By: I. K. (Nova24tv)
The Left coalition apparently wants to justify its reputation as a death cult – preparations of the public through the political-media conglomerate for the opening of the Overton window to euthanasia continue. POP TV, which is considered the media outpost of the ruling Gibanje Svoboda party, recently grandiosely published a group of Mediana surveys on various referendum initiatives – one of them asked whether people agree with supporting legislation for voluntary euthanasia, which the medical profession almost unanimously opposes.
The results were not disappointing. According to the survey, a good 62 percent of respondents support the adoption of a law regulating the right to assistance in voluntary euthanasia. Against it are 24 percent of respondents, a little over 11 percent say they do not know, and 2.6 percent of respondents did not give an answer.
Two surveys, two completely different outcomes
It is bold to express doubts about the survey when we consider the misfires that the Mediana agency has triggered in the past when participating in the preparation of new faces. Let’s remember: when Marjan Šarec founded his party, he was given a 25 percent approval rating, which allowed him to catch up with and even surpass SDS, but in the elections just two months later, he ended up with half of that result.
Even more doubt in the results is cast by comparing them with the Ninamedia survey, which posed a similar question for the newspaper Dnevnik. Slovenian public opinion, according to this survey, is almost evenly divided regarding the legalisation of assistance in voluntary euthanasia, similar to political poles – 47.3 percent of respondents in this survey support euthanasia, while 43.4 percent do not support it, and 9.2 percent are undecided.
Methodological errors?
How can such strong differences in two surveys in approximately the same time be explained is a question for analysts, but it also suggests that at least one of the surveys has serious methodological issues to have such statistically unusual deviations. The difference is such that it is as if in political barometers one brand measured Gibanje Svoboda at 30 percent, SDS at 20 percent, while the other measured SDS at 25 percent and Gibanje Svoboda at 15 percent. Regardless of the political orientation of the surveyors, it would be clear that at least one of the surveys has something wrong from the perspective of statistical science.
Who benefits from the promotion of euthanasia?
To get to the bottom of the truth, we must ask ourselves who benefits from the promotion of euthanasia in public. The answer is primarily the current rulers because their “street”, led by Dušan Keber and Jaša Jenull, is actively preparing legislative and ideological grounds for the legislative acceptance of euthanasia, and the government is just waiting for the idea to become socially acceptable.
In this endeavour, the political-media conglomerate is making a strong effort to present euthanasia as an expression of compassion and humanity, rather than what it really is – the removal of the biggest consumers of centrally planned allocated funds from the Health Insurance Institute.
Examples from abroad as a warning
The public hears nothing about the horrifying cases from Canada, where euthanasia was initially only for adults in the terminal phase of an incurable illness – then, in just five years, it became available to anyone facing chronic illness or disability, and even to the poor and homeless who feel they are a burden to society. The most egregious was the case of a war veteran who became disabled while serving her country, and then the state – instead of providing her with a disability-appropriate apartment – suggested euthanasia. People do not hear about cases from the Benelux countries, where doctors are leaving the profession and committing suicide due to euthanasia, or about clinically depressed teenage girls who end their lives due to chronic illnesses or even mental pain.
The public (still) does not know that euthanasia is about the complete devaluation of life. The purpose of surveys like Mediana’s is apparently to establish in the public’s mind the notion that it is a generally acceptable thing.