TORONTO – If you are hospitalized in Toronto, where this writer once lived, calling for the MAID means something entirely different that summoning a woman with a mop and a bucket. MAID is the new euphemism for euthanasia. It stands for “Medical Assistance in Dying.”

A working group at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children published a policy paper last month advocating the extension of the MAID program for “capable minors” and recommends that it be available as a right of the individual or, in this case, the individual child.

As an individual human right, neither the child nor the doctor would require permission from the child’s parents. Nor would the doctors be obligated to tell the parents immediately after the fact.

The complications and implications springing out of this recommendation are almost beyond comprehension.

Imagine being the parent who is making her regular visit to be with her sick child only to discover the hospital bed is empty or occupied by someone else because the child had told the doctors that she wanted to die.

The abstract of the report says, in part,

While MAID is currently available to capable patients in Canada who are 18 years or older—a small but important subsection of the population our hospital serves—we write our policy with an eye to the near future when capable young people may gain access to MAID. We propose that an opportunity exists for MAID-providing institutions to reduce social stigma surrounding this practice . . . this paper is intended as a roadmap through the still-emerging legal and ethical landscape of pediatric MAID.

The paper indicates that doctors are ready to euthanize children and that their policy is that a child should be able to die by euthanasia without the consent or knowledge of their parents.

A report by Sun Media revealed that “the working groups said it wasn’t convinced that there is no meaningful difference between assisting in killing a patient and the patient refusing life-sustaining interventions (DNR).

There is no meaningful ethical or practical distinction from the patient’s perspective between assisted dying and other procedures that result in the end of a life, such as palliative sedation (where people sleep until they die) or withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments.

Bob Livingston, founder of Personal Liberty notes that “we have fallen into the dishonoring and demeaning state of moral or value relativism. We no longer know right from wrong . . . We are not-so-subtly being taught that sacrificing our children is honorable, desirable, and even glorious and a service to our fellow man as long as it’s carried out under the benevolence of the medical system or on the behalf of the state.”

The precedent that the approval of this proposal would set is not only inhumane; it is vile and ungodly. It is another step toward the sacrificing lives for the “greater good” and sets hospital patients up to eventually not having a choice themselves – when doctors, counselors, or ethicists decide that it is no longer in the best interest of the hospital, the government, or the community to preserve the lives of sick and debilitated people of any age.

This policy paper from the Hospital for Sick Children reveals the depths of immorality and ungodliness to which Satan hopes to darken the minds of people by calling evil as if it were good and good as it were evil.