Canada and the Many Problems with Euthanasia

“The story goes on to detail another Canadian citizen who was repeatedly and continuously offered euthanasia, to such an extent that he began recording these occasions.”

Euthanasia has jumped once more into the public consciousness, as former British Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced his support for its legalization once more last month and reports emerge that the number of euthanasia cases in Canada rose by 32% in 2021. Currently repackaged as “assisted dying”–as if death needed any help–euthanasia has consistently and aggressively been presented as the “compassionate” option or, even worse, as a money-saving exercise. Yet it is not only the terminally ill who are in question but, rather, the mentally unwell and those who have suffered from traumatic events.

One National Post story last month out of Canada exemplifies this. According to the story authored by Tristin Hopper, a military veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was casually offered, by the Veterans Association of Canada (VCA), the option of euthanasia, unprompted. The first obvious issue to arise here is the casual nature with which such a serious topic is broached; dying is in no way casual, and to present it as merely one option among many is deeply concerning, as if it were simply “healthcare.” Such a representation is the same as that which pretends abortion is healthcare, when in reality the termination of life—even at a cellular level—is “care” only to the parties not subject to such termination.

The second issue is the less obvious but the more sinister of the two: that such an option was offered unprompted. Hopper’s National Post story is harrowing to read, for obvious reasons, but among which are reports that the veteran in question was, apparently, recovering well. His being offered euthanasia suggests that the recovery was compromised briefly. However, setbacks are common during recovery. Fortunately, the VCA deeply regrets the act, yet this incident is not isolated, either in its nature, or to the VAC. The story goes on to detail another Canadian citizen who was repeatedly and continuously offered euthanasia, to such an extent that he began recording these occasions. And, to make matters worse, the hospital was clearly pressuring him by telling him his care cost “over $1,500 a day.” Further incidents are detailed elsewhere, such as Canadian Alan Nichols’ application for euthanasia over hearing loss, a story becoming all too common in Canada, or the state of Oregon in which the vast majority of applicants for euthanasia are concerned with being “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable.” With Canadian laws set to become more permissive, expanding to include “psychiatric conditions,” this is a troubling trend indeed.

This article is not about the legitimacy of euthanasia, though I am personally skeptical of its virtues. What concerns me instead is the finality of such a decision, as well as the danger this presents in a culture that so often unquestioningly accepts the immediate beliefs of individuals. By this, I mean two things. First, “immediate” here means the temporally bound and unextended demands: The West today, dominated by a permissive liberalism, has at its heart an exaltation of uncritical desires, a fear of moral theorists from Aristotle’s appetitive reasoning to Locke’s distinction between liberty and license. It is not hard to see this in our current world: rampant drug use; rising alcoholism; extraordinarily liberated sexual practices; and so on. A research paper from 2015, authored by Donley Studder of Strathclyde University and Gordon Burns of West Virginia University, explicitly connected the increasing permissiveness of Western civilization to the topics previously mentioned (abortion and euthanasia) among others.