MAID in Canada

The Lindsay Clancy case laid bare, at least in my opinion, one of the major threads holding together the so-called "progressive" movement - specifically the urge to kill those seen as "useless eaters." In reality, of course, every sane person knows that killing children in general and your own in particular is irredeemably insane - with responsibility for what happened at the trial thus belonging to the Massachusetts legislators who thought juries would reliably distinguish real insanity from legal insanity.

Ironically, Lindsay Clancy herself is probably not "curable" in the sense that competent physiatric care can, combined with drugs and supervision, give her the ability to live a nearly normal life again where the legally insane are generally susceptible to treatment and maintenance - meaning that ill-considered legislation forced a trial in which nearly everyone involved did the opposite of what should have been intended.

One of those backwards things is illustrated by the "NAZI" chants and accusations hurled at the prosecution and the lone holdout on the jury by Clancy supporters in the media and outside the courthouse. In reality, defending children is sane and characteristically conservative; killing them insane, progressive, and a hallmark of NAZIism in all its forms.

Margret Sanger's passion for aborting black babies was a result of her commitment to eugenics - the idea that you can breed better humans from my DNA, but not from yours - so when Governor Maura Healey signed a bill authorizing abortion up to the moment of live birth (thus incentivizing "doctors" to kill babies on crowning) she was implementing one of Hitler's (and Margret's) favorite policies: facilitating the killing off of the useless eaters even while her loudest supporters denounce conservatives as NAZIs.

In looking at the mess from afar what I see is a further step down a slippery slope leading directly to the holocaust, the holodomer, pol pot, rwanda, and the great leap forward.

In Canada (and around the western world) progressives of various stripes and levels of lunacy are already openly advocating for state sponsored murder of inconvenient children. A November, 2025, article on the "Children's Health Defense Canada" website entitled "Canada's Euthanasia Crisis: From Treatable Patients to Children" offers a very direct summary of conditions then:

Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program - legalized less than a decade ago - has spiraled into one of the most aggressive and permissive euthanasia regimes in the world. What began as a "rare and exceptional" option for the terminally ill has rapidly transformed into a system that increasingly targets the vulnerable: the disabled, the poor, the mentally ill - and now, shockingly, children.

...

The next target, advocates say, is children. Groups like Dying With Dignity Canada are lobbying to extend MAiD to minors. Proposals include eligibility for children as young as 12, parental consent for those 15 and under, and the possibility of euthanizing 16- and 17-year-olds without parental consent if deemed "mature minors." In 2023, a federal committee set a dangerous precedent by declaring that eligibility for MAiD should not be denied on the basis of age alone, opening the door for further expansion.

Experts warn that this is exactly the slippery slope opponents feared. Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist and ethicist, says once a society accepts the premise that some lives are not worth living, it becomes almost impossible to set limits. Suffering can always be invoked, autonomy can always be interpreted broadly, and vulnerability can be exploited. What once seemed like a fringe idea - euthanasia for minors - is now part of mainstream debate in Canada.

The crisis does not end with children. MAiD is scheduled to expand in 2027 to include individuals whose only condition is mental illness. Doctors and researchers report that this is already happening, with patients euthanized solely for autism, ADHD, depression, anxiety, trauma, or gender dysphoria - none of which are terminal conditions. Combine this with the push for "mature minors," and Canada could soon legally euthanize depressed or anxious teenagers who are struggling with treatable or temporary conditions.

Less than a year later duckduckgo can find dozens of articles advocating expansion of the supposed right to death to dependents with headline summaries like:

Canadian Doctors Promote Plan to Euthanize Newborn Babies - LifeNews.com

31 Aug 2026A Quebec physicians' group is again promoting euthanasia for newborn babies, saying euthanasia can be an "appropriate treatment" for infants with severe disabilities or malformations even though Canadian law still forbids the practice and a baby cannot consent.

Like Margaret Sanger the NAZIs were eugenicists who wanted to rid society of those whom they considered inferior to themselves - the useless eaters. A long and carefully documented essay by Mark Mostert lays out the history of what happened in Germany between the early, and somewhat tentative, discussions on the application of eugenics in the population during early 1920s to the organized mass murder of children and other "useless eaters" in the late 1930s. Here's the recent, and politically corrected, summary by, I assume, an editor:

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 continually be drawn from these sad events as we work with people with disabilities at the dawn of a new century.

The actual essay is quite long and worth reading carefully in its entirety - but here's a bit that stands out because I believe that in Canada today the father would face no process of punishment if he were not a straight white male and the Knauer child's death by MAID wouldn't be either reported or questioned:

The threshold for beginning official killing of people with disabilities was reached in 1937 and 1938, when publicly reported cases of "mercy" killing galvanized the population. Two cases are most often cited. The first, an act of individual commission, involved the murder of a German male with emotional and behavioral disorders by his father. The second, the case of the Knauer child, signified a critical shift from individual citizens' responsibility for and commission of "mercy killing" to that of the state. These two cases heralded a significant shift from voluntary requests by the suffering individual for "merciful" death to decisions to kill made by others based only on the disability of the victim.

In 1937, the Frankfurter Zeitung reported the case of a farmer who shot his adolescent son to death as the boy slept. Charged with murder and facing the death penalty if convicted, the father justified his actions by suggesting that his son's emotional disabilities made the boy "mentally ill in a manner that threatened society" (Proctor, 1988, p. 12). At trial, in addition to the harm-to-others defense, the father's attorneys and Nazi Party officials argued forcefully that the son had been an unnecessarily heavy financial burden on the family. The father was sentenced to only 3 years in prison, of which he served 1.

The Knauer child was a frail child with several severe disabilities. While the case has become quite mythologized, it seems that she was blind, without one leg and part of an arm, severely mentally retarded, and suffered from chronic convulsions (Friedlander, 1995; Lifton, 1986; Proctor, 1988). Her father petitioned the Nazi authorities to grant her a "merciful death" but received no official response. Subsequent to this request, in the winter of 1938-1939, the Knauer child was admitted to the University of Leipzig's pediatric clinic after attending physicians discussed her plight with her persistent father. Aside from the child's obvious physical and intellectual disabilities, the father asserted that the child, by remaining at home, was causing his wife significant psychological and emotional stress. He requested that the physicians proceed by "putting it to sleep." Initially, the doctors refused, reminding the father that such action was against the law. Undaunted, the father, encouraged by the child's grandmother, petitioned Hitler directly to sanction the child's death (Gallagher, 1990). Arguably, the persistence of this one man became the catalyst for official genocide.