Euthanasia pressure in Canada

In Canada, the insistence on promoting euthanasia or “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) has reached the point of being repeatedly offered to patients who do not suffer from terminal illnesses.

A representative example of this worrying trend is the case of Father Larry Holland, a 79-year-old priest who, while recovering from a hip fracture at Vancouver General Hospital, was offered the procedure on two separate occasions.

The first suggestion came from a doctor, who offered him euthanasia as an option should his health deteriorate. Father Holland immediately rejected it, stating his complete moral objection.

However, weeks later, a nurse insisted on the same proposal. The patient expressed his incomprehension at the insistence on offering euthanasia to a Catholic priest, completely ignoring both his religious beliefs and his previous refusal.

For its part, the hospital’s response has been limited to justifying that healthcare professionals have a duty to inform about MAiD based on their own medical judgment.

Given the evidence of these practices, which pose a clear risk of coercion to the most vulnerable patients, conservative politician Garnett Genuis has introduced a legislative proposal aimed at preventing such pressure.

His initiative seeks to expressly prohibit federal employees from offering or recommending euthanasia to those who have not requested it.

This case is part of a grim national reality. Since its legalization a decade ago, euthanasia has been applied to approximately 100,000 people in Canada.

This overwhelming figure raises serious bioethical questions that implicate all actors in the process. It holds responsible the legislators who drafted and approved the law, as well as all professionals involved in the chain, from case evaluation to the clinical procedures that result in patient deaths.

The “slippery slope” of euthanasia

Initially, Bill C-14 allowed adult Canadians in a serious and irreversible medical condition to access MAiD, with the possibility of withdrawing the request at any time after a mandatory reflection period.

In February 2021, Law C-7 came into force, which repealed the requirement that death had to be reasonably foreseeable, so that, since then, people with chronic non-terminal illnesses or with physical or psychological suffering that is considered intolerable can request it.

In 2023 the law was reformed to include people with mental illnesses among those who can request euthanasia.

Bioethical assessment

“Pro-euthanasia” positions are seeking to expand their application with increasing intensity. The manipulation of messages that, under the guise of false compassion, present murder or suicide in patients who request it as a liberating option, spreads the culture of death along with the abandonment of care for those who need it.

The constant coverage of euthanasia in the media, as well as the insistence on offering it to sick people in countries where it is legal, is contributing to an increase in the number of requests and procedures. These are becoming increasingly unrelated to unbearable suffering, incurable diseases, or terminal conditions.

The vague concept of psychological suffering, which is difficult to assess, makes it possible to apply euthanasia to any patient, healthy or ill, who subjectively feels that they suffer from it to an unbearable degree.

In the case we are now analyzing, the offer of euthanasia was made “preventively,” that is, in case the patient’s condition worsened. It would involve including euthanasia as another option among the “therapeutic” protocols in a simple case of a hip fracture.

As we previously reported in our Bioethics Observatory, since legalizing these practices in Canada in 2016, the state has saved $66 million. This may be encouraging the proposal of euthanasia to an increasing number of patients, rather than offering high-quality palliative care.

These are worrying symptoms of decline in civilizations that choose to suppress the vulnerable instead of caring for them as they need.