The word “compassion” ultimately comes from the Latin word compati, meaning “to suffer with”. A great many of our great humanitarian values — the care for the sick, the poor, and the disenfranchised, advocating for the voiceless, comforting those in distress — ultimately come from our compassion for those who are suffering, and our suffering alongside them. It appears that precisely this compassion is driving a radical form of care: euthanasia.
Euthanasia is the practice of ending a life to eliminate suffering. A prominent example of a country with a legal framework for active voluntary euthanasia is Canada, which has laws establishing Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). First passed in 2016, the law established the right for Canadians with terminal illnesses the right to choose death through medication, which they may either self-administer or have administered to them.
The case that the advocates of euthanasia make is compelling. Many people endure significant suffering from terminal disease, facing not hope of recovery but an extended period of decline. If relief is unavailable and an individual genuinely seeks death as a release from their suffering, then wouldn’t it be right to allow them this? Wouldn’t it be a chance for them to die with their dignity intact and autonomy over their life?
On the other hand, active euthanasia is different from the passive form that has been practiced in the past — when patients in a vegetative state are allowed to die naturally. The distinction lies in the medical personnel's level of participation; it’s akin to the difference between actively extinguishing a fire with water and letting it burn out on its own. In carrying out active euthanasia, a medical practitioner intends the death of their patient, while passive euthanasia, even involving the withdrawal of life-preserving mechanisms, does not have such intentions.
Active euthanasia provides an awful alternative for the problems in life for some of the most vulnerable among us. Consider, for instance, a story covered by CityNews Toronto last October, where a disabled man applied for MAiD due to his fear of homelessness, not out of a desire to die. Furthermore, laws of this nature — initially targeted at perhaps the narrow demographics that are indeed suffering greatly — tend to expand in scope. The Canadian law lifted the requirement for people requesting MAiD to have a reasonably foreseeable death, and will allow for people suffering from mental health conditions to request MAiD starting March 17, 2024. How many more will choose to end their lives just because society failed them, and then failed to stop them?
Laws like these are not exclusive to Canada, where the legalization was fairly recent. Active euthanasia was first legalized in the Netherlands in 2001 and in Belgium in 2002. The US state of Oregon enacted its Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) in 1997. The precise scope of these laws varies; the Dutch allow children aged 12 or older to request euthanasia with parental consent, or for parents to request it on behalf of their child that is up to a year old, while the Canadian laws permit euthanasia requests only for those 18 or older. In contrast, Oregon’s DWDA allows only terminally ill adults to make a request to self-administer a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician. Active euthanasia remains illegal in Oregon, along with the rest of the US.
Active euthanasia is symptomatic of a concerning shift in our values, having created a world that diminishes the sanctity of human life. It doesn’t have to be this way. We should return to our age-old ideals of compassion, and the reverence we have for the greatest gift that we hold: our life.
Rather than establishing active euthanasia as an alternative, prioritizing investment in palliative care and ensuring its continuous improvement is imperative for those suffering from debilitating and terminal physical maladies. Comprehensive and compassionate palliative care can help us extend the support terminally ill people deserve, all while maintaining their dignity. For those suffering from mental illnesses, we should provide them with the care and love they deserve, not with the option to end their lives. Our efforts should instead be redirected to supporting them as they recover and reintegrate. While active euthanasia laws may come from a place of compassion, such compassion is arguably misdirected. Caring for the vulnerable around us means making their lives better, even at the cost of our comfort, and not facilitating their deaths just for our convenience.