The War on Christianity - Another Battle Lost in British Columbia Over Assisted Suicide; Pastor Arrested for Preaching the Bible

..

Supreme court dismisses Delta Hospice Society appeal

over membership dispute

Community group wins another round in fight against board of directors

who banned medically assisted dying

Karin Larsen · CBC News · 

Posted: Apr 09, 2021 5:36 PM PT 

The Harold and Veronica Savage Centre for Supportive Care is pictured in Delta, B.C. The Delta Hospice Society,

which used to operate the facility, was evicted from the building and the Irene Thomas Hospice in March, 2021.

(Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press)

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an appeal by the Delta Hospice Society (DHS) in a fight over medically assisted death, society memberships and attempts by a new board of directors to bring in an expressly Christian constitution.

DHS launched the appeal after the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a B.C. Supreme Court decision in favour of community advocates, backed by the group Take Back Delta Hospice.

Community advocate Chris Pettypiece, who speaks on behalf of Take Back Delta Hospice, said it was gratifying to see the DHS board held accountable for "improper conduct."

"What an ordeal it has been to have to fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada so that local residents who wish to become members of the [Delta Hospice] Society are treated fairly," said Pettypiece.

In a statement, the Delta Hospice Society said: "The court does not give reasons for refusing leave to appeal so we'll let others speculate if they want to play that game. No one will ever know if the speculation is correct or wildly wrong."

It goes on to say, "Anyone who criticizes our exercise of legal due process does a disservice to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to the foundations of the rule of law on which this country was created. They know who they are."

Allegations of vote-stacking

Pettypiece, Sharron Farrish and Jim Levin brought the original petition alleging that the DHS board had contravened the B.C. Societies Act and stacked the voter list by denying applications of community members who were seen as not supporting its new agenda.

The Delta Hospice Society argued that as a private society, it had the right to choose who could join and who couldn't.

In the decision, the B.C. Supreme Court sided with the petitioners, cancelling an extraordinary general meeting and ordering the board accept over 300 would-be members who had been rejected.

How it all started

The legal wrangling began soon after the new board came to power and banned medical assistance in dying (MAiD) at the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner.

The board then proposed a number of amendments to the society's constitution to turn it into a faith-based organization. It then called an extraordinary general meeting to vote on the changes.

In B.C., faith-based palliative care hospices are exempt from a requirement to offer MAiD. MAiD has been legal in Canada since 2016.

The conflict intensified when Health Minister Adrian Dix announced the province was withdrawing $1.5 million in annual public funding to the society effective Feb. 25, 2021 because of its refusal to offer MAiD. 

BC's provincial government is far-left, as are its higher courts and Canada's Supreme Court.

Last month the Delta Hospice Society was evicted from the Irene Thomas Hospice and the Harold and Veronica Savage Centre for Supportive Care, but only after a number of dying residents of the hospice were forced to move and many long-time staff terminated.

Fraser Health (The Provincial Government) has taken over the facilities and said they will re-open April 15.

Do you think they can run them for $1.5m?

London Pastor Arrested for Sermon on Marriage: 'I Was Only Saying What the Bible Says'

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | 

Friday, April 30, 2021

Last week, a pastor was arrested in London after he delivered a public sermon on the biblical definition of marriage out of Genesis 1.

John Sherwood, who is 71 and the pastor of a north London church, was arrested April 23 in the center of Uxbridge, London, under the Public Order Act for making "allegedly homophobic comments," according to The Daily Mail.

A video shows him standing on top of a step stool before being handcuffed and led away by police as a crowd watched. One person can be heard gasping in shock.

"For a man preaching about Christianity!" a woman says in the video, critical of police action.

He was later released.

"I wasn't making any homophobic comments. I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman," he said, according to The Daily Mail. "I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn't wanting to hurt anyone or cause offense. I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building.

"When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened."

Christian Concern, a UK-based organization that defends people of faith, criticized the arrest. Police had received three complaints about Sherwood, Christian Concern said.

The organization called it a "brutal arrest."

"There is an idea that if people are offended, you should arrest someone, but in this country, we also have freedom of speech," Andrea Williams of Christian Concern told The Daily Mail.

Sherwood was arrested after preaching "on the final verses in Genesis 1, where it says that God created mankind in his own image," Christian Concern reported.

Peter Simpson, the pastor of Penn Free Methodist Church in Buckinghamshire and a friend of Sherwood, also defended the minister.

"Everything he said was Bible-based," Simpson said, according to The Daily Mail. "He was not saying anything abusive; he is a Christian minister. There did not seem to be any recognition from the police that Christian ministers and such views exist. If there was a Pride parade in Uxbridge, the police would support it even if Christians were offended. You don't have to be an evangelical Christian to be shocked by this. Anyone who cares about liberty should be concerned about what happened in Uxbridge."

Uxbridge, UK

Belgian Catholic Nursing Home has No Right to Refuse Euthanasia

Slippery slope for Christians when it comes to euthanasia

Conscientious objection gives way to godless ideology

Andy Walton CHRISTIAN TODAY CONTRIBUTING WRITER        


Reuters

A Catholic nursing home in Belgium is reported to have fallen foul of the country's courts after refusing to permit a resident to access euthanasia.

The incident happened in 2011 when Huize Sint-Augustinus home in Diest refused to allow an elderly woman's doctor access to see her – when it was thought she was about to be given a lethal injection.

The home has been ordered to pay €6,000 (approx $6,600 or £5,000) in damaged to the family of the woman.

The civil court in Louvain ruled that "the nursing home did not have the right to refuse euthanasia on the grounds of conscientious objection."

In this case, the 74-year-old who had terminal cancer received the injection in her own house, rather than in the nursing home.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002 and the country is said to have the most liberal assisted suicide laws anywhere in the world. Belgium is held up as an example by campaigners on both sides of the debate over assisted suicide in the UK, US and elsewhere.

Local Archbishop Jozef De Kesel, of the diocese of Mechelen-Brussels, had previously said Catholic institutions have a right to refuse abortion and euthanasia.

UNICEF Lobbies Canadian Parliament to Allow Euthanasia for Children

Astonishing!

 

OTTAWA — UNICEF Canada is pushing for assisted suicide and euthanasia for children — or “mature minors” — arguing that this conforms with the Charter, Canadian legal precedent and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

That would include euthanasia or assisted suicide for mature minors who suffer from a non-terminal illness or disability, according to UNICEF Canada’s policy director Marvin Bernstein.

UNICEF, or United Nations Children’s Fund (originally, Emergency Fund) is a UN organization that is, according to its website, “on a mission to reach every child and ensure their well-being, no matter where they are in this world.”

“There’s no limit to the lengths UNICEF will go, the risks we’ll take or the depth of our commitment to save children’s lives,” it reads. “We are committed to take action, save, rehabilitate and watch over children, with a special attention to the most vulnerable and excluded groups.”

OK, and where in there is a mandate to lobby for child euthanasia? Or do the terms 'well-being' and 'save children's lives', mean something completely different in the UN?

Bernstein reiterated UNICEF Canada’s pro-euthanasia position during the Senate legal committee’s hearings into the Liberal government’s controversial euthanasia law, Bill C-14.

The legislation amends the Criminal Code in light of the Supreme Court’s February 2015 Carter ruling, which ruled the current ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia violates the Charter, and comes into effect June 6.

Carter ruled “competent adults” had a Charter right to seek assisted suicide or euthanasia, and Bill C-14 limited eligibility to be killed in this way to persons aged 18 and over.

The bill’s eligibility criteria also include that the individual have a grievous and irremediable disease or disability that causes unendurable suffering, is in an advanced state of irreversible decline, and his or her natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

“UNICEF believes that this right should be extended to mature minors who are competent to make end-of-life decisions for themselves,” Bernstein told the committee May 12, “but with additional potential safeguards as a measure of last resort.”

The Supreme Court had given “competent, mature minors” “the rights to make health and survival-related decisions” in its 2009 AC v Manitoba  ruling, which found that it was “arbitrary” to assume anyone under age 16 was not competent to make medical decisions, he said.

UNICEF also supported the recommendation by the joint parliamentary committee that mature minors be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia in the second of a two-stage legislative roll-out, “which would come into force no later than three years after the first stage is enforced,” noted Bernstein.

“In fact, this is very close to the recommendation advanced to that committee by UNICEF Canada,” he told the Senate committee.

The three-year period “would allow sufficient time for informed research and broad-based consultation to occur and the appropriate safeguards and due care considerations to be identified.”

But UNICEF Canada further proposed that in the three-year interim, children be allowed to petition a Superior Court to be allowed assistance to kill themselves, or to killed by lethal injection.

That recommendation was “so we don't have an unfair prejudicial situation continuing for three years with no remedy that can be accessed by mature minors,” Bernstein said.

United Nations General Assembly mandated UNICEF “to advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help them meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential,” Conservative Manitoba Senator Don Plett told Bernstein.

“Do you not see a major problem with the consideration of allowing vulnerable children to request assisted death?” Plett asked.  “Have these children, in your opinion, reached their full potential?”

There “may be children who are experiencing irremediable conditions, intolerable and enduring suffering,” replied Bernstein, “and they should have the right when they reach a point of sufficient maturity to make some determinations for themselves.”

If “a competent adult has the right to access medical assistance in dying, based upon a certain set of circumstances and conditions, that should not be denied, not to all children, but to mature minors,” he added.

UNICEF Canada supports euthanasia and assisted suicide in cases where the children are not suffering from terminal illness, Bernstein told the committee, adding: “I think it should be the same criteria…applied to adults and children.”

As for assisted suicide or euthanasia for children who suffer from mental illness, not permitted under Bill C-14 in its current form, “UNICEF is not suggesting psychological suffering, in and by itself, be the litmus test in terms of terminating life and making those decisions for young people,” he said.

Extending euthanasia and assisted suicide for mature minors was among three contentious recommendations in the joint parliamentary committee’s February 2016 report.

It also recommended the use of advance directives for people diagnosed with degenerative diseases such as dementia, and euthanasia or assisted suicide solely for mental illness.

Bill C-14 rejected all three, but Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould promised that the Liberals would study the issues before the bill’s mandated five-year review.

That wasn’t soon enough for the Liberal-dominated House of Commons justice committee, which added clause 9.1, requiring Parliament start independent reviews of the three issues no later than six months after the bill passes.

MPs are expected to vote on C-14 on May 31, after which it goes to the Senate, which has signalled it will overhaul the bill.

The Senate is dominated by Conservatives. They may not be able to kill the bill, but can certainly alter it significantly.

The Senate committee’s pre-study report of May 17 endorsed the use advance directives, but recommended dropping further consideration of euthanasia solely for mental illness, and for mature minors.

Trudeau Votes Against Conscience Rights as He Pushes Euthanasia Bill

OTTAWA, (LifeSiteNews) – The Liberals and New Democrats combined to defeat a Conservative-supported motion protecting the conscience rights of doctors and other health professionals who refuse to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide. Hope now centres on the Senate for amendments to the government’s proposed law for protection for medical professions and patients.

On Tuesday the House of Commons divided almost entirely on party lines to defeat a motion from Tory MP Arnold Viersen defending conscience rights by a 214 to 96 vote margin. Every Conservative who voted supported the motion and every Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MP who voted, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, opposed it. Five NDP members supported it as did Green MP and leader Elizabeth May.

The motion was a way to put the government on the record either supporting or opposing conscience rights for doctors and nurses who refuse to perform or abet patients who want to die. The government had avoided the issue with its proposed assisted dying bill, C-14, which said nothing about conscience rights on the grounds that the regulation of health professionals is a provincial matter.

Without calling for any amendment to Bill C-14, Viersen’s motion declared that “It is in the public interest to protect the freedom of conscience of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or any other health care professional who objects to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.”

MP Viersen explained, “The Liberals continue to emphasize that nothing in Bill C-14 can compel a healthcare provider to provide medical assistance in dying, but any province or employer could still compel healthcare professionals against their conscience rights.”

Bill C-14 is an amendment to the Criminal Code, setting out the conditions that must be met by health professionals putting patients to death or assisting them to commit suicide, without committing a crime. It was necessitated by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case throwing out the blanket Criminal Code provision against either forms of homicide, with enforcement of the decision delayed first till February and now till June.

While C-14 was initially silent on conscience rights, in committee an amendment was added declaring that nothing in the bill could be used to compel health professionals to act against their consciences. The House has yet to vote on this and other amendments.

Larry Worthen, head of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, told LifeSiteNews that the amendment “was a move in the right direction,” but not nearly enough to protect doctors and other health professionals from discrimination or discipline.

“We really are hoping that what we want will be added in the Senate,” said Worthen. The Senate’s Justice Committee has just issued its report on the issue and on Bill C-14 indicating it wants stronger protections not only for doctors, but for patients. But the bill must first pass in the Commons before going to the Senate.

The Senate report calls for amendment declaring that “No medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other healthcare institution care provider, or any such institution, shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada.”

While it recommended making it easier for a person to request assisted dying in advance of an anticipated cognitively disabling condition, it also called for greater safeguards against minors or the mentally ill getting such aid, and measures to prevent those who might benefit financially having a hand in requesting the assistance.

Worthen was joined by Dr. Catherine Ferrier, of Quebec’s Living with Dignity group, in warning that provincial governments, institutions and professional regulators such as colleges of physicians and surgeons could all violate health workers’ freedom of conscience by requiring them to help patients die or refer patients to other doctors who would help them.

“A palliative care centre could make it a condition of employment,” said Worthen. “The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons made it a requirement last year that doctors must provide ‘effective referrals.’”

Ferrier said the Quebec government already requires doctors to pass on requests for assisted suicide to a committee that will find them a doctor. “The way it worked in the past,” she told LifeSiteNews, “was that a patient who just discovers he has terminal cancer might say, ‘I want to die now.’ And we would respond, ‘It’s against the law for us to do that. Let’s talk about what else we can do to help you.’ Then the palliative care providers deal with the patient’s pain, he talks with his family, he starts dealing with all the important issues of his life, and he realizes he is glad he is still alive.”

But now in Quebec, said Dr. Ferrier, “When we say, ‘We can help you with the pain,’ the patient says, ‘I don’t want any help. I just want to die right now.’” Dr. Ferrier said she knew of several doctors considering leaving Canada or retiring rather than participate in the death of their patients.

CMDSC’s Worthen called on all those supporting conscience rights to use the organization’s website, www.canadiansforconscience.ca, to register their views with members of the Senate. 

Euthanasia Comes to Canada Next Year, Maybe

People with grievous and irremediable medical conditions should have the right to ask a doctor to help them die, Canada's highest court says in a unanimous ruling.

Supreme Court of Canada - Feb. 6, 2015

The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes it illegal for anyone to help people end their own lives should be amended to allow doctors to help in specific situations.

The ruling only applies to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering who clearly consent to ending their lives.

The court has given federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands until then. If the government doesn't write a new law, the court's exemption for physicians will stand.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay released a short statement acknowledging the ruling covers "a sensitive issue for many Canadians, with deeply held beliefs on both sides."

"We will study the decision and ensure all perspectives on this difficult issue are heard," the minister said in the statement.

The case was brought by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on behalf of two women, Kay Carter and Gloria Taylor, both of whom have died since the legal battle began. Both women had degenerative diseases and wanted the right to have a doctor help them die.

A lawyer on behalf of Carter and Taylor argued that they were being discriminated against because their physical disabilities didn't allow them to kill themselves the way able-bodied people could.

Carter went to Switzerland with her daughter, Lee, to die. Taylor died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2012.

The ruling is not limited to those with a physical disability who require a physician's assistance to end their lives.

All nine justices share the writing credit on the ruling, an unusual action meant to signal particular institutional weight behind the decision.

'Impinges' on security of the person

The one-year delay in implementing the ruling means the ban on doctors assisting in suicides remains in place until then.

Lee Carter and her husband Hollis Johnson react to the court ruling

Lee Carter and her husband, Hollis Johnson, said Kay Carter died happy, with a smile on her face because she died the way she wanted.

Asked about a woman with a physical disability who said she now feels pressure to end her life, Carter said she was sorry to hear that because the woman "has so much to live for."

"I want everybody in this country to live the life as they want to. But for those that ... don't want to continue, that have an incurable illness, [I'm glad] that they have a choice."

The court awarded full costs to the BCCLA and the other appellants, including Kay Carter's family. The Canadian government bears most of the cost and British Columbia, the province where the process started, bears 10 per cent of the trial costs, plus whatever else it cost the province to appear at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The costs were awarded because the case was of such national importance.

In weighing the argument that the prohibition on doctor-assisted death breached the two women's rights, the court found the Charter right to life doesn't require an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying.

"This would create a 'duty to live,' rather than a 'right to life,' and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of lifesaving or life-sustaining treatment," the court wrote in the decision.

​"An individual's choice about the end of her life is entitled to respect."

Doctors not forced to help

The court also found an individual's response to "a grievous and irremediable medical condition" is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The law already allows palliative sedation, refusing artificial nutrition and hydration and refusing life-sustaining medical equipment.

"And, by leaving people ... to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person," the court wrote. Seriously? I'll need that explained to me.

Doctors, however, are by no means compelled to help patients end their lives. The court leaves that up to the professional colleges that regulate medicine.

The court agreed with the B.C. trial judge that doctors are capable of assessing the competence of patients to consent, and found there is no evidence that the elderly or people with disabilities are vulnerable to accessing doctor-assisted dying.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower court that the safeguards work where they've been set up in jurisdictions that allow physician-assisted suicide.

While the ruling sets out specific criteria, it leaves some questions.

The decision is silent, for example, on whether depression or mental illness counts as a medical condition. The court does include psychological pain under the criteria of enduring and intolerable suffering.

Conservative MP Steven Fletcher, who became a quadriplegic after an accident in 1996, was at the court to react early to Friday's decision.

Dying With Dignity Supporters
rally outside the Supreme Court

He has already introduced a private member's bill — which was also introduced in the Senate before Christmas — to make physician-assisted death legal under Canadian laws.

"That bill could be used as a foundation for parliamentarians going forward," he told reporters, although it's not scheduled to come up for debate any time soon and he concedes "those decisions are made at a higher pay grade than mine."

"I guess it depends ... if people want this to be an election issue or not," he said. "If it went to a free vote in Parliament, it would pass."

"There does need to be some Criminal Code provision, I think, to prevent abuse," he says. "I don't want people, because they have a bad hair day, to get their car mechanic to take them down."

"The vast majority of Canadians — 84 per cent — support physician-assisted death with appropriate caveats."

It's easy enough to have empathy for those terminally ill people who are suffering greatly, that's why a majority of Canadians support this. There are a few problems with it however:

1. Those 'appropriate caveats' will likely get whittled away over time once we become accustomed to euthanasia - the 'slippery slope' principle.

2. Doctors already 'assist' people dying by withholding medication that would delay the shutting down of bodily organs. Nevertheless, for doctors to now administer poison or an overdose of some medication to end someone's life is a big step. It turns the Hippocratic oath into the hippocritic oath.

3. As a Christian, I know the God has appointed the number of days we shall live. Consequently, for us to take matters into our own hands and commit suicide is to thumb our nose at the Lordship of Jesus Christ, not a good idea when we are about to head into judgment.

No Place for Christian Ethics in Quebec

A group of Christian doctors opposing Quebec’s proposed euthanasia legislation, denied permission to present its views to the committee studying the bill, is warning the bill could require physicians to act against their religious principles.

Quebec Minister for Social Services and Youth Protection Veronique Hivon

The Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada was only told last Thursday morning — the final day of consultations — that its request had been denied.

The Quebec bill controversially proposes “terminal palliative sedation and medical aid in dying” as part of a new set of rules for Quebec healthcare professionals and institutions.

The rejection of the Christian doctors’ bid to join the euthanasia debate comes amid the Quebec government’s aggressive secularism agenda, embodied by its proposed charter of values.

The Christian medical group — which represents 1,500 doctors across Canada and 50 in Quebec — is alarmed that the bill could require physicians in Quebec to betray their principles. The proposed law would force all doctors in the province to refer any patient who wants to end his or her life to a medical board, which the group said is ethically problematic for its members.

Christian ethics, or any religious ethics, are of no importance to the current government of Quebec. The 'Charter of Values' referred to above is proposed legislation that would forbid the wearing of any visible religious symbols by anyone who works for the Province of Quebec. That includes large crosses, hijabs, turbans, etc., etc.

What also strikes me from the statement above is that there are only 50 Christian doctors registered in the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada. 1500 across Canada - 50 in Quebec, the second most populous province in the country. One would expect, based on population, there to be 250 - 300 Christian doctors registered there. Are they afraid to register, or is the number representative of the actual Christian population of Quebec?

Quebec used to be utterly dominated by the Catholic Church until the middle of the last century when people began abandoning the church and rebelling against it's self-proclaimed authority. There is still, I suspect, a lot of anti-religious sentiment in Quebec, and with the frequent revelations of sexual abuse by priests, it's not likely to improve any time soon.

We should be praying for spiritual revival in Quebec and literally sending missionaries to the spiritually third world province.

“We are disappointed that we were not told until the last day of hearings that we were unable to present,” said Larry Worthen, executive director of the group. “We are concerned about the bill’s lack of explicit conscience protection for physicians, pharmacists, and nurses.”

Furthermore, he says rejection by the committee fuels fears held by Christian doctors working in Quebec that their faith-based opinions on medical issues will not be taken seriously. Some doctors are even afraid of identifying themselves as Christian, said Mr. Worthen.

Dr. Liette Pilon, representative for the group’s doctors in Quebec said, “we cannot impose our values on a non-Christian society, but we hope the committee considers very carefully … the universal value of human life.”

Special consultations on the bill began Sept. 17, by invitation only. Groups not invited by the committee were required to submit an invitation request to committee secretary Anik Laplante, who passed requests along to leaders of the committee.

Fifteen uninvited groups submitted requests to present during the consultations, two of which were faith-based, said Ms. Laplante.

Ms. Laplante said information on the denied requests is “not available to the public.”

Briefs submitted to the committee, including those by groups unable to present, can be found on the bill’s webpage, said Laurie Comtois, a government spokesperson.

The National Assembly is “confident to get through the process before Christmas or … the beginning of the next year,” said Ms. Comtois.

National Post

Assisted Suicide for a Depressed Transsexual in Belgium

A transsexual has been helped to die by doctors in Belgium, after a series of failed sex-change operations.

Nathan Verhelst, born a woman, asked for help to end his life on grounds of psychological suffering. He died in a Brussels hospital on Monday.

Cases of recorded deaths from euthanasia on psychological grounds have risen in Belgium

Two doctors concluded he did not have temporary depression. His case received scant media coverage.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. There were 52 cases of euthanasia on psychological grounds last year.

"He died in all serenity," doctor Wim Distlemans told the Belgian newspaper, Het Laatste Nieuws.

Nathan Verhelst, 44, was born Nancy into a family of three boys. The newspaper, which said it had spoken to him on the eve of his death, reported that he had been rejected by his parents who had wanted another son.

He had three operations to change sex between 2009 and 2012.

"The first time I saw myself in the mirror I felt an aversion for my new body," he was quoted as saying.

First of all, if all 3 sex change operations failed, then 'he' must still be a 'she'. It makes no sense that a person can simply call himself the opposite sex to what he actually is physically.

Second, the parents would appear to be to blame for Nancy's screwed-up view of herself. Surely, some psychological counselling could have corrected that attitude - but that's not politically correct any more is it?

Third, there is no room for God in this story, anywhere. God made Nancy, not Nathan. God can completely change one's attitude of self worth by allowing that person to see how much God loves them. And, there is no opportunity for that person to turn to God and fulfill the purpose of his being here - which is to prepare for eternity. He/she is lost forever thanks to a Godless government!

The hospital said there was an "extremely rigorous procedure" in place before any patient was put to death. "When we have a case which is... complicated, we ask ourselves more questions in order to be certain about the diagnosis," Dr Jean-Michel Thomas said.

The BBC's Matthew Price in Brussels says the number of people opting for euthanasia in Belgium has risen steadily since legalization. Most candidates are over 60 years old and have cancer.

Voluntary euthanasia for those over 18 is relatively uncontroversial in Belgium. Parliament is now considering expanding the law to under 18s as well.

Patients must be capable of deciding for themselves. They must be conscious and have to give a "voluntary, considered and repeated" request to die.

There were 1,432 recorded cases of euthanasia in Belgium in 2012; a 25% increase on the previous year's figure. They represented 2% of all deaths, the AFP news agency reported.