In a matter of three days, MaltaToday published another article written by Humanists Malta in order to push the assisted suicide agenda, the next on the list. This article is the third in a series. Prepare yourselves for more of this propaganda.
A reminder that this is another agenda on the population control by the United Nations.
A reminder that euthanasia is what the Economist magazine called ‘Britain’s next great social reform’.
Of all reforms that nations need to be liberated, allowing people to kill themselves has been put at the top of the priorities. Instead of offering assisted living to humanity, we offer assisted killing.
Humanists Malta confirms to you that euthanasia will be introduced in Malta: “it is increasingly acknowledged that assisted dying must be addressed. In November 2022 Prime Minister Robert Abela said the government will take a decision on the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia by 2027, the end of the current legislature. In March 2024 Health Minister Joe Etienne Abela said he supports ‘doctor-assisted dying’ for the terminally ill, in extreme pain, where palliative care is unsuccessful.” Our politicians are chosen by their moral frailties, blackmail-ability and willingness to advance the elite’s agendas.
Then it tries to strengthen its point by referring to the usual ‘expert’ of someone who was against euthanasia but now had a change of mind. They refer to bioethics expert Professor Pierre Mallia who calculated that there is an apparent 20% of patients whose situation cannot be tackled by proper medical, palliative, and community care.
What’s the solution for a minority of 20%? Assisted suicide.
In comes the argument against those who are against assisted suicide, which Humanists Malta has put under the umbrella of ‘strong religious beliefs’ and Catholics:
“We are aware that in this debate our position will not be welcomed by those with strong religious beliefs who might have a different view on assisted dying, which we respect. Our point is that, even in a country with a constitutional commitment to the Roman Catholic church, not everyone, whether or not nominally Catholic, shares such convictions. Patients with different worldviews – who believe their lives are their own, not belonging to any higher power – should not be bound by the opinions of others.”
Firstly, having a relationship with God has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The true God does not have a religion but a relationship. I had to lose my religion to find God. Secondly, this has nothing to do with whether you are a Catholic or not. This has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not. This has nothing to do with whether you have ‘strong religious beliefs’ against ‘weak religious beliefs’ as is implied by Humanists Malta. [Doesn’t their implication mean that those who are in favour of euthanasia are weak with a weak connection with God?] This is common sense: you cannot decide to take away your own life and it is what voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are – it is deciding to kill yourself with the assistance of a medical team. But under divine law, which clearly Humanists Malta do not respect, killing is not permitted, and this includes killing one’s life. Everybody, irrespective of creed and race knows that humanity is sacred. So if humanity is sacred, then the life of a human is sacred. So why is the life of humanity is being desacralized?
But Humanists Malta has already charged against Catholics and Christians, the group which must always be targeted it seems.
Here comes the contradiction: “But, of course, we also respect the religious views of healthcare professionals, and would never support the imposition of duties on them which go against their beliefs.”
The double standards of Humanists Malta in plain sight. They are fine with having voluntary euthanasia legalized irrespective of the nation’s religious beliefs, but then they won’t dare impose a healthcare professional to assist a person to die because of the professional’s religious beliefs. With such a contradiction, aren’t they admitting that voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide go against life itself? And one more thing: should voluntary euthanasia be legalised in Malta, how can the views of these clinicians who are opposed to this practice be respected in cases involving organ donation?
Considering that doctors who commit euthanasia require legal protection and freedom from prosecution, doesn’t it mean that it’s murder? Irrespective of who is consenting, it is murder. Making it legal still makes it a murder. The law is becoming a god. The State has become a god.
How can patients trust their doctor to provide their best treatment when euthanasia is considered a ‘valid’ option?
Once we allow doctors to kill their patients, will we be able to limit the killing to those who want to die, an argument known as ‘the slippery slope’?
Once euthanasia is legalised in Malta, it would mean more consequences for the entire Maltese society, because allowing people to terminate their lives has more severe implications than the way it is being sold to you by this euthanasia society. Humanists Malta is pushing its beliefs onto you: that euthanasia is about finalizing your story with dignity. There is no dignity in death. There is no honour in death. Only life has dignity and honour.
Euthanasia goes against life itself. We should be lovers of life, not death. We should be a LIFE nation, not a DEATH nation.
“Euthanasia is a long, smooth-sounding word, and it conceals its danger as long, smooth words do, but the danger is there, nevertheless.” – Pearl S. Buck.