Canada recently released its updated statistics for how many people died last year from physician-assisted suicide, and the numbers continue an alarming trend. The country’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program was used by roughly 15,300 people to end their own lives. That makes it the fifth leading cause of death in 2023 and represents a 16 percent increase over the previous year. However, considering that 2022 saw an increase of 31 percent, I suppose you could say it’s an improvement in some respects.

But while Canada is the country where the greatest number of people have chosen to end their lives through some form of physician-assisted suicide, they are far from the only place where a form of the procedure is legal. The United Kingdom, for example, took steps recently to join that list and will be discussed at greater length later in this article. However, Canada’s MAID laws are among the least restrictive you’re likely to find.

What sets Canada apart?

While the premise behind most physician-assisted suicide programs is ostensibly to help facilitate a more peaceful end for those who are already on death’s doorstep, that is not always how it plays out in practice.

The government in Quebec recently began allowing individuals to request euthanasia in advance when diagnosed with a potentially terminal illness. Efforts to extend access to people with mental illness have encountered more resistance than expected, but the rationale is that the country’s healthcare system is “not ready” rather than that their inclusion would be wrong on the merits. And in Alberta, a judge ruled earlier this year that an autistic woman could end her life despite efforts from her family to keep her from doing so.

That last case in particular could be part of why the provincial government in Alberta recently announced that they are looking for citizen input regarding potential changes to the way their MAID program functions. Among the topics under consideration are:

• Creating a new public agency, as well as additional legislation, to provide oversight.
• Creating a way for “families and eligible others” to argue that a family member who has sought MAID should not qualify.
• Implementing new limitations on who qualifies for MAID.

While MAID is technically a national law and some form of the program must be offered throughout the country, each province has a measure of discretion regarding how it is implemented. As such, there is a good bit of room for provincial governments to adjust how the law works in their jurisdiction. The recent trends outlined above have given rise to a growing concern that the law is not serving the purpose for which it was originally created.

That said, it should not come as a surprise that giving people a quick—and final—way to escape from their pain and distress has been abused. Couple that vulnerability with the fact that the legal protections meant to guard against abuse are increasingly ignored—in Ontario, for example, a quarter of MAID providers were found to have been out of compliance last year—and you get a cautionary tale of where such laws can lead.

But, if that’s the case, why do assisted suicide laws seem to be growing in popularity? And what steps, if any, are being taken to guard against those abuses?

A telling answer to both questions is found in the UK’s move to pass similar legislation, though with one key difference.

Who gives the lethal dose?

This past November, the British Parliament voted to continue toward the legalization of assisted suicide. And while many steps remain in what the bill’s sponsor speculated would be at least a two-year process, signs point to the UK eventually joining the list of Western nations and states to allow doctors to help people end their own lives.

The nature of that aid, however, provides a key distinction and points to an important truth on the nature of what many are looking for when they ask for doctors to help them die.

In the proposed bill—as in most places where assisted suicide is legal—doctors would be able to give a patient the necessary drugs to induce death, but the patient would have to be the one to take them. By contrast, in Canada and the Netherlands, doctors are allowed to administer the drugs as well. This distinction appears to have a profound effect on how often people are willing to utilize such laws.

For example, California and Canada have similar populations, yet more than 15,000 people took advantage of the MAID laws to end their lives in 2023. By contrast, only 884 individuals in California did the same. And while the difference in who administers the life-ending drugs is not the only distinction—the health care system in Canada is so poor that the standard of care “makes assisted suicide seem more reasonable”—it’s a crucial part of the story.

Overall, the statistics clearly demonstrate that people are substantially more willing to accept a doctor’s help to end their life when they don’t have to be the one to actually take it themselves.

And that difference speaks to a principle that applies beyond assisted suicide.

Degrees of separation from sin

Much of the debate surrounding euthanasia typically comes down to the idea that, when faced with a situation where imminent death is all but certain, people should be given the opportunity to end their life on their terms. And the appeal of that idea is easy to understand.

If you’ve ever walked with someone through a losing battle with cancer or been around a person whose mind, for all practical purposes, died long before their body, the idea of sparing them from that fate can seem merciful. On some level, maybe it is. But the Bible teaches that—with few exceptions—when a life ends is up to God, not us.

Perhaps many of those who are ready to die but far less willing to take their own life recognize that truth to some extent. If so, gaining a degree of separation from the action by having a doctor facilitate that end could make it easier to accept. And the same is true in other areas of our lives as well.

It is often far easier to reject God’s plans when we can lay the ultimate blame for our sins on someone else. This temptation has existed since the Garden of Eden and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. However, God is not fooled, and just because others may share the blame does not absolve us of our guilt.

So the next time you’re tempted to think that your sins are somehow lessened because someone else shared in them, remember that’s not how it works. We are each responsible for our own choices, regardless of who else plays a part.

Trusting God’s ways, even when his path is more difficult than what we would choose for ourselves, will always be the right choice.

Where do you need that reminder today?

Wednesday news to know:

• CNN helped free an infamous Syrian intelligence officer after mistaking him for a regular prisoner
• Congress puts forward a bill that would fund the government for another three months.
• AI’s next frontier is building world models that some see as a prerequisite for human-level intelligence
• “Supergiant” gold deposit worth approximately $83 billion found in China
• On this day in 1620: The Mayflower arrives at Plymouth Harbor

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote of the day:

“Your most profound and intimate experiences of worship will likely be in your darkest days—when your heart is broken, when you feel abandoned, when you’re out of options, when the pain is great—and you turn to God alone.” —Rick Warren

Denison Forum

What happens when people no longer trust their leaders?

I had planned to write today’s Daily Article about the continuing lack of information from the government regarding the mysterious drones in the night skies. I was not alone in my concern.

Podcaster Joe Rogan said he is “genuinely concerned” about them. One New Jersey lawmaker demanded that the federal government get to the bottom of this “very threatening situation,” stating that we should presume the drones are “not friendly.” Sen. Chuck Schumer called for the DHS to deploy better drone-tracking technology to identify the objects and their operators.

Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, told ABC’s This Week, “You can see why people are concerned, and it’s a lack of communication from the government at the federal and state level that’s at fault here.” He added, “We’re used to having [information] so rapidly. If you don’t fill the vacuum, then all the conspiracy theories get filled in there.” As a result, he stated, “The Biden administration and state authorities have to be more vocal and let people know exactly what they are doing.”

“We have not identified anything anomalous”

Then I heard an interview last night with John Kirby, spokesperson for the National Security Council, in which he stated that the mysterious drones are “legal” and “lawful.” He said officials have examined roughly five thousand sightings to date and determined that “lawful, legal, commercial hobbyist and even law enforcement aircraft activity” is responsible for them.

He added, “We’ve seen nothing . . . that indicates a foreign adversary, actor involved or any kind of pernicious national security threat.” He told CNN the same: “To date, [there is] no sense and no indication that there’s a national security or public safety risk posed by any of this activity.”

Kirby’s assurance mirrored a “joint statement” released last night by DHS, the FBI, the FAA, and the Department of Defense:

Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.

“People have a lot of anxiety right now”

If the drone controversy was unique, the story would be different. But it comes at a time when less than one in four Americans trust the federal government and only 15 percent believe it to be transparent.

Sen. Andy Kim (D–NJ) spoke for many: “I think this situation in some ways reflects this moment in our country. People have a lot of anxiety right now about the economy, health, security, etc. And too often we find that those charged with working on these issues don’t engage the public with the respect and depth needed.”

This issue goes to the heart of our democracy, since such a system of governance depends on the credibility of its leaders. When the people no longer trust their elected officials to do what they are elected to do, democracy itself is threatened, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently warned.

In a freedom-based society, such trust cannot be demanded but must be earned. Autocrats can try to enforce their edicts through force; kings can attempt to rule by “divine right” and hereditary power. But our system of governance stands and falls on the trust we invest in those who lead it.

“You first loved us so that we might love you”

Today’s discussion points to an even larger issue: the health and destiny of our eternal souls.

Like elected leaders in a democracy, our Father honors the freedom he has given us. Then, more than any human possibly can, he earns our trust through his sacrificial love. In response, “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

The medieval theologian William of St-Thierry (1085–1148) responded to this text by praying:

“You first loved us so that we might love you—not because you needed our love, but because we could not be what you created us to be, except by loving you.”

William was right: You and I are created in the image of the God who is love (Genesis 1:27; 1 John 4:8). This means we must love to be who we are made to be.

However, as fallen people, we need God’s help to love as we are intended. This is one reason Christmas is so vital to our souls and our society: when we see the length and depth to which our Savior would go in coming to our world to pay for our sins, we are prompted to respond to his love with our love.

And when we see the length and depth to which he would go in dying for those sins, we are even more moved to respond to his love in kind, as William noted:

Everything he did and everything he said on earth, even enduring the insults, the spitting, the buffeting—the cross and the grave—all of this was actually you speaking to us in your Son, appealing to us by your love and stirring up our love for you.

You know that this disposition could not be forced on men’s hearts, my God, since you created them; it must rather be elicited.

What does such love elicit in your heart today?

NOTE: In addition to the Daily Article, I often respond to the news of the day with website articles. Yesterday, when news broke of the tragedy in Wisconsin, I wrote, “3 dead, 6 injured at Wisconsin Christian school shooting.” Earlier in the day I published, “Dick Van Dyke nearly died in Malibu fires,” “What Travis Hunter’s Heisman win says about our culture,” and “Kids correct Jill Biden’s ‘Happy Holidays.’” You can find these and other resources at our website, www.denisonforum.org. I hope you’ll visit it regularly.

Tuesday news to know:

• 15-year-old girl identified as shooter in a Wisconsin school
• Ukraine assassinates Russian chemical weapons chief in Moscow bombing
• US congressional negotiators aim to fund government through March 14, source says
• German government collapses at a perilous time for Europe
• On this day in 1777: France formally recognizes the United States

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote for the day:

“Jesus’ coming is the final and unanswerable proof that God cares.” —William Barclay

Denison Forum