Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Toronto Children’s Hospital Set to Begin Assisted Suicide for Children. It Gets Worse.

Published

on

Once you open the floodgate of morally acceptable euthanasia, there’s no telling what kind of rapid moral decay will flow out.

In a world that increasingly views the lives of the unborn, terminally ill, and disabled as less valuable and worth living, it’s impossible to adequately distinguish between when it is and is not appropriate to end a human life.

So don’t be surprised when you hear that a Canadian children’s hospital is taking steps to begin euthanizing terminally-ill children.

Trending: Clandestine Cabal Seeks to Hide Info in Jeffrey Epstein Case

Potentially without parental consent.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Christian Post reports:

Doctors from a Toronto children’s hospital recently published policies on physician-assisted suicide for children, revealing that in some cases, parents won’t be notified until after the child has died.

“Usually, the family is intimately involved in this (end-of-life) decision-making process. If, however, a capable patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although health care providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected,” said pediatric doctors at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, administrators and ethicists in a Sept. 21 paper published in the British Medical Journal’s J Medical Ethics.

“The article appears just three months before the Canadian Council of Academies is due to report to Parliament on the medical consensus about extending voluntary euthanasia in circumstances currently forbidden by law,” Crux reported. “The Canadian Council of Academies is specifically looking at extending so-called assisted dying to patients under 18 …”

As The Catholic Register explains, the proposed policies  “argue that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between a patient choosing to refuse burdensome treatment and accepting an inevitable death versus patients who choose to die by chemical injection before the disease brings on death.”

The province of Ontario Ontario does not require parents participate in a “capable” minor’s decision to refuse further treatment, and therefore, “there is no legal reason to require parent involvement in an assisted death,” the Register explained.

This is, of course, not only complete and total moral insanity, it’s loaded with highly troubling implications. How do you qualify what a “capable” minor is? How young of a minor can make this decision without parental involvement? If parents are not required to be involved, what’s to stop a doctor from encouraging a child from doing so? From the larger interests of hospital bureaucracy to take at least a small part in which children may be encouraged to end their own lives?

The biggest question, of course, is the most painful: when did we get to the point in Western society where we are allowing children to choose to end their own lives? 

Pray for Toronto, and pray for our nation. Human life seems to have so little value these days.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Internet Giant’s Election Meddling Exposed by New Research

This is the sort of power that we wouldn’t grant to even the most benevolent or pragmatic person, so why has America allowed a corporation such gravity?

Published

on

Google

While the left decried the possibility of Russian “election meddling” until they were blue in the face back in 2016, their friends over at Google were taking lessons. You see, the internet itself exists parallel to our “real world” in many ways.  We use this channel of information often for convenience, paying bills and ordering goods and services through the click of a mouse or the tap of a finger.  Data is stored, packed, sent, received, and acted upon just as though we had committed these acts in the real world, leading many to tout the internet as some sort fo “new reality”. This is dangerous thinking, folks, given that the internet itself is a privately controlled space.  Enormous tech companies such as Google and Facebook are the de facto kings of the world wide web, steering more traffic between them than outside of their purview.  This has granted companies such as these an extraordinarily precarious grip on public knowledge and what was once the freedom of information. Just how monopolistic are these private companies?  A new research study shows that Google actually influenced the American 2018 midterms, flipping congressional districts. New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country. The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge. The research follows a previous study conducted…

Continue Reading

News

Ocasio-Cortez Continues Radical Leftist Lurch with Gun-Grab Propaganda

An armed American public is certainly capable of “killing people”, as AOC tweeted, but if those people are a hostile, authoritarian force, her proposal would sentence the American people to death…or worse.

Published

on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

There is little doubt that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing the democratic party hard to the left. The 28 year old bartender-turned-Congresswoman has been a left-leaning fireball of vitriol from the moment that she stepped onto the national political scene, often gaslighting herself by playing up her radical nature on social media in order to combat the “trolls” that she so often demeans. With 2020 on the horizon, and one of the leading contenders for the democratic nomination already having admitted to eating “regenerative”, magical dirt, the sort of insanity that AOC injects into Washington DC may seem par for the course. The reality is, however, that it is dangerous. With Ocasio-Cortez capturing the imaginations of young democrats everywhere, 2020 candidates will likely need to appease her own fringe base in order to gather the necessary votes to make an impact on the race.  And that means, unfortunately, that the young Congresswoman’s anti-constitutional stance on firearms could go mainstream. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggests Congress should ban “semiautos, & high cap mags.” She also called for a ban on bump stocks, which the Department of Justice banned in December 2018. AOC was reacting to a bizarre incident at an Indiana school where teachers were shot by police with air pistols during an active shooter drill. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108908752865054720 AOC’s call to ban “semiautos” is particularly disturbing, considering that a vast majority of all weapons in America are semi-automatic, meaning that one pull of the trigger will send one round through the barrel. Furthermore, the insinuation that guns could be used to “kill people” isn’t new and horrific, despite how bluntly AOC included the phrase in her tweet. We must remember that the Second Amendment, and the firearms that it protects, are the nation’s insurance policy against tyranny from both foreign and domestic sources.  Disarming the American people, even…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend