The Canadian populace mirrors its European counterparts more than its American cousins on most issues. We seek more gun control, welcome greater regulation in our lives, enjoy government-run healthcare, and smugly see ourselves as a more just society than our overly religious neighbours to the south. Many complicated layers affect this assessment, but MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) stands out as an issue that divides the right and left; Liberals, Conservatives, and Dippers; the religious and the unaffiliated. Passed into law in 2016 in response to a judicial ruling in Carter v. Canada, 2015, MAID attempts to provide those suffering intolerably with some control over their end-of-life decisions.
If the law addressed only issues related to this narrow window, it might not have become so controversial. Regrettably, this law, created under the control of misguided people, has become a curse to those who believe life is a natural gift. For those who view life through the prism of human origin, the thought of controlling life and death may become justifiable. Sadly, a culture of death has sprung up, turning the gift of life, supernatural to some, but surely precious to all, into a cheapened commodity that should hang in the balance like a hand of bananas. How did this happen? When did Canadians decide that inconvenience, cost, or choice became more important than the rarest of blessings?
Suffering diminishes the quality of life. The form it takes comes in various shapes. Throughout history, the point at which suffering becomes too much has been a subject of debate. Because of the torture of prisoners, the Geneva Convention guaranteed that those in enemy camps during wars would not experience needless punishment or lack essential needs. For centuries, Western culture has looked unfavourably upon the ending of life unnaturally or prematurely. Suicide carried the imprimatur of being lawless, unethical, narcissistic, and immoral. But over the course of the past century, morbid fascination with death has replaced the celebration of life. The decline of religion in the West increased the importance of autonomy. Where do social conservatives turn politically when major political parties shun their preferences and dismiss their concerns?
In the abortion battles, those favouring choice in Canada have won. A major party wouldn’t make this a central election issue, despite widespread worry about safeguarding life. Even with millions set aside to help pregnant mothers, encourage healthy choices, and ensure safe deliveries, there are militant efforts to help women end pregnancies, promote sexual freedom, and protect the autonomy of a mother to decide what is best for her body. This opposes everything that many social conservatives believe about the sanctity of life. While the Conservative Party of Canada would not drift as far into preserving abortion rights as a more progressive party would, its leader, Pierre Polievre, clearly stated that abortion will not be an issue debated if he forms government. Speaking at a shipyard in St. Catharines during the recent election campaign, the Conservative leader said, “There will be no laws or other restrictions imposed on a woman’s right to decide (what) to do with her body as she wishes,” he said. “And that is something that I am guaranteeing to you and to all Canadians.” If that represents the entirety of Conservative abortion policy, then whatever law exists remains in place.
How about MAID, the legislation designed to reduce suffering, but now in use expansively and with dubious effect? In late March, Poilievre pledged that a Conservative government would curb MAID, focusing on worries that people with mental illness might use it to end their suffering. That seems reasonable, but it should worry leaders in this country that people have become desensitized to death. We must not minimize the mental pain of trauma, abuse, or grief. A person enduring these emotions may think about ending their life, but that does not make it a good idea. It should, however, elicit a recognition that mental illness affects millions of people everywhere, in every walk of life. One answer should not be end-of-life treatments.
Poilievre and the Conservatives appear to understand this but using it for people with terminal cancer or long-term fatal diseases raises moral questions for believers. And the evidence that governments always seek to widen the reach of their pet projects matches unassailable proof. Name a government program since the end of World War II that has not increased its budget, demanded greater funds, or insisted that it needed more money to serve more people. MAID began as a humane effort to reduce suffering. With help from the bureaucracy, it has become another leech looking to grow its reach. Are Conservative politicians prepared to face down those committed to another wing of the Justice Department filled with federal workers who are union-protected?
Finally, we know people overwhelmed with life’s problems, from allergy conditions to chemical dependency, are researching their options and seeking counsel from medical professionals. Where do medical colleges stand on this subject? In 2022, the Quebec College of Physicians sought to give doctors the right to end the lives of children born with conditions making long-term survival impossible. Andrew Philips reported on this for the Toronto Star, writing, “To be clear, the college’s proposal involves only newborns with severe malformations whose chance for life is ‘basically nil.’ It wouldn’t be a license to kill babies. But let’s also be clear about this: authorizing doctors to actively euthanize infants — rather than allowing nature to take its course — does cross a line once thought inviolable.” (Canada is Going Too Far with Medical Assistance, Toronto Star, October 14, 2022).
The ethics involved in ending life in the womb, after deliveries, because of mid-life crises, or during end-of-life disease will continue to dominate discussion as our society’s capacity to reduce suffering, extend life, alleviate disease’s effects, or correct genetic problems increases. We are entering an uncharted period of debate about who should decide these matters (judges, elected politicians, bureaucrats, medical professionals, ethicists, or individuals). For those of us who practice our faith with sincerity and devotion, finding a political party that will reflect our values challenges our assumptions. The Conservative Party, once committed to conserving the values that many Christians, Muslims, and Jews believed sacred, seems more intent on capturing the votes of a culture that has changed its outlook on the preciousness of life. Many may be content to stay close to the party that takes a better position than its more progressive competitors. Others may not take comfort in the Conservative Party embracing policies designed to modernize its appeal. How Poilievre and his team manage this internecine problem will be worth watching. If social conservatives do not vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, where will they go?
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
