February 6th 2015 will stand out in shame in the history of Canadian law. Nine Justices of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of striking the ban on doctor-assisted suicide. Twenty-one years ago, they upheld it. Neither life, nor death nor the responsibilities of doctors have changed since then, but according to our Supreme Court, society has — to the point where what was wrong then is right now.

The consolation offered to those of us who still believe that purposely ending innocent human life is morally wrong is a frail one: “There are safeguards!”, we are told. Yes there are ‘safeguards’, pacifiers meant only to silence the uneasy while society adjusts to the new reality.

These safeguards are only temporary measures and will certainly be challenged in the courts. What will keep the courts from saying that society has changed once more and from modifying these ‘safeguards’ again and again and again?

The reason that we can be quite sure that we are on a slippery slope is that we can see the example of other countries — the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, which have removed restrictions and allowed exemptions until their ‘safeguards’ have become meaningless. Belgium now allows euthanasia for children. In Belgium, you might be told how much your organs could do for someone else if you chose to end your life right now.

For those who think that medical ethics are only a game with ever-changing rules or that human life only has value when a person is making a financial contribution to the economy, this ruling makes sense. For those who believe in the intrinsic value of human life and in moral absolutes, this ruling is a massive blow.

Unless Parliament can be rallied to challenge this decision, doctors will now have the responsibility not only to prescribe life-preserving but also life-ending treatment. But don’t worry; those doctors who object on ethical grounds will not be forced to participate… for now.

Of course, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario College of Physicians are already drafting requirements that doctors must override their own moral convictions to ensure that uniformity of results should be obtained. If the value of human life can be tossed out after twenty-one years, what possible value will the courts place on the human conscience?

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition who has been a stalwart leader in this fight to defend human life wrote today:

“The Supreme Court of Canada has made a completely irresponsible decision by approving euthanasia and assisted suicide for physical and psychological suffering under subjective circumstances.”

For more information, visit Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. In the days ahead, join the effort to reverse this terrible decision. Canadians must not sit idly by while nine unelected judges remove the last restrictions against the taking of innocent human life.

To register your disapproval of the Supreme Court’s unjustifiable rewriting of yet another law, visit LifeSite News and sign this petition calling on Parliament to use the Notwithstanding Clause to block this tragic decision which could affect so many lives and alter Canadian society forever.

The Christian Heritage Party believes in the sanctity and value of human life. We affirm that human life exists and is sacred from conception and has God-given value, regardless of race, age, gender, or physical or mental handicap. We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible. No person, institution, or government should tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide.

Comment on this CHP Speaks Out