Canada Must Choose Compassion Without Abandoning Life

Commentary

Few responsibilities are more serious for government than protecting human life while respecting individual dignity and freedom. Medical assistance in dying (MAID) presents Canadians with profound moral, medical, and legal questions. My position is straightforward: Canada must remain compassionate, but compassion must never become an excuse for abandoning those who suffer.

I believe human life possesses inherent dignity, regardless of age, disability, illness, or economic circumstances. That conviction is informed by my Christian faith, but it is not exclusively religious. It reflects a principle that should unite Canadians: human worth must never depend upon health, independence, or perceived usefulness to society.

I recognize that reasonable Canadians disagree about assisted dying. Anyone who has witnessed a loved one endure a devastating terminal illness understands the desire to relieve suffering. We should approach these experiences with humility and respect, not condemnation.

The Supreme Court’s 2015 Carter decision established the constitutional basis for MAID, and Parliament legislated accordingly in 2016. Since then, eligibility has expanded beyond patients whose natural deaths are reasonably foreseeable. What began as an exceptional response to intolerable suffering now raises legitimate questions about whether Parliament has established adequate boundaries.

According to Health Canada, 16,499 Canadians received MAID in 2024, representing approximately 5.1 percent of all deaths. These numbers do not establish wrongdoing, but they demand careful scrutiny. An irreversible medical procedure requires exceptional transparency, accountability and safeguards.

My greatest concern is that some Canadians may view assisted death as their only reasonable option because adequate treatment, housing, disability assistance, or palliative care is unavailable. A society cannot claim to offer genuine freedom of choice when meaningful alternatives are inaccessible. There is a profound difference between choosing death despite having alternatives and choosing death because those alternatives have failed.

This distinction is particularly important regarding mental illness. Psychiatric conditions can be devastating, but recovery remains possible even after prolonged suffering. Parliament must exercise extraordinary caution before concluding that psychological suffering is beyond remedy.

The federal government’s recent proposal to indefinitely exclude mental illness as the sole qualifying condition for MAID is welcome. However, an announcement is not legislation, and Parliament must act. I support making this exclusion permanent while ensuring appropriate distinctions between psychiatric illness and neurological disease.

I am equally concerned about expanding advance requests for MAID. The fear of losing independence through dementia or degenerative illness is understandable. Nevertheless, authorizing death through an earlier directive when someone can no longer confirm consent presents extraordinary ethical difficulties.

Canada now needs a more disciplined approach, one that places patient protection ahead of further expansion. Independent medical assessments must be strengthened, particularly when natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Patients must fully understand their options and have meaningful access to appropriate treatment before making an irreversible decision.

But safeguards alone are insufficient if Canadians cannot obtain the care they need. Ottawa must work with provincial governments to establish measurable national objectives for palliative care, pain management, and mental-health treatment. No Canadian should feel pressured toward assisted death because our health-care system has failed to provide reasonable alternatives.

Public confidence also requires independent oversight, transparent reporting and credible investigations when serious concerns arise. Medical professionals must retain freedom of conscience, and faith-based institutions deserve appropriate protection for their sincerely held convictions. These protections must coexist with reasonable access to lawful medical services.

These proposals do not dismiss the suffering of patients or their families. Nor do they suggest every illness can be cured or every form of suffering eliminated. They recognize that the state has an obligation to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly when decisions are irreversible.

Canada should never become a country where assisted death is more accessible than the care necessary to continue living. We should be known for the quality of our health care, the strength of our communities, and our determination to support people facing illness and despair. Our compassion should be measured by how faithfully we care for those who suffer.

I am not advocating the wholesale abolition of Canada’s MAID framework, nor do I support its continued expansion without restraint. The responsible course is to establish firm boundaries, strengthen oversight, and invest in meaningful alternatives. Individual freedom must be balanced with personal responsibility and the government’s duty to protect life.

Human dignity does not diminish with illness, disability, or age. Freedom matters, but so do conscience, compassion, and the protection of the vulnerable. Canada must have the moral courage to defend all these principles, because a compassionate society should never give up on its people.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.