Canada’s Rapid Rise In Euthanasia ~ BC Now Has The Highest Medically Assisted Death Rate In The World

When you consider the fact euthanasia was not legalized in Canada until 2016, this is quite an achievement, if you want to call it that.

To help put things in perspective, worldwide there are just eight countries with legislation to permit medically assisted death. This short list includes Belgium, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Spain, Colombia, the Netherlands, and Canada. It appears Germany was added to this list in 2014.

Just to give some idea on the direction this ole world is going, let’s check a brief history on this rapidly rising cause of death. Belgium legalized it in 2002 for adults only. In 2014, they lifted the age restriction to include children. In Belgium there was a court case when a 38 year old was euthanized over what the family described as a “failed relationship” not an incurable illness. The courts acquitted the doctors involved in the medically assisted suicide.

Luxembourg passed euthanasia legislation in 2008. It appears the percentage of medically assisted deaths in this country are around .2% of all recorded deaths. In the Netherlands, it was legalized in 2002, and is significantly higher at 2-3% The Netherlands was the first country in Europe to pass this legislation. Yet the growth of such deaths in the Netherlands does not have anywhere near the trajectory we have seen in Canada. Is that really because we are so “nice” in Canada?

In Spain, it was recently legalized in 2021. In Colombia the legislation was passed in 1997, which probably makes it the first in the world to do so.

New Zealand just passed legislation in 2021. Apparently two thirds of New Zealanders voted in favour of the End Of Life Act.

When you consider there are 195 countries in the world, euthanasia might be quickly normalized once the legislation is passed, but keep in mind it still only represents a small fraction of a global ideology. Once legislated, it can quickly become a trend if checks and balances are not strictly adhered to.

Canada demonstrates the most alarming trend of all, and even though the legislation was only passed recently, we now have the highest rates of medically assisted death in the world. British Columbia is already at 4.8% of all cause mortality, and no doubt this percentile is climbing as Canada increases the laxity of these laws, to include young people, and those with mental health issues.

For those who have worked in hospitals, we know people who are in palliative care get as much morphine as they need or want. Even if the person can no longer speak, any sign of discomfort, even a grimace, warrants increased doses of analgesic. In all honesty, in many such deaths, we know or suspected it was the morphine, not the disease that ultimately stopped the respirations. Those deaths are not classified as euthanasia though.

Although I have no judgment toward those who make such choices, and in many cases can understand why they might opt out of a terminally painful ending. What I do find alarming is the rapid rate of acceptance of what was considered murder not that many years ago.

It seems once such legislation is passed, the guidelines become less strict very quickly, and the numbers go up dramatically. We went from suicide prevention, to suicide assistance. From considering self harm to be a mental illness, to viewing it as being heroic self sacrifice under compassionate laws.

We cannot accept this form of death as a runaway train, or we risk repeating what was done in Germany during the Nazi era. Before long, the state is deciding who is too sick or too pathetic to live.

Long before euthanasia is a requirement or a “viable” choice, we should be far more accepting of natural death. Our health care system fights natural death, and expects ninety year olds to be admitted to ICU. We still have families who are horrified if their elderly parent has dementia with multiple falls and injuries, yet is not admitted to acute care, and given a full work up. They demand X-rays, blood work, CT scans, consultation with specialists, and medication. Maybe the family member should take some responsibility, arrange for mobility aids, spend more time with their elderly parent, and help draft up a plan to decrease the risk of falls. Or they could get them reassessed in order to arrange for an increased level of care.

We would be wise to use common sense in our caring, and stop putting the elderly through a battery of tests, surgeries, chemo, etc. I think at a certain point, it is pointless.

In my opinion, before we allow the system to start killing us off, we should stop the pretence of preventing all deaths. If an 89 year old dies, it is not a preventable tragedy. We have our priorities completely skewed.

How many times does an ambulance get called for someone in assisted living or LTC who has had a fall? The family expects the person to be seen promptly in ER, and admitted for observation. Does the family ever consider that the elderly person’s trauma is increased by medical intervention? Wouldn’t it be better in some cases to put the person back in their own bed, wash them up, and make them comfortable?

Many will argue that reducing ER and acute care admissions for LTC patients is an implication that places their lives as being less important than the lives of younger people. The way I see it is – the lives of all people are equally valuable. However, the physical body does eventually wear out, and all people die. Over time, various organs and bodily systems begin to fail us, often through the process of aging and chronic disease.

As time goes on, our needs change, and  I think chronic care should be managed with different therapeutics, many of which involve comfort measures, more than medical intervention. More people need to be able to recognize when a person is becoming palliative, so they can support them, instead of being in denial over the gradual demise.

On one hand we have medically assisted deaths, and on the other hand, we don’t want to allow people to die a natural death. This is perhaps the greatest conundrum of universal health care. Those who think they and their loved ones are important, can demand care beyond what is reasonable. Yet it is the lesser human beings who are more likely to be euthanized. In my opinion, it is the reason this legislation creates a very slippery slope.

If a person decides to end their life, even without euthanasia laws, they do have the choice. Because who can know what goes on in another person’s mind? Why does the state have to interfere? Many will say that a person who is in a handicapped, is physically unable to end their own life. But if they are in pain, and on opiate pain medication, they will eventually succumb to the opiates without much pain.

We are indeed living in perilous times. Our lives hang in the balance between life and death. The rapid rise of deaths due to euthanasia in Canada is cause for alarm. We are now a world leader in this cause of death, and look how quickly it has developed. If it has risen to 4.8% of all deaths in just over five years, what will it be in another ten years?

We literally have to guard and learn to cherish our lives. We cannot speak for other individuals, or try to deter their choices, especially if they are made legal. But we can choose life for ourselves, and we can choose to create a care plan that does not involve a full range of medical interventions.

As we age, we can opt for an advanced care plan that limits what medical interventions can be done to us. How many 80 year olds are saved by CPR? The first option is to write up DNR orders. There are many other limits a person can place on medical intervention, without giving permission to be euthanized. This can include transfer to acute care, limits on drugs that can be used, and even limits on forcing food or IV fluids.

It looks like there are eight countries in the world with broadly accepted euthanasia laws. Out of 195 countries it represents just 4.1% That means 96% of the countries in the world still have reservations about passing such laws.

But alas, Canada is now a world leader in this minority. And the province I have lived in for most of my life, is now the global leader of state sanctioned deaths. Does anyone wonder why this is the case? People cannot find a doctor to fix a broken bone, but they can get a prompt response, and have a doctor do a house visit if they decide to end their life? Does that tell us what the priorities in health care have become?

Euthanasia is supposed to be a personal choice. Let’s hope they keep it that way. Personally, given the direction things are going, I would never even consider euthanasia for myself. I would far rather trust God, as opposed to  trusting the state, or even myself for making such a judgement. How many times does a person come close to death and survive? Those who do survive against all odds, are meant to be here, for reasons we don’t understand.

When people die tragic deaths, we mourn the loss deeply. We don’t really know why nature takes some of us out of this world sooner than others. We cannot control, and nor should we try to control what we do not understand.

The point is, we should seize life, not death. We all have an appointment with death. But unlike the appointment with the hairdresser, we have no idea when our appointment with death is. Personally I don’t want to make an appointment with some offshoot of the infamous Dr. Kevorkian.

A snippet of Kevorkian’s legacy from wikipedia, shows how far we have digressed from calling something murder, to claiming it is a wonderfully compassionate act of humane mercy. To some of us, it might represent a rise in fascism. These two concepts, like many other contentious ideologies, are as polarized as can be.

“In 1997, Kevorkian was arrested and tried for his direct role in a case of voluntary euthanasia on a man named Thomas Youk who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, or ALS. He was convicted of second-degree murder and served 8 years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence. He was released on parole on June 1, 2007, on condition he would not offer advice about, participate in, or be present at the act of any type of euthanasia to any other person, as well as neither promote nor talk about the procedure of assisted suicide.^[4]”

If the state contributes to the removal of the value of human life, or removes the barriers to prevent one person from taking the life of another person – what is the justification? Who really knows? It opens a Pandora’s box with a galaxy of crossed motives.

For instance – death does in fact reduce or eliminate the carbon footprint for the person who dies. When we die, we go back to the dust and no longer consume anything.

However, the rich do not have to decrease their carbon footprint, even though it may be a thousand times greater than the rest of us. So in this somewhat macabre parallel of our existence – does our death increase, or guarantee their enjoyment of the available resources? Do they ever get themselves euthanized? Why not just get all people to cut down on their carbon footprint dramatically? Including them. Why would we want to keep promoting the “us against them” mentality to such a degree?

From a Christian perspective, remember it is God who gives us the breath of life. He breathed life into Adam when he created man. When we die, our breath goes back to God. To my way of thinking, if you intentionally take away another person’s life, it will not go unnoticed in the spiritual realm. When God takes the breath, or the spirit of the person who died, back to himself – he will put a mark on the person(s) who ended their life. This is what was done to Cain when he murdered his brother Abel. God allowed Cain to live and carry on, but the consequences were huge, are ongoing, and still have not faced final judgement. Therefore, one of the Ten Commandments is Thou shalt not kill.

When you consider – not only does the state want us to reduce our carbon footprint to nothing, and eat bugs. And that some families would off their granny just for money – it should give us pause. We might be considered to be nice on the surface, but when it comes to human nature, killing people is nothing new.

Killing with kindness? Is there truly such a concept? You mean the sweet, sugar-coated, warm and fuzzy – kind of kindness? With euphemisms galore. No thanks. I think I’ll wait, and keep my date with fate.

Think of it this way. If you go hiking in a strikingly beautiful, but unknown wilderness, you do not know what you will see when you round each bend. It could be another breathtaking scene, or it could be a grizzly bear or mountain lion. Does that mean you run over to the nearest cliff, and jump off?

Life is a God-given journey. One of the biggest challenges in navigating our life, in spite of our many foolish choices – is to make sure we don’t give up too soon. The other challenge is to know when our time has come, and accept it. Perhaps those two concepts represent the greatest polarities of our existence.  Do or die? Dare we say “I do!”

Copyright Valerie J. Hayes and Quiet West (2022). Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author/owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Valerie J. Hayes and Quiet West with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.