The judge in the case slammed social services who had simply accepted that the boy should be treated as a girl.
The High Court judge hearing the case, Mr Justice Hayden, told the court that he believed the mother had been “absolutely convinced” that the boy “perceived himself as a girl” and was therefore determined to treat him as a girl, according to reports.
However, the boy, who cannot be named and is now living with his father, has naturally reverted to having masculine interests since leaving the care of his mother, the court heard.
Family court proceedings began about three years ago after the father raised a complaint that he was not allowed access to his son. A lower-ranking judge authorised a “wide ranging” inquiry forcing local authority social services staff to begin investigations.
Justice Hayden said “flares of concern” for the boy’s wellbeing had been raised by a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies”, and that he couldn’t understand why social services had “disregarded so summarily” those concerns.
He said social services staff had “moved into wholesale acceptance that [the boy] should be regarded as a girl”. He called on council to undertake a review of the “social work response” to the case; a council spokesperson said a review was already underway.
The judge considered evidence from boy’s parents, local authority social workers and a psychologist to make his ruling.
In his ruling, Justice Hayden said that the boy’s mother “told me that [he] was ‘living in stealth’ by which was meant, she explained, that he was living life entirely as a girl.
“He dressed, at all times, like a girl and, it transpired, had been registered at a new general practitioner’s as a girl.
“I was also left in no doubt that [the mother] was absolutely convinced that [the boy] perceived himself as a girl.”
Justice Hayden added that his “overwhelming impression” was that the mother “believes herself to be to fighting for [her son’s] right to express himself as a girl”.
The woman had told him that the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”, he said, adding: “I consider that [the mother] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.”
Justice Hayden commented upon the fact that the boy had settled in well with his father and his father’s partner, actively choosing, with no pressure from either adult, to pursue interests typically seen as masculine.
“I have been told that [the father] and his partner were shocked when they first saw [the boy] by the extent to which he appeared to be a girl, both in appearance and in mannerism,” said the judge. “However, what is striking is how well [the boy] has settled down.
“I have noted from reports that [the boy] has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, superheroes and is constantly finding new interests … It is striking that most of [the boy’s] interests are male-oriented.
He concluded: “I am entirely satisfied, both on the basis of the reports and [the father’s] evidence at this hearing, that he has brought no pressure on [the boy] to pursue masculine interests. [The boy’s] interests and energy are entirely self-motivated.”
TORONTO, August 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian euthanasia doctors are lobbying to be paid more money to kill their patients.
Complaints from doctors that euthanasia doesn’t pay enough have been in the media lately, with the Toronto Globe and Mail publishing an article July 4 entitled “Canadian doctors turn away from assisted dying over fees,” and MacLean’s Magazine followed up with: “Should doctors be paid a premium for assisting deaths?” on July 10.
“It’s the euthanasia lobby getting their people in the media to print articles saying that one of the problems to access to ‘MAID’ [Medical Assistance in Dying] is the fact that it doesn’t pay enough,” says Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
“Now they’re pressuring to have it pay more.”
Dr. Tanja Daws is featured in both articles, with the Globe reporting she’s a family doctor from Courtenay, British Columbia, who has reportedly killed 23 people, and MacLean’s reporting she did so for free in the first six months after Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government legalized euthanasia in June 2016.
Daws and others euthanasia doctors were expecting reimbursement when the BC government finalized its fee schedule for euthanizing people, which it did in late June.
But euthanasia doctors and advocates are saying the fees are too low.
Jesse Pewarchuk, a Vancouver Island doctor who has reportedly killed 20 people, quit doing so because it doesn’t pay enough, the Globe reported.
As for Daws, “It struck me that I can’t keep doing this,” she told MacLean’s. “It’s not for lack of wanting, but it’s financial suicide.”
In fact, Daws is one of four euthanasia doctors bailed out by the Toronto-based Right to Die Society to the tune of $11,207.82, according to the Globe.
An ardent supporter of euthanasia, Daws is a member of the Canadian Association of MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) Assessors and Providers (CAMAP), an association of Canada’s euthanasia doctors that formed in May.
CAMAP held its first convention in June in Victoria on Vancouver Island, which, according to the Globe, has one of Canada’s highest euthanasia rates.
And it released a joint statement with Dying with Dignity on July 4, the day after the Globe article appeared, calling on the BC government to pay euthanasia doctors more.
BC pays up to $240 for the first assessment visit for euthanasia ($40 for 15 minutes up to 90 minutes) and a maximum of $200 for the second visit, which is capped at 75 minutes, the Globe reported.
The BC government pays a doctor $313.15 for killing the patient, which includes a base fee of $200 and $113.15 for a home visit.
By contrast, euthanasia doctors can bill a maximum of “$621.60 in Alberta, $600 in New Brunswick, $499.80 in Quebec, $480 in Manitoba and $465.60 in Saskatchewan,” reported the Globe.
Nova Scotia caps its payout at $292.20 to doctors for each patient they kill. Newfoundland and Ontario do not yet have an official fee schedule, according to MacLean’s.
The Ontario ministry of health and long-term care is in the midst of consultations with the OMA to set fees, reported the CBC.
LifeSiteNews contacted the ministry for confirmation but did not hear back before deadline.
“It’s no secret that fee codes influence the kind of care patients receive.” wrote MacLean’s Catherine McIntyre.
A 2015 University of Toronto study showed that “financial incentives changed doctors attitudes around cesarean sections.”
And in the Netherlands, doctors receive about $2,200 for each person they euthanize, wrote McIntyre. Doctors also get a day off with pay to cope with the emotional toll that comes with killing someone.
Moreover, with the government saving on healthcare costs by killing people, it should have funds available to pay doctors more to do it, argue euthanasia advocates.
As McIntyre noted, the Canadian Medical Association has calculated that Canada could save “at least $34.7 million and up to $138.8 million a year” by killing patients.
But paying doctors low fees to kill their patients is a “barrier to access” to euthanasia, Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying with Dignity, told MacLean’s.
“[N]ow that [policy-makers] know, it’s their responsibility to make changes ASAP. If they don’t, then they are intentionally obstructing access with that decisions,” she added.
But as Wesley Smith, well-known American euthanasia opponent pointed out in theNational Review. “Let’s be clear: ‘This work,’ is lethally injecting sick people.
“We live in very dark times.”
A woman aiming to become the first female Navy SEAL officer quit about a week into the initial training, Task and Purpose reported Thursday.
The unidentified female candidate dropped out in early August during a three-week course in San Diego that began July 24. It was the first assessment of potential SEAL officers before they can be sent on to more grueling courses, according to the website, which cited “multiple Naval Special Warfare Command sources.”
Two women, whose names were not released to protect their privacy, entered the famously difficult SEAL training program this summer more than a year and a half after the military allowed female troops to serve in combat roles.
The candidate who dropped out was enrolled in the Navy SEAL Officer Assessment and Selection program. If she had completed the program, she would have faced an officer selection panel and the Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL program, or BUD/S, a six-month training course for the elite special operators.