Purpose of Medically Assisted in Dying

Medically assisted dying (also known as physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia) involves providing terminally ill patients with the means to end their own lives, typically through prescribed medication. Proponents argue that it offers dignity, autonomy, and relief from unbearable suffering for those facing end-of-life scenarios. Critics, however, express concerns about ethical implications, potential abuses, and the societal message it sends about the value of life. The debate surrounding medically assisted dying raises important questions about balancing compassion, autonomy, and ethical responsibility.

Key Question

To what extent does medically assisted dying fulfill its purpose of providing dignity and relief from suffering, considering the ethical concerns and potential impacts on societal values?

Perspective 1 – Excerpt from “The Case for Legalizing Assisted Dying” by Dr. Sandy Buchman, Past President of the Canadian Medical Association (2019)

Dr. Sandy Buchman, a palliative care physician and former president of the Canadian Medical Association, supports medically assisted dying as a compassionate option for patients experiencing intolerable suffering. He states: “Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is about allowing people to die with dignity, to have control over their final moments, and to avoid unnecessary suffering when no other options remain.” Dr. Buchman emphasizes that, when implemented with strict safeguards, MAiD respects patient autonomy and complements palliative care by providing an additional choice for those at the end of life. He advocates for a patient-centered approach that honors individual values and decisions.

Perspective 2 – Excerpt from “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Christian Perspective” by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (2015)

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada expresses deep concern over the ethical implications of medically assisted dying. In their statement, they assert: “Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide undermines the sanctity of human life, a core principle rooted in our faith.” They argue that permitting such practices could lead to a devaluation of life, especially for the vulnerable, elderly, and disabled. The Fellowship emphasizes the importance of providing compassionate care and support to those suffering, rather than facilitating their death. They caution against societal shifts that may prioritize autonomy over the intrinsic value of life.

Perspective 3 – Excerpt from “MAiD and Marginalized People: Coroner’s Reports Shed Light on Assisted Death in Ontario” by Dr. John Maher, Psychiatrist and Former MAiD Team Chair (2024)

Dr. John Maher, a psychiatrist and former chair of a hospital's MAiD team, raises concerns about the application of medically assisted dying among marginalized populations. He notes that recent coroner's reports reveal instances where individuals with disabilities, mental illnesses, or socioeconomic hardships have sought MAiD not solely due to medical conditions but because of inadequate access to social support and healthcare services. Dr. Maher warns that expanding MAiD eligibility without addressing underlying social inequities may lead to vulnerable individuals choosing death over life in the face of systemic neglect. He advocates for comprehensive support systems to ensure that the choice for MAiD is truly autonomous and not influenced by external hardships.

Perspective 4 – Excerpt from “The Economic Costs of End-of-Life Care” by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (2014)

The Canadian Institute for Health Information highlights the significant economic implications of end-of-life care. Their report notes: “A substantial portion of healthcare resources is allocated to patients in their final months, often involving intensive treatments with limited benefit.” While the report does not advocate for medically assisted dying, it suggests that providing patients with the option could potentially reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditures by avoiding prolonged treatments that may not improve quality of life. The Institute emphasizes the need for policies that balance compassionate care with sustainable healthcare spending.