The decision to remove Mr Lambert from life support was announced this month after a series of rulings, despite staunch opposition from his parents. Mr Lambert’s wife, Rachel Lambert, has maintained that her husband had verbally expressed that he did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state.

While euthanasia is illegal in France, the law allows for what has been called “passive euthanasia,” in which terminally ill or injured patients with no chances of recovery are taken off life support and put into heavy sedation until their death, after extensive consultation with their families and medical staff.

Once something becomes a discussion of debate, then it becomes acceptable, and thus the society becomes desensitized to the promotion of it, regardless of how evil it may be. Once we are desensitized the inculcation of evil ideas, then there is a conversion to them, and with conversion comes societal transformation to a very destructive effect.

This reminds me of a story that took place in the Netherlands in which a doctor forced a woman to be euthanized, as we read in a 2018 report from the AP:

Dutch officials said Friday they will prosecute a nursing home doctor for euthanizing an elderly woman with dementia, the first time a doctor has been charged since the Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2002.

Dutch prosecutors said in a statement the doctor “had not acted carefully” and “overstepped a line” when she performed euthanasia. Officials first began probing the case in September, when they found the doctor had drugged the patient’s coffee and then had family members hold her down while delivering the fatal injection.

The doctor said she was fulfilling the patient’s earlier euthanasia request and that since the patient was not competent, nothing the woman said during her euthanasia procedure was relevant.

But Dutch prosecutors argued that the patient’s written euthanasia request was “unclear and contradictory.”

“In her living will, the woman wrote that she wanted to be euthanized ‘whenever I think the time is right.’ But after being asked several times in the nursing home whether she wanted to die, she said, ‘Not just now, it’s not so bad yet,‘” according to an earlier report by one of the Netherlands’ euthanasia review committees.

“Even if the patient had said at that moment: ‘I don’t want to die,’ the physician would have continued,” the committee wrote, citing the doctor’s own testimony.

Prosecutors said on Friday that the doctor should have verified with the patient whether or not she still wanted to die and that “the fact that she had become demented does not alter this.”

Johan Legemaate, a professor of health law at the University of Amsterdam, said: “The patient’s declaration has to be clear enough to the situation so doctors know when euthanasia can be applied.”

“But should this include a situation where doctors are drugging patients secretly? It’s now for the court to decide whether this doctor acted within the required limits,” he added.

Legemaate said that there were very few cases of euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia, but that the decision to prosecute the doctor in this case might provoke more caution among health professionals.

Look at even the language of this article. Doctors need “caution” before killing patients; “the doctor should have verified with the patient whether or not she still wanted to die” — there is here a very nonchalant manner of talking about doctors slaying patients. The fact that we are accustomed to talking about murder in such a relaxed manner is indicative of where the world is heading: a eugenic society under a medical and technological elite. When it comes to evil, anything short of tenaciously hating it and destroying it, is only an incremental strategy by which to get society to accept it