A recent article in the Globe and Mail, "ALS doctor supports euthanasia" (Oct. 28, 1997), stated that a B.C. physician wants legalized assisted suicide. A Vancouver doctor, who objects to doctors being "instruments of death," warns that "to accommodate a small group of terminally ill people could threaten all vulnerable weak and elderly people." Which groups are at risk of being killed? - S.T., Halifax

More than 10 years ago, in 1987, Professor Wolf Wolfensberger of Syracuse University, N.Y. published a monograph, The New Genocide of Handicapped and Afflicted Persons.

In this scholarly work (amongst other topics) he described:

(1) The methods being used to devalue and dehumanize certain groups of people.

(2) The changes in modern society that facilitate this devaluation.

(3) "How Deathmaking (euthanasia and abortion) is Concealed, Disguised, and Detoxified."

(4) "Strategies for Determining the Presence and Extent of Deathmaking in One's Society."

He also listed the people most at risk. The persons who escaped abortion but are now in danger of euthanasia include the following:

(1) Unwanted newborn babies and infants, such as those with spina bifida or Down's Syndrome.

(2) Physically impaired persons, such as paraplegics, or those missing one or more limbs.

(3) Persons who are severely, or even moderately, retarded.

(4) Those with long-term mental or behavioural problems.

(5) "Street people," especially alcoholics, the retarded or the mentally disturbed.

(6) The severely or chronically ill, such as those with multiple sclerosis, degenerative arthritis, ALS or Lou Gherig's Disease, AIDS, etc.

(7) The elderly infirm, especially the poor. (We can add the elderly with money whose heirs see their inheritance dwindling away to pay for nursing care.)

The fight against euthanasia is one to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It is wise, however, to remember that although we have escaped abortion and infanticide, we are not invulnerable. At any moment, we could be among those most at risk.

Centuries ago, John Donne said it for us: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Supporters of abortion and euthanasia claim that as society changes, so too does our morality. What was seen as wrong 50 years ago is now right. What's the answer? - E.F., London, Ont.

I agree that, in the last 40 to 50 years, sacred values and first principles of morality have begun to disintegrate. The results are not beneficial, they are disastrous.

But, in answer to your question, I offer a quotation I found some years ago. It comes from a commencement address at Duke University, North Carolina in 1987. Ted Koppel of the Nightline television news program was the speaker.

"What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai was not ‘the Ten Suggestions,'" he said. "They are commandments. Are, not were. The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify in a handful of words acceptable human behaviour, not just for then or now, but for all time. Language evolves. Power shifts from one nation to another. Messages are transmitted with the speed of light. Man erases one frontier after another. And yet, we and our behaviour - and the Ten Commandments governing that behaviour - remain the same."

The commandments were written in another language, for people in a different culture, about 4,000 years ago, but they are as relevant today as when Moses delivered them.

One commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," which is sometimes translated as, "Thou shalt do no murder." Abortionists and euthanasiasts are killers. Murder remains murder, whether in 2000 BC or 2000 AD.