Is Euthanasia Becoming Too Easy?

Two headlines about euthanasia in Canada recently caught my eye. One was about Jolene Van Alstine, a 45-year-old native of Saskatchewan suffering from a rare, but treatable, parathyroid disease that causes intense bone pain, among other things. There were no surgeons in Saskatchewan who were able to perform the required surgery, so she needed a referral from an endocrinologist in Saskatchewan; however, none of them were willing to take her on as a new patient. Various government officials that she contacted recommended Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program as a “solution,” even though her condition is not terminal. And best of all, the government would cover the cost!

Jolene was ready to end her life on January 7, but help and hope came from an unexpected source: Radio host Glenn Beck offered to cover all costs related to her care, including her transfer to the U.S. and whatever medical procedures might be necessary for her recovery. At last report, surgeons in Tampa, Ontario, and Saskatchewan had agreed on an alternative strategy involving high doses of calcium and vitamin D as a first step. Jolene and Glenn Beck remain in touch.

A second headline was about a story with a very different, and very disturbing, ending. An 80-something Canadian woman known as “Mrs. B” had initially requested euthanasia following her heart surgery (with complications), but then changed her mind; she cited her religious beliefs and requested admission to hospice, which was denied. Mrs. B’s first MAiD assessor “had warned of coercion, sudden changes in her wishes, and caregiver burnout as possible risks.” Although there were nursing visits following Mrs. B’s heart surgery, her primary caregiver was her husband, who requested a second assessment under the MAiD program, and this second assessor deemed Mrs. B “eligible” for euthanasia, overriding the concerns expressed by the first assessor. At this point, the first assessor then attempted to meet with Mrs. B again, but the request was refused on the grounds of “clinical circumstances necessitating same-day euthanasia.” A third assessor confirmed the second assessor’s “recommendation,” so Mrs. B’s life was taken “against her will,” in the words of Rachael Thomas, a Conservative member of Parliament in Canada. “That’s called murder,” she wrote.

One of the things that I find most disturbing about this story is that the first MAiD assessor’s attempt to meet a second time with Mrs. B was denied for bureaucratic reasons. Let me repeat from the previous paragraph: “clinical circumstances necessitating same-day euthanasia.” And what of Mrs. B’s husband, who, according to various reports, “pushed” for his wife to consent to euthanasia after their request for hospice and palliative care was denied? One can easily understand the difficulty an 80-something man would have, trying to care for his wife after complications following her heart surgery; he obviously needed help, which was denied. I can see how the very presence of an option like MAiD could be too tempting to pass up, and whether they had any children who could help is unknown. This is not meant to condone what the husband allowed, but to understand it.

Canada’s MAiD program allows a nurse practitioner or physician to actively end a person’s life by directly administering medication; this is a form of euthanasia. Alternatively, a nurse practitioner or physician can prescribe the person a “substance” to end his or her life, which is known as physician-assisted suicide. In actual fact, the vast majority of deaths under Canada’s MAiD program are euthanasia. As mentioned earlier, under this program it is “free;” that, combined with the fact that a physician or nurse can “take care of it,” makes it a comparatively “easy” option.

In the U.S., active euthanasia is illegal, thankfully; however, physician-assisted suicide is legal in ten states and D.C. Also thankfully, federal law does not permit the federal government to subsidize assisted suicide. On the other hand, Medi-Cal (CA’s version of Medicaid) covers the cost; I haven’t researched the other nine states where physician-assisted suicide is legal in terms of whether those states’ governments subsidize the cost.

I should add here that there is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate directives) are an example of the second type. My wife and I believe that passive euthanasia is Scripturally permissible, but active euthanasia is not. In fact, for most of recorded history, the kinds of extension-of-life options that are available now were not available. However, I know, and know of, plenty of people who have gone to great lengths to extend life in ways that were not available even 100 years ago.

One thing that helps in these complex issues is a Biblical understanding of suffering. Here are two verses that directly link suffering and hope: “Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” (Romans 5:3,4) Here’s another verse about suffering, which is part of a passage about the hope for all of creation: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” (Romans 8:18)

I don’t claim to have all of the answers to end-of-life and extension-of-life issues. In the end, each of us who claims the Name of Christ must ask for wisdom and make decisions about such matters before Him.