By The Defender

In Canada, like New Zealand, the conversation of euthanasia and assisted suicide started by highlighting situations of it being used as a “last resort”. The goalposts have shifted rapidly in Canada.

Canada is now on track to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people with mental illness after their expert panel released its final report on the topic recently.

The panel studied the issue of euthanasia for those whose sole medical condition is mental illness. This, according to commentator Michael Cook, “complimented Bill C-7, which expanded access to euthanasia in March 2021 to people whose death is not imminent.”

“The panel concluded that it was appropriate to extend MAiD [Medical Assistance in Dying] to people with mental illness. It acknowledged that there are risks” says Cook, but in permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, “Canadian society no longer requires everyone to accept that life is a benefit in all circumstances”.

Like New Zealand, Canada’s law required a person to be close to death. There it was described as “imminent”. Here it is “with six months left to live.” In 2021, Canada removed it’s “imminent death clause”. One realises that here in New Zealand, the only reason we have the “six months” clause, was due to the level of opposition and public outcry over the then bill. That led to the law’s sponsor, David Seymour, making a concession by adding the timeframe to get support in Parliament. It was never part of the intention of the law here – it was meant to be much wider than it is.

It’s no surprise there are those seeking to now expand the Canadian law. This expansion, according to proponents has nothing to do with a “slipperly slope” – they deny such a slope exists – no, it is instead the logical consequence of a law that allows for certain citizens to be killed within the naive demands of a society striving for equality in all things. If person A is able to end their life for reasons, 1, 2, and 3 – why shouldn’t person B be able to end their life due to only reason 1? In fact, as the argument goes, why should there be any limitations?

Likewise, in places like Belgium and The Netherlands, requests for euthanasia due to mental illness are commonplace, with medical practitioners having deliberately ended the lives of healthy patients with many years of life left, for various reasons like, loss of a significant other, ending of a relationship, alcohol addiction, dissatisfaction with a gender-transition surgery and more.

Not surprisingly, many doctors, ethicists and legal scholars oppose the conclusions of the Canadian report. Trudo Lemmens, of the University of Toronto, critiqued the conclusion in the Impact Ethics blog as follows.

Promotors of expansive MAID ignore that preventing premature death remains a priority under constitutional and international human rights law. The fact that some may not get MAID when they want it is seen as of greater concern than the premature death of others, particularly those already stigmatized, discriminated against, and contextually vulnerable. This reflects a troubling, irrefutable utilitarian logic: when MAID becomes a solution to suffering, available on demand, it will always be prioritized, since it is 100% effective.

Like Canada, we need to be watchful and remain on guard for possible expansions to the law here in New Zealand. Already in our mainstream media we’ve seen glorification of euthanasia or assisted suicide deaths here in New Zealand, through government-funded current affairs and locally produced drama.

That’s why #DefendNZ is bringing to light serious flaws in the law that need to be fixed. If we as a collective don’t do everything within our ability to tighten the current unsafe law, it will inevitably be loosened further. #DefendNZ’s Six to Fix petition has already gained over 750 signatures.

Cover image: Slide to indoctrinate youth taken from a Nazi propaganda filmstrip. Promoting “euthanasia,” it was prepared for the Hitler Youth. The caption says: “Mentally ill Negro (English) 16 years in an institution costing 35,000 RM [Reichsmarks].” Place and date uncertain.