Letting The Poor “Choose” Their Final Solution

by Travis Mateer

Getting the poor to expedite their death is something Canada is currently trying out. No, I’m not being hyperbolic. From the link:

After pleading unsuccessfully for affordable housing to help ease her chronic health condition, a Canadian woman ended her life in February under the country’s assisted-suicide laws. Another woman, suffering from the same condition and also living on disability payments, has nearly reached final approval to end her life.

The two high-profile cases have prompted disbelief and outrage, and shone a light on Canada’s right-to-die laws, which critics argue are being misused to punish the poor and infirm. In late April, the Spectator ran a story with the provocative headline: Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

Yes, you are reading this correctly. Very different from the euthanizing that sometimes happens in Missoula, where you can be yanked from life support without your family being notified.

Another guy who thought dying sounded better than losing his housing seems to have received some go-fund-me support. Isn’t that nice?

What’s MAID? It stands for Medical Assistance in Death. And maybe it’s just Canada trying to help out people like the dude above so he doesn’t have to die outside churches, like a woman recently in Great Falls.

I heard about this unnecessary death via a tweet from the Montana Human Rights Network highlighting some outrage over the insensitive Sheriff, Jesse Slaughter, and a radio show appearance he made. I’m trying to figure out what the Sheriff said that was so terrible, but this might be the extent of it:

In the interview, Slaughter blamed Rev. Dawn Skerritt and the First United Methodist Church for Dianna’s death, saying, “People are paying for it with their lives.”  He was referring to the outreach at the church even though his own report made clear that Dianna’s death, while tragic, was the result of natural causes related to chronic alcoholism.  

Sheriff Slaughter spoke in a demeaning way about Rev. Dawn Skerritt several times, but more than that, he belittled her title, authority, and education.  Referring to Rev. Skerritt as “preacher or whatever,” Sheriff Slaughter with his words undermined seven years of post-secondary education, an arduous process to serve in the capacity of minister within the United Methodist Church, and the many years of service she has dedicated to the church.

This is an irresponsible, reprehensible use of the platform he has been given. Whether the words were spoken in outright malice, carelessness, or dangerous ignorance, Sheriff Slaughter’s comments are baseless and unbecoming of a public official.

Speaking of platforms, two Missoula city councilors continue using theirs in ways I both admire and support, despite ideological differences. This was on full display last night with the discussion on whether or not to OK GAMING at a new restaurant and bar on Mullan Street.

Don’t worry, even though this restaurant is near the illegal Reserve Street homeless camp that’s being illegally reestablished as I speak, that is NOT the clientele head architect, Jeff Crouch, envisions for this jazzy joint selling booze, food, and chances to lose money at gambling machines. Would a guy who tried to pitch a convention center to Missoula want dirty poor people anywhere near his nice buildings? I don’t think so.

Tell me, in the following quote, who you think has VISION and who is just a mindless slave to the only thing that ever really matters in this town city and ANY city: money. From the Gomer link:

Most members of the City Council agreed and welcomed the project, even if it included a casino.

“If an entrepreneurial business wants to be a full-beverage restaurant, they’re paying for a gaming license whether they want that or not,” said council member Mike Nugent. “At $1 million, the reality is they have to include some level of gaming to even pay the cost against that license.”

…

The main floor will include the restaurant and tavern, with the casino set aside in a separate area. It will also include a smaller bar on the second floor and a small shop on the main floor.

But it was the inclusion of the casino that prompted council members Kristen Jordan and Daniel Carlino to vote against the permit. Carlino suggested it wasn’t “ethical” to pay off a business loan with gaming revenue.

Jordan and Carlino also suggested that gambling led to addiction and poverty.

“Living in close proximity to casinos, the data shows you’re almost twice as likely to become a problem gambler,” said Carlino. “Using a casino to subsidize those high licensing costs isn’t very ethical.”

Do Carlino and Jordan have a point? Before answering, I suggest watching a Tik Tok video making the rounds featuring a long line of old people tapping buttons on gambling machines. The screenshot alone is disturbing enough.

For the poor who don’t choose death, or don’t have money left to feed gambling machines if they choose life, may I suggest a job? Because it’s brutal out there for employers trying to keep restaurants open when they can’t find anyone to work, like Red Robin in Missoula now closed indefinitely due to a lack of staffing.

How are we supposed to have a “vibrant”, tourist-fueled economy if the poors refuse to serve the transplants their craft beer and hamburgers?

I don’t have the answers. And guess what? Neither do our elected leaders! But that won’t stop them from spending your money trying to FIND those ever elusive answers. If you’d like to help keep the pressure on the bright bulbs spending your deflating paychecks, consider making a donation at my about page.

Thanks for reading!