliament (2016)
Bill C-14 Committee Hearings

Truchon V AG Of Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792 (CanLII)
Truchon V. AG, Quebec Superior Court Ruling
Bill C-7 Introduced Into Parliament (Feb 2020)
Bill C-7 Re-Introduced Into Parliament (Oct 2020)
Bill C-7 Committee Hearings

C-7 Canadian Bar Association
C-7 Canadian Conference Of Catholic Bishops
C-7 Coelho Ramona
C-7 Commission On End Of Life Care
C-7 DawsTanja
C-7 Jointly1
C-7 Living With Dignity
C-7 Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia
C-7 Protection Of Conscience Project
C-7 Wickenhesier Alizee

Bill C-7 Evidence November 3
Bill C-7 Evidence November 5

3. Quebec Court Says Changes Needed In MAiD

MEDICAL AID IN DYING
26. Only a patient who meets all of the following criteria may obtain medical aid in dying:
(1) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;
(3) be at the end of life;
(4) suffer from a serious and incurable illness;
(5) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and;
(6) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be relieved in a manner the patient deems tolerable.
.
The patient must request medical aid in dying themselves, in a free and informed manner, by means of the form prescribed by the Minister. The form must be dated and signed by the patient.
.
The form must be signed in the presence of and countersigned by a health or social services professional; if the professional is not the attending physician, the signed form is to be given by the professional to the attending physician.

28. A patient may, at any time and by any means, withdraw their request for
medical aid in dying.
.
A patient may also, at any time and by any means, request that the
administration of medical aid in dying be put off.

31. A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses are quest for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
.
If the physician who receives the request practises in a private health facility and does not provide medical aid in dying, the physician must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the local authority referred to in section 99.4 of the Act respecting health services and social services (chapter S-4.2) that serves the territory in which the patient making the request resides, or notify the person designated by the executive director. The physician forwards the request form received, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person and the steps mentioned in the first paragraph must be taken.
.
If no local authority serves the territory in which the patient resides, the notice referred to in the second paragraph is forwarded to the executive director of the institution operating a local community service centre in the territory or the person designated by the executive director.

In this case, the Applicant, Jean Truchon, had suffered from spastic cerebral palsy with triparesis since birth. In March 2012, he was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) as well as myelomalacia (spinal cord necrosis). This is a degenerative condition for which no surgical or pharmacological treatment exists that caused the gradual paralysis of his only working limb. As a result, in 2012, Mr. Truchon permanently lost the use of his left arm and became fully paralyzed, with no hope of improvement. This new condition was accompanied by significant physical pain in the arms and neck, with intense burning sensations and painful spasms.

While clearly not about to die soon, he seems fully aware of his condition, which has no reasonable prospect of improving. So can he request medically assisted suicide on this basis?

The Quebec Court said there is no reason to deny it.

[375] First, the Court is astounded by the fact that the experts for the Attorney General of Canada had not even a basic knowledge of the practice of medical assistance in dying in Canada, which has nonetheless been legal throughout the country since 2016. None of them has participated in the request process for medical assistance in dying, either by assessing a patient or by providing such medical assistance. None of them has done any research on the subject or even tried to consult the data available in Canada.

[376] Therefore, when they all state that there is no difference between suicide and medical assistance in dying, they are considering and presenting only one side of the story, one part of the equation. They compare the two issues without ever having analyzed, learned, or addressed the specifics of medical assistance in dying, its parameters, its eligibility criteria, or how it is practised in Canada.

As an aside, the Government presented “experts” who had no experience of knowledge whatsoever in medical assistance in dying. Either they couldn’t find better experts, or didn’t even try.

4. Bill C-7 Re-Introduced In Parliament

A point of clarification: Bill C-7 was actually introduced in February 2020, and only got as far as first reading. It died when Parliament was prorogued. It has been re-introduced (again, as Bill C-7), in the latest session.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to responding to the Superior Court of Québec decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada;
.
Whereas Parliament considers that it is appropriate to no longer limit eligibility for medical assistance in dying to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and to provide additional safeguards for those persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable;
.
Whereas under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every individual has the right to life, liberty and security of the person without being deprived of them except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;
.
Whereas Canada is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recognizes its obligations under it, including in respect of the right to life;
.
Whereas Parliament affirms the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of taking a human rights-based approach to disability inclusion;
.
Whereas Parliament recognizes the need to balance several interests and societal values, including the autonomy of persons who are eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, the protection of vulnerable persons from being induced to end their lives and the important public health issue that suicide represents;
.
Whereas it is desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada, while recognizing the provinces’ jurisdiction over various matters related to medical assistance in dying, including the delivery of health care services and the regulation of health care professionals, as well as insurance contracts and coroners and medical examiners;
.
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to having a federal monitoring regime that provides a reliable national dataset and that promotes accountability under the law governing medical assistance in dying and improve the transparency of its implementation;
.
Whereas, while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of resistance to or refusal of the procedure;
.
Whereas further consultation and deliberation are required to determine whether it is appropriate and, if so, how to provide medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness in light of the inherent risks and complexity of the provision of medical assistance in dying in those circumstances;
.
And whereas the law provides that a committee of Parliament will begin a review of the legislative provisions relating to medical assistance in dying and the state of palliative care in Canada in June 2020, which review may include issues of advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

One of the main takeaways in Bill C-7 is that is removes a requirement from Bill C-14 that a person receiving medical assistance in dying have a death that is “reasonably foreseeable”. Now, a person can get a doctor or nurse to help with euthanasia for a wide array of reasons.

A worthwhile note: it includes language which prevents assisted suicide if the only reason for doing so is a mental illness.

5. Clips From Bill C-7 Parliamentary Hearings

The hearings, of course, last much longer, but those are a few clips of it. An interesting claim (from Roger Foley), about the father of the Judge in the Truchon ruling gave evidence in the case. If true, a huge conflict of interest.

It’s rather strange to see Iqra Khalid, who presented M-103 (the Islamic blasphemy Motion), heading up the hearings on medically assisted suicide. Curious to know what her views are.

6. Roger Foley, Assisted Life Website

My name is Roger Foley. I am the patient who has been in Victoria Hospital for over 4-years being pressured into assisted dying by the hospital and Government while they prevent my access to care options I need to live 1, 2. I have important public interest updates.

The Hospital is currently billing me $1800 dollars per day and continuing to coerce me to Assisted Dying during the Covid-19 pandemic when they threatened me with that and offered me Assisted Dying. Instead of protecting the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, the Hospital and Government are taking advantage, by further exploiting and abusing persons who are vulnerable before and during Covid-19 and not protecting their lives across the Country. So many persons are dying unnecessary deaths, when robust self-directed home care would make all Canadians safer in their own homes.

The Government cannot be trusted and they admitted rather than preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic, they were selling their exploitation and abuse of vulnerable Canadians to Assisted Dying rather than calling China to learn about the threat, ordering ventilators, protecting those in Long-Term Care facilities and Group Homes, and ordering Personal Protecting Equipment for Health Care workers to make sure frontline Health Care workers were safe. They also during the Pandemic in March, when thousands of people were dying, released their bias propaganda assisted dying expansion survey to continue to abuse, exploit and end the lives of vulnerable disabled and elderly Canadians. I am continuing to be attacked through my care, being denied basic necessities of life, and being denied proper and dignified health care. I am very scared, and the Government and the Health Care systems want to end my life rather than help me to live with dignity and compassion.

Assisted Life is documenting and chronicling the problems and conflicts of interests in proceedings. This is too long to cover in a single article, but it’s worth a good read.

7. Protection Of Conscience Project

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
.
I.1 The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The Project supports legislation that ensures that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.

One of the valid topics that needs to be discussed is the conscience rights of health care professionals who believe that participating in assisted suicide (or legalized murder) is wrong, and goes against their oath.

8. Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia

To the Committee,
The danger of universal euthanasia access is similar to the passive, everpresent danger of drowning. A few people will die voluntarily by jumping in the water. But others will simply stumble. And yet others may be pushed.
.
Similarly, while some people will truly die by choice, others may “choose” euthanasia on a whim born of passing despair. But worse still: all people eligible for euthanasia become automatically vulnerable to pressure from others who cannot bear to see them suffer, are exhausted by their care, or will in some way benefit from their death, be they health professionals, caregivers or heirs.

Clearly, the most egregious harm of Bill C-7 lies in the extension of euthanasia to those who are not dying. The Carter decision specified that any legalization of euthanasia must include effective safeguards, of which the reasonably foreseeable death criterion was one.

In addition, Bill C-7 only requires that patients be informed of real alternatives to death in order to relieve suffering. That is clearly insufficient, given the scarcity of medical, psychological, and social resources for the many groups of people who might contemplate death as a solution to their troubles. It is essential that such alternatives be actually available to all patients considering euthanasia.

“Bill C-7 does not just expand MAiD; it fundamentally redefines it. No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life – but only the life of someone with an illness or disability (italics added).
.
Bill C-7 (therefore) undermines our constitutional commitment to the equal and inherent value of all lives”

Other issues mysteriously bundled in Bill C-7
.
Whereas the end-of-life provision is of greatest importance, certain other elements of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the requirements of Truchon/Gladu and their effects go far beyond compliance with that judgment. Two of these involve weakening euthanasia safeguards in cases where natural death is reasonably foreseeable: It is proposed that the existing ten-day waiting period be eliminated for all patients; and that the number of witnesses to the request be lowered from two to only one (who may also be a health care professional involved in the patient’s care).

The Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia raises a number of valid points about Bill C-14, including:
(a) people may choose death in a moment of despair
(b) death may be promoted be interested parties
(c) Bill C-7 redefines MAiD, not just expands it
(d) eliminating the 10 day waiting period
(e) reducing the 2 witness threshold to 1

9. Was Bill C-14 Just A Gateway?

This is a fair question to ask: was Bill C-14 just a stepping stone to more widespread euthanasia. By allowing medically assisted suicide for terminally ill people, Parliament unwittingly, (or perhaps wittingly), set a precedent to broader implementation. How do we determine that the right person — the one whose life would end — is actually making the decision, and in a fully informed way?

While the prospect of relatives hastening death in anticipation of an inheritance seems like a movie script, it is a realistic possibility. Greed makes some people do horrible things.

Standards also have to be set to ensure the person has fully thought out the consequences, and is not just suffering from a bad day (or series or days).

It’s also been mentioned by Roger Foley, and AssistedLife.ca, that these court decisions have been influenced by conflicts of interest. The research done is quite impressive. That will be addressed separately.

Of course, there are a lot of legitimate concerns and questions (such as being used to outright murder) that will likely never be fully addressed.

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Canada’s Bill C-14, Assisted Suicide

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html
(2) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii75/1993canlii75.html
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-53.html#h-119931
(6) http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-assent#EH3

C-14 British Columbia Humanist Association
C-14 Christian Legal Fellowship
C-14 Communication Disabilities Access Canada
C-14 Dying with Dignity Canada Nova Scotia Chapter
C-14 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
C-14 Justice For Children And Youth
C-14 Life Canada
C-14 Protection Of Conscience Project
C-14 Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity
C-14 Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association Inc
C-14 St. Catharines Right To Life Association</a

2. Law Against Assisted Suicide

Suicide
Marginal note:
Counselling or aiding suicide
241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.

Now there is more to be considered. See section 6.

3. Canadian Charter, Section 7

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Marginal note:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The 2015 decision ruled that the blanket ban violated the Section 7 Charter rights, and that there was no “saving” of it under Section 1.

4. SCC Orders Parliament To Fix Law

XIII. Conclusion
[147] The appeal is allowed. We would issue the following declaration, which is suspended for 12 months:
Section 241 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition against assisted suicide violated Section 7 of the Charter, which addresses security of the person.

The ruling is very long, and addressed the issue from a number of legal questions. It also addressed whether the Lower Courts should be bound by a 1993 ruling on much the same issues. It’s too lengthy to go through in an article, but is worth a read.

5. Bill C-14, Assisted Dying

SUMMARY
.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government was ordered to remedy the situation. Bill C-14 was introduced in 2016 to set out the guidelines for medically assisted death.

6. Medical Assistance Exemption

Eligibility for medical assistance in dying
241.2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Grievous and irremediable medical condition
(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

To be fair, there are considerable safeguards written into the law to ensure that the person suffering is actually the one making the decision, and that it is voluntary and informed.

7. Where Does It Go From Here?

Currently, the law applies only to adults. But what happens when children decide that they want to make decisions over their own “health care”? Will minors be allowed to get it themselves? This is currently being considered.

The law allows for assisted suicide in the case of serious conditions which cause pain and is irreversible, and to get worse. How much will that get watered down over time? Perhaps this is just a foot-in-the-door technique to be able to end lives over more minor things.

What will happen to medical staff who refuse to participate in this? Will they become subject to sanctions for discrimination, or failing to fulfill a duty?

In fairness to Trudeau (it feels weird defending him), introducing this, or similar legislation, was forced by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Some bill had to be introduced at some point, so he doesn’t own this one.

Personally, this is conflicting. People should have control over their own lives, yes, but trending down a slope where lives are valued less and less is very troubling. How we treat and care for people reflects the society we live in, and this is the wrong direction to head in.

%d bloggers like this: