Canada's New Euthanasia Laws Spark Shocking Echoes of nazi-Era, Expert Warns
Canada's extremely liberal euthanasia laws, which next year are expected to be expanded to include people with mental health issues and potentially minors, have been criticized for recalling how the Nazis treated people with disabilities
by a prominent academic in the field.
In an article published by The Associated Press last week, Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, said the country's permissive euthanasia laws were "probably the greatest existential threat to people with disabilities since the Nazis" program in Germany in the 1930s. »
The AP article also detailed the story of Alan Nichols, 61, who had a history of hearing loss and depression and, according to Nichols' brother, was illegally "put to death" by the Canadian state in 2019.
Although Nichols' family cited a pitiful lack of supervision and gross negligence on the part of the medical professionals who cared for him, the Canadian Mounted Police, in collaboration with the British Columbia Ministry of Health, refused to lay criminal charges.
Nevertheless, the episode, combined with the upcoming expansion of laws governing euthanasia in Canada in 2023, raises serious questions.
Could it be that a country known for its "liberal universalism" and libertarian fundamentalism has grotesquely perverted the principle of accessibility to medical assistance in dying?
Accessibility is, in most cases, that precious ethic and cornerstone that enables people with disabilities
to thrive as functional members of society.
Yet, in this area, unfettered accessibility may indeed prove to be one of the most malignant forces facing the disability community since the "mercy killings" of the Third Reich nearly nine decades ago.
A global problemAround the world, euthanasia, where doctors use lethal doses of drugs to end the lives of patients with terminal and chronic illnesses, is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and parts of Australia.
In addition, several U.S. states, including California, Colorado, and New Jersey, allow a format in which a physician can prescribe barbiturates that are then self-administered by the patient.
Canada's euthanasia laws came into effect in 2016 and killed an estimated 10,000 people last year.
Proponents of the practice in Canada say there are strong checks and balances in place and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the national euthanasia law "recognizes the rights of all people... as well as the inherent and equal value of every life."
Nevertheless, there are several trends and protocols that set Canada apart from other jurisdictions in which euthanasia is legal and that have led opponents to express concern that the country's medical establishment is teetering in a precipice.
Unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, there are no monthly commissions in place to review problematic cases, while in Canada, the procedure itself can be undertaken by a nurse practitioner rather than being purely reserved for physicians.
Perhaps most troubling of all, and where the issue has become most politicized and confused with liberal fundamentalism, is how euthanasia is proactively proposed as a "treatment option" by doctors who care for patients.
While in other countries where it is legal, euthanasia seems to be more isolated from all other medical remedies and seen as something quite distinct – in Canada it seems to be more deliberately inserted into the routine dialogue between doctors and their patients.
For eligible patients, who do not need to have a terminal illness but simply a life-limiting disability – this is not so much that doctors encourage them to choose euthanasia, but rather offer it as an equal choice among other treatment options and palliative care – in certain situations without the patient himself addressing the subject.
Living with dignityDr. Ramona Coelho, a Canadian family physician, told The Associated Press, "The whole premise of the legislation is based on a discriminatory approach to people with disabilities.
Continuing further, "Most Canadians believe that this is a compassionate service offered to people who have nothing left to offer and who are offered death as a way out. When in fact, the system is applied so generously and so easily in such a short time that people die who would have recovered with more care and resources to live.
This is a view shared by Marie-Claude Landry, chair of the country's human rights commission, who said euthanasia "cannot be a failure for Canada to meet its human rights obligations."
Addressing the notion that when patients are presented with treatment options by doctors, they are likely to see their future lives with a disability through the lens of economic deprivation, Landry said: "At a time when we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live in dignity.
Last year, three United Nations human rights experts condemned Canadian legislation as having a "discriminatory impact" on people with disabilities and going against international human rights standards.
Meanwhile, during a recent visit to the country, Pope Francis attacked Canada's culture of utilitarianism with regard to its euthanasia policy, lamenting the fact that "patients who, instead of affection, are administered death."
Some would argue that interventions based on religious precepts simply risk polarizing a debate that is worthwhile and that can no longer be avoided by any country in the world.
To extend religious connotations, it is often said that "the devil is in the details," but in the case
of Canada's euthanasia law, the opposite seems true.
Certainly, the real danger lies in the vagueness, latitude and laissez-faire brought about by the unique interaction of such a complex and ethically emotional political field and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's unbreakable pact with Liberal universalism.
It is unlikely that there will be easy answers here.
However, a starting point might be to recognize that accessibility should only have the mission of maintaining the primacy of the well-being of people with disabilities and never be diverted as a façade to support much broader political ideals.
by a prominent academic in the field.
In an article published by The Associated Press last week, Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, said the country's permissive euthanasia laws were "probably the greatest existential threat to people with disabilities since the Nazis" program in Germany in the 1930s. »
The AP article also detailed the story of Alan Nichols, 61, who had a history of hearing loss and depression and, according to Nichols' brother, was illegally "put to death" by the Canadian state in 2019.
Although Nichols' family cited a pitiful lack of supervision and gross negligence on the part of the medical professionals who cared for him, the Canadian Mounted Police, in collaboration with the British Columbia Ministry of Health, refused to lay criminal charges.
Nevertheless, the episode, combined with the upcoming expansion of laws governing euthanasia in Canada in 2023, raises serious questions.
Could it be that a country known for its "liberal universalism" and libertarian fundamentalism has grotesquely perverted the principle of accessibility to medical assistance in dying?
Accessibility is, in most cases, that precious ethic and cornerstone that enables people with disabilities
to thrive as functional members of society.
Yet, in this area, unfettered accessibility may indeed prove to be one of the most malignant forces facing the disability community since the "mercy killings" of the Third Reich nearly nine decades ago.
A global problemAround the world, euthanasia, where doctors use lethal doses of drugs to end the lives of patients with terminal and chronic illnesses, is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and parts of Australia.
In addition, several U.S. states, including California, Colorado, and New Jersey, allow a format in which a physician can prescribe barbiturates that are then self-administered by the patient.
Canada's euthanasia laws came into effect in 2016 and killed an estimated 10,000 people last year.
Proponents of the practice in Canada say there are strong checks and balances in place and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the national euthanasia law "recognizes the rights of all people... as well as the inherent and equal value of every life."
Nevertheless, there are several trends and protocols that set Canada apart from other jurisdictions in which euthanasia is legal and that have led opponents to express concern that the country's medical establishment is teetering in a precipice.
Unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, there are no monthly commissions in place to review problematic cases, while in Canada, the procedure itself can be undertaken by a nurse practitioner rather than being purely reserved for physicians.
Perhaps most troubling of all, and where the issue has become most politicized and confused with liberal fundamentalism, is how euthanasia is proactively proposed as a "treatment option" by doctors who care for patients.
While in other countries where it is legal, euthanasia seems to be more isolated from all other medical remedies and seen as something quite distinct – in Canada it seems to be more deliberately inserted into the routine dialogue between doctors and their patients.
For eligible patients, who do not need to have a terminal illness but simply a life-limiting disability – this is not so much that doctors encourage them to choose euthanasia, but rather offer it as an equal choice among other treatment options and palliative care – in certain situations without the patient himself addressing the subject.
Living with dignityDr. Ramona Coelho, a Canadian family physician, told The Associated Press, "The whole premise of the legislation is based on a discriminatory approach to people with disabilities.
Continuing further, "Most Canadians believe that this is a compassionate service offered to people who have nothing left to offer and who are offered death as a way out. When in fact, the system is applied so generously and so easily in such a short time that people die who would have recovered with more care and resources to live.
This is a view shared by Marie-Claude Landry, chair of the country's human rights commission, who said euthanasia "cannot be a failure for Canada to meet its human rights obligations."
Addressing the notion that when patients are presented with treatment options by doctors, they are likely to see their future lives with a disability through the lens of economic deprivation, Landry said: "At a time when we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live in dignity.
Last year, three United Nations human rights experts condemned Canadian legislation as having a "discriminatory impact" on people with disabilities and going against international human rights standards.
Meanwhile, during a recent visit to the country, Pope Francis attacked Canada's culture of utilitarianism with regard to its euthanasia policy, lamenting the fact that "patients who, instead of affection, are administered death."
Some would argue that interventions based on religious precepts simply risk polarizing a debate that is worthwhile and that can no longer be avoided by any country in the world.
To extend religious connotations, it is often said that "the devil is in the details," but in the case
of Canada's euthanasia law, the opposite seems true.
Certainly, the real danger lies in the vagueness, latitude and laissez-faire brought about by the unique interaction of such a complex and ethically emotional political field and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's unbreakable pact with Liberal universalism.
It is unlikely that there will be easy answers here.
However, a starting point might be to recognize that accessibility should only have the mission of maintaining the primacy of the well-being of people with disabilities and never be diverted as a façade to support much broader political ideals.