A license to kill

Last week, in what the British newspaper The Independent called “the most significant Commons vote on social policy since abortion was legalized in the 1960s,” the British Parliament voted in favor of “assisted dying.”

The measure is officially called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and it gives residents in England and Wales legal access to ending their lives with assistance from medical practitioners. As of right now, terminally ill adults who can make the “decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it” are eligible.

According to the bill, anyone who uses “dishonesty, coercion or pressure” to make a person declare for assisted suicide can be held criminally responsible and sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.

However, in looking at Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law, it suggests that assisted dying in the United Kingdom will, too, soon expand. It will also lack accountability for criminal violations.

Last month, The New Atlantis reported that, as many suspected, Canada’s MAID system is filled with hundreds of apparent cases of unreported illegal activity: “For years, there have been clear signals that euthanasia providers in Canada may be breaking the law and getting away with it. That is the finding of the officials who are responsible for monitoring euthanasia deaths to ensure compliance in the province of Ontario. Newly uncovered reports reveal that these authorities have thus far counted over 400 apparent violations—and have kept this information from the public and not pursued a single criminal charge, even against repeat violators and ‘blatant’ offenders.”

Indeed, many have long suspected that some medical practitioners are breaking the law. “Persons who wish to receive MAID must … make a voluntary request that is not the result of external pressure,” the law says. However, several Canadians with terminal illnesses or disabilities allege medical practitioners pressured them to apply for MAID. For instance, Roger Foley, a man in Ontario with an incurable neurological disorder and severe physical disabilities, has filed a lawsuit against the provincial and federal government alleging that he has been denied “proper and necessary health care” and pressured into applying for MAID.

These issues of compliance with procedural “safeguards” and the lack of criminal charges are even more disturbing when we consider that Canada recently expanded its MAID law to include mental illness. “The eligibility date for persons suffering solely from a mental illness is now March 17, 2027,” the Canadian government says.

If there are more than 400 issues of compliance with procedural safeguards concerning people with incurable diseases and physical disabilities in just one province, how many more compliance issues will there be in Ontario and all of Canada when people with mental illness are eligible for MAID in 2027?

Also, one of the eligibility requirements for MAID is that a person should have “decision-making capacity.” But if there are already compliance issues, how will medical practitioners discern that a person with mental illness has “decision-making capacity”? If a person is struggling with mental illness, should he be encouraged to choose whether he wants to live or die? Can people with mental illness make a healthy choice on something that is truly a matter of life and death?

Traditionally, the answer to those questions has been “no.” That is why we stop a person from jumping off of a bridge—instead of pushing them off.

Fittingly, The Independent called the “assisted dying” vote the most significant one in the U.K.’s House of Commons since its vote on abortion in 1967. That bill legalized abortion if doctors believed the pregnancy threatened the mother’s physical or mental health. The year after the bill was enacted in 1968, there were 58,000 abortions. The U.K. later expanded the law to create de facto elective abortions. Therefore, there were 230,000 abortions in 2022.

How many people in the U.K. will die from assisted suicide? And how many more will die when they inevitably widen eligibility like Canada has?

Last year, the Netherlands expanded its euthanasia law to include children as young as 1 year old. The original law in 2001 permitted euthanasia for people 16 years and older. However, Dutch medical doctor Eduard Verhagen says a 12-year-old was euthanized illegally in 2002. Law enforcement in the Netherlands, seemingly, failed to investigate the alleged crime.

We should be disturbed, but not surprised, that euthanasia providers in Canada are reportedly breaking the law and getting away with it. This is the inevitable outcome of MAID. Unjust laws promote unjust actions. Why should law enforcement investigate euthanasia providers when they have a license to kill?

After all, if a euthanasia provider were charged and sentenced to prison for unjustly killing a person, then perhaps Canada would have to consider that MAID is just another word for murder.