“Freedom to Do, to Be and to Become: Enhancing Individuals’ Opportunities to Believe and Live as They Choose Within the Framework of the Law” – 2025 Regional Conference (LDS) in Auckland
A “repudiation” of the principle of life is how Prof em. Gabriel A. Moens described “Voluntary Assisted Dying” (VAD) as it has been adopted across Australia.
The Belgian born professor emeritus of Law explained that VAD was introduced and adopted as a means to help terminally ill patients who asked for their suffering to be ended. However, the pendulum is now going the other way, Prof Moens stated. VAD is eroding the sanctity of life.
Groups like those who are mentally ill, disabled, dementia patients, and even young children are now affected. How have Liberal Democracies become so enticed to allow children of the age of 9 to ask for VAD?
In Canada, the MAID Programme is for anyone who asks for it – not only for those who are terminally ill. It is a slippery slope. There is a value change to a certain “Quality of Life”.
“Voluntary Assisted Dying” is a symptom of the nihilism in societies. It is an erosion of standards and promotes a culture of death rather than a culture of life.
Pope John Paul II pointed out that this new culture of death is also an erosion of religion. O’Neill called it a “moral disarmament of the West”.
What is the role of the Government and private institutions? Are we in a culture war?
Who would be interested in a sports game if you knew the result at the beginning? What makes it exciting is the game itself. In a similar way, what makes life exciting is its unpredictability.
The “right to die” is incompatible with the freedom of religion and the sanctity of life.
The body is then reduced to pure materiality.
Is VAD really a freedom of choice or is it rather the weak against the strong.
Xanthippe
ricardohuman
Thank you for the interesting article on the Conference where Professor Moen spoke.
I would like to make some additional points –
The expression ‘a right to die’ that is quoted here is also nonsensical. It is a distortion of language. It’s like demanding the right to be affected by gravity! Eventually it’s going to happen to each of us anyway, And we don’t have to be kept alive against our will – we have had for a very long time the legal right to decline treatment even if declining treatment results in our death. That’s not euthanasia. When people use the phrase ‘the right to die’ they really mean the right to be killed or to get someone to help them kill themselves.
As far as terminal patients ‘wanting their suffering ended’ goes, I have been advised by competent medical professionals that, at least in NZ and Australia, there is no need for patients to suffer, as medical science can ease suffering without having to kill people.,