In less than ten years, China’s nationalized healthcare system has killed over fifty thousand people through peaceful, lethal, injection. These deaths are not random but befall those who have become a burden upon society – the poor, terminally ill, and clinically depressed. The Chinese rationalize these policies according to the belief that these individuals have nothing else to contribute to civilization. Other nations may help these people by giving them purpose and validation, but that is not the Communist way. 

All of this is true. Except those deaths are not the product of China’s Communist government. Instead, this is happening in Canada according to a well-meaning but entirely warped sense of compassion. Nor has there been a significant international outcry against the fundamental violation of human rights happening just north of the United States. Since the Canadian government passed the “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) in 2016, the number of deaths caused by the MAID program has risen significantly, beginning with just 1,018 in 2016 and ballooning to 13,241 by 2022, the latest year for which data is available. 

Likewise, these deaths have expanded from attempts to bring peace to the terminally ill to welcoming a wide swathe of the population, including the impoverished and medically depressed, to an early grave. In short, despite the well-meaning intentions of the Canadian government, a dystopian nightmare has followed in the wake of assisted dying with no end in sight. To make matters worse, Canada’s program has expanded to other nations. Just last week Britain adopted its own assisted dying bill that risks bringing forth the dystopian nightmare of its former colony – once again with no significant international outcry.

Since the advent of Christian Civilization, Western society has been based (with varying degrees of sincerity) on the simple premise that all men are created equal. This equality derives not from an equal distribution of intelligence, looks, talent, and so on, but from the idea that all lives intrinsically have dignity; that within each human is a divine spark that makes him worthy of protection and affection. The Enlightenment took this largely Christian understanding of human nature and made it culturally universal. Philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a more purely rational argument that all humans are equal because of the fact that no one is entitled to rule over anyone else – that no one is born to be at the top of human society. This is because no amount of raw talent or even trained skill can make one man’s life more valuable than another’s. We are all equipped with reason and can all live according to the light of that reason. Thus, the purpose of human life is to increase our capacity to govern ourselves – to become the true kings of our lives, theologically through the grace of God and politically through limited government. To put all of this another way, human dignity is found in our equal ability to enjoy and participate in life itself – to govern our existence and live as we see fit. The most sacred ethical principle of Christianity and liberal philosophy is that human life is innately sacred and should never be ended lightly. 

So where did the Canadians and British go wrong? In recent years, a strand of modernity that originates with materialists, such as Thomas Hobbes, has grown stronger. This materialist view of the world views physical pleasure as the end of human life. It argues that humans exist to feel good. In practice, this means all are equal because all are equally capable of experiencing pleasure. So it is the duty of government – perhaps even the purpose of government – to intervene when someone deprives us of our ability to seek pleasure. But what happens when we are consigned to not just intermittent displeasure but to near-constant pain and suffering? The materialist answer is simple: life has been deprived of its joy and so it must end. The fact that these killings inevitably target those people seen as a burden on society – the elderly, the (mentally and/or physically) ill, the poor – should by itself suggest that these deaths are not from compassion. And, as healthcare budgets tighten, it bears reasoning that those most burdensome on society can always be persuaded to “choose” MAiD.

Thus, there is no real problem with ending that life. Human existence is for pleasure, nothing else, and so as that pleasure dissipates, so too does our purpose. By this account of humanity, assisted dying is not remotely dystopian – it is the greatest act of charity. A cursory familiarity with this worldview makes it obvious that the terminally ill are not the only ones whose lives have lost meaning. Anyone who lives in ceaseless pain – mental or physical – has lost the dignity of human life. As such, it is simple mercy to take it away. 

What is happening in Canada is not a fluke, it is not one country taking an otherwise good policy too far. The MAiD program is the logical end of all assisted dying programs. Other countries who are considering their own assisted dying initiatives should remember this fact. It should not be misunderstood; these programs come from a well-meaning place. The Nazis slaughtered millions out of hatred and bigotry – assisted dying is not that. Though in the final analysis, mass murder is still mass murder – even when it comes from a place of misguided love and compassion.