Canada’s Euthanasia Crisis: A Global Wake-Up Call
“Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing ‘perversion’ of mercy. True ‘compassion’ leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried out by those, like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with patience and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most painful terminal stages.”
― Pope St. John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, no. 66
Every time the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide comes before a legislature or court, pro-euthanasia advocates assure their opponents that these practices will only be legalized in extremely limited cases.
Those same advocates mock those with concerns, arguing that they are indulging the “slippery slope” fallacy. There will be no such slippery slope, they assure legislators, because the practice will be tightly regulated by laws that clearly delineate the cases in which euthanasia and assisted suicide will be permitted. And besides, there will be serious penalties for those who violate the law.
Legal Euthanasia Always Expands to Non-Terminal Illnesses
Inevitably, however, every time that euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, it is a matter of weeks before those same euthanasia advocates start a campaign to further liberalize the law. Thus, in nations like the Netherlands and Canada, what was originally legalized only in cases of terminal illness in which the patient’s death is reasonably foreseeable, has rapidly been expanded to cover non-terminal illnesses, including mental health conditions.
Horrific stories of this kind happen every day. Unfortunately, however, the number of such stories are so numerous, and typically occur under the cloak of confidentiality that characterizes the medical profession, that it is rare that any one case receives the focused attention needed to inform the public, and sway public opinion.
That, however, seems to be changing, thanks to the extremism of Canada’s euthanasia regime.
In Canada, even otherwise pro-euthanasia citizens or media outlets have been horrified to hear of instances in which death is approved, or even pushed, when the patient is not terminally ill. Often, in fact, the patient is simply suffering preventable consequences of poverty, sometimes exacerbated by chronic underfunding of programs needed to assist the disabled. (Note: The mindset of euthanasia holds a reductionist view of the human person that is incompatible with the respect owed to every human person. The human being is not defined by utility or functional independence and never loses his / her intrinsic value. No matter the reason, euthanasia is always a gravely immoral act.)
One Father’s Legal Battle to Save Daughter
One of the most horrifying of such cases recently received attention in the form of a feature-length article in the publication Unherd. The story involves a 28-year-old woman who has been approved for euthanasia, but whose only diagnosed illnesses are autism and ADHD.
The woman herself wishes to die. However, her family, including her parents, love her dearly, and do not understand how it is possible that she has been approved to be killed, given that her illnesses are not at all terminal, and in fact can be compatible with a rich and meaningful life.
Her father spoke to Unherd, expressing the depths of his anguish at what the medical system is doing to his daughter.
Describing the moment that she informed her family of her intentions, the father said, “She tells us that she’s getting [Medically Assistance in Dying], and of course we freak out. I was new to MAiD. I didn’t know anything about it.”
The family was so distraught that they launched legal action to prevent the euthanasia. The father says he has spent close to $150,000 fighting a court battle that has dragged on for over a year. To date, the woman, whom Unherd refers to by the pseudonym “Marge” (the case is protected by a publication ban, meaning that real names cannot be used), has not been able to go through with the euthanasia. However, it appears that the family has now lost the case, and that Marge will end up being killed. This, despite the fact that Canada’s law clearly does not currently permit euthanasia for conditions like autism.
No Signs of Change After Recent Election in Canada
It is important to note that Marge was initially and repeatedly denied euthanasia by various doctors. However, determined to end her life, she went doctor shopping, and was able to find doctors willing to approve her application.
Tragically, in the recent Canadian election, the virulently anti-life and anti-family Liberal Party won in a dramatic, last-minute upset. The Liberal government, under the previous Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been pushing to extend the already liberal euthanasia law even further, formally extending so-called MAiD to those suffering from psychiatric illnesses, and potentially even to minors.
There is no reason to believe that the Liberal Party, under their new leader and prime minister, the pro-abortion Mark Carney (who, sadly, claims to be Catholic), will pursue any other policy.
United Nations Condemns Canada’s Euthanasia Laws
However, in a rare glimmer of common sense, even the extremely liberal United Nations has expressed shock and dismay with how fast and how far Canada has gone down the slippery slope. A recent report by a UN committee issued what one critic called a “stunning and comprehensive” rebuke of Canada’s laws.
Father Larry Lynn, the pro-life chaplain for the Archdiocese of Vancouver, was surprised by this UN report. “I’m shocked that the UN actually came out with something like this, because it is not known for denouncing things that are seen as progressive,” he told the local Catholic newspaper. “So, this came as a real pleasant surprise for me.”
The UN report explicitly calls for the repeal of certain amendments to Canada’s law, which permit MAiD even in cases when death is not reasonably foreseeable. These amendments demolished the legal protections originally built into the law, allowing pro-euthanasia doctors to find a way to approve just about anyone. In the wake of these amendments, the number of MAiD deaths in Canada has continued to skyrocket. In 2023, the latest year for which numbers are available, the number of MAiD deaths was 15,343, an increase of almost 300% since 2019.
The UN committee behind the report said that it is “extremely concerned” about the amendments, which create the so-called “Track 2,” which permits euthanasia even for patients whose death is not foreseeable.
The authors of the report expressed their alarm that without meaningful safeguards in place, the law will have negative repercussions on vulnerable people, especially the disabled. The committee wrote that the Track 2 amendment, “establishes medically assisted dying for persons with disabilities based on negative, ableist perceptions of the quality and value of the life of persons with disabilities.”
The committee added that these “ableist perceptions” include the perception “that ‘suffering’ is intrinsic to disability rather than the fact that inequality and discrimination cause and compound ‘suffering’ for persons with disabilities.”
The UN committee urged Canada not to further expand euthanasia, but instead to take immediate action to redress what it refers to as “systemic failures” in areas like “poverty alleviation, access to healthcare, accessible housing, prevention of homelessness, prevention of gender-based violence, and the provision of community based mental health support, care services at home and personal assistance, and employment support.”
UK Considers Euthanasia Legislation Amid Growing Concerns
It is critical that other nations sit up and take notice of what is happening in Canada. When even the United Nations thinks you’ve gone too far, you know that the slippery slope is very slippery indeed.
Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is currently considering a bill that would legalize euthanasia. The third reading took place this past Friday.
As has been the case with other nations, this first UK bill is comparatively restrictive, permitting euthanasia in cases where a person is terminally ill, and expected to live less than six months.
However, if previous history is any indication, we should not expect things to stop there. With the door cracked open, ideological euthanasia activists will soon enough barge through, until death becomes available (and often actively pushed) for a wide gamut of those who are disabled or sick.
Physicians Oppose Legal Euthanasia
Interestingly enough, the BBC found that a majority of physicians polled on the euthanasia bill were strongly opposed. As they report: “Some of the 500 GPs who told us they were against the law change called the bill ‘appalling’, ‘highly dangerous’, and ‘cruel.’ ‘We are doctors, not murderers,’ one said.”
Physician sentiments have been similarly negative in various other jurisdictions that were considering legalizing, or have actually legalized, euthanasia. This is hardly a surprise. Physicians go into the field typically because of a deep desire to heal, not kill. Euthanasia turns the medical profession on its head. And as we have seen, once death becomes embraced as a “solution,” there seems to be no limits to the depths of the depravity that can be justified in the name of “mercy.”
Indeed, adding to the evidence that legalizing euthanasia is a step that no nation should take, is the fact that even when egregious violations of the law do take place, they are almost never referred to legal authorities, or prosecuted. One journalistic investigation found that of 428 possible criminal violations of Canada’s euthanasia law, not a single case was referred to law enforcement.
No Recourse to Legal Protection
In remarks to Unherd, Marge’s father explicitly warned the UK of the consequences of legalizing euthanasia. He pointed to remarks by a UK legislator, assuring people that if someone sought euthanasia for reasons that aren’t covered by the law, it would be possible for their family to gain an injunction to stop the euthanasia from going forward. Wade noted that he tried to do exactly that in Canada, and a judge simply threw his request out, arguing that it was not his job to second-guess the physicians.
The final sentences by the author in the Unherd article about Marge and her father’s legal battle to prevent her killing are chilling and should form a suitable conclusion to this article: “More recently, I received another message from Wade. Marge’s third application to die had been approved. Wade waits, angry and terrified, to receive the scheduled appointment of his daughter’s death. It could happen anytime.”
That is the reality of legalized euthanasia: the killing of the disabled, clearly outside of the structure of the law, but without any recourse for those who seek to hold violators accountable and to protect their loved ones.