The Spiritual and Ethical Dilemma of Canada’s Growing Assisted Death Program

Canada recently released its updated statistics for how many people died last year from physician-assisted suicide, and the numbers continue an alarming trend. The country’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program was used by roughly 15,300 people to end their own lives. That makes it the fifth leading cause of death in 2023 and represents a 16 percent increase over the previous year. However, considering that 2022 saw an increase of 31 percent, I suppose you could say it’s an improvement in some respects.

But while Canada is the country where the greatest number of people have chosen to end their lives through some form of physician-assisted suicide, they are far from the only place where a form of the procedure is legal. The United Kingdom, for example, took steps recently to join that list, which will be discussed at greater length later in this article. However, Canada’s MAID laws are among the least restrictive you’re likely to find.

What Sets Canada Apart?

While the premise behind most physician-assisted suicide programs is ostensibly to help facilitate a more peaceful end for those who are already on death’s doorstep, that is not always how it plays out in practice.

The government in Quebec recently began allowing individuals to request euthanasia in advance when diagnosed with a potentially terminal illness. Efforts to extend access to people with mental illness have encountered more resistance than expected, but the rationale is that the country’s healthcare system is “not ready” rather than that their inclusion would be wrong on the merits. And in Alberta, a judge ruled earlier this year that an autistic woman could end her life despite efforts from her family to keep her from doing so.

That last case, in particular, could be part of why the provincial government in Alberta recently announced that they are looking for citizen input regarding potential changes to the way their MAID program functions. Among the topics under consideration are:

Creating a new public agency, as well as additional legislation, to provide oversight.
Creating a way for “families and eligible others” to argue that a family member who has sought MAID should not qualify.
Implementing new limitations on who qualifies for MAID.

While MAID is technically a national law, and some form of the program must be offered throughout the country, each province has a measure of discretion regarding how it is implemented. As such, there is a good bit of room for provincial governments to adjust how the law works in their jurisdiction. The recent trends outlined above have given rise to a growing concern that the law is not serving the purpose for which it was originally created.

That said, it should not come as a surprise that giving people a quick—and final—way to escape from their pain and distress has been abused. Couple that vulnerability with the fact that the legal protections meant to guard against abuse are increasingly ignored—in Ontario, for example, a quarter of MAID providers were found to have been out of compliance last year—and you get a cautionary tale of where such laws can lead.

But, if that’s the case, why do assisted suicide laws seem to be growing in popularity? And what steps, if any, are being taken to guard against those abuses?

A telling answer to both questions is found in the UK’s move to pass similar legislation, though with one key difference.

Who Gives the Lethal Dose?

This past November, the British Parliament voted to continue toward the legalization of assisted suicide. And while many steps remain in what the bill’s sponsor speculated would be at least a two-year process, signs point to the UK eventually joining the list of Western nations and states to allow doctors to help people end their own lives.

The nature of that aid, however, provides a key distinction and points to an important truth on the nature of what many are looking for when they ask for doctors to help them die.

In the proposed bill—as in most places where assisted suicide is legal—doctors would be able to give a patient the necessary drugs to induce death, but the patient would have to be the one to take them. By contrast, in Canada and the Netherlands, doctors are allowed to administer the drugs as well. This distinction appears to have a profound effect on how often people are willing to utilize such laws.

For example, California and Canada have similar populations, yet more than 15,000 people took advantage of the MAID laws to end their lives in 2023. By contrast, only 884 individuals in California did the same. And while the difference in who administers the life-ending drugs is not the only distinction—the health care system in Canada is so poor that the standard of care “makes assisted suicide seem more reasonable”—it’s a crucial part of the story.

Overall, the statistics clearly demonstrate that people are substantially more willing to accept a doctor’s help to end their life when they don’t have to be the one to actually take it themselves.

And that difference speaks to a principle that applies beyond assisted suicide.

Degrees of Separation from Sin

Much of the debate surrounding euthanasia typically comes down to the idea that, when faced with a situation where imminent death is all but certain, people should be given the opportunity to end their life on their terms. And the appeal of that idea is easy to understand.

If you’ve ever walked with someone through a losing battle with cancer or been around a person whose mind, for all practical purposes, died long before their body, the idea of sparing them from that fate can seem merciful. On some level, maybe it is. But the Bible teaches that—with few exceptions—when a life ends is up to God, not us.

Perhaps many of those who are ready to die but far less willing to take their own life recognize that truth to some extent. If so, gaining a degree of separation from the action by having a doctor facilitate that end could make it easier to accept. And the same is true in other areas of our lives as well.

It is often far easier to reject God’s plans when we can lay the ultimate blame for our sins on someone else. This temptation has existed since the Garden of Eden and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. However, God is not fooled, and just because others may share the blame does not absolve us of our guilt.

So the next time you’re tempted to think that your sins are somehow lessened because someone else shared in them, remember that’s not how it works. We are each responsible for our own choices, regardless of who else plays a part.

Trusting God’s ways, even when his path is more difficult than what we would choose for ourselves, will always be the right choice.

Where do you need that reminder today?

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote of the Day:

“Your most profound and intimate experiences of worship will likely be in your darkest days—when your heart is broken when you feel abandoned, when you’re out of options when the pain is great—and you turn to God alone.” —Rick Warren

Published Date: December 18, 2024

Ryan Denison, PhD, is the Senior Editor for Theology at Denison Forum. Ryan writes The Daily Article every Friday and contributes writing and research to many of the ministry’s productions. He holds a PhD in church history from BH Carroll Theological Institute after having earned his MDiv at Truett Seminary. He’s authored The Path to Purpose, What Are My Spiritual Gifts?, How to Bless God by Blessing Others, 7 Deadly Sins, and has contributed writing or research to every Denison Forum book.

The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.

For more from the Denison Forum, please visit www.denisonforum.org.