Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
A few weeks ago, while walking through the halls of the hospital where I work, I ran into the brother of a former patient. I asked him how his sister was doing, having positive memories of journeying alongside her as she recovered from a stroke. He proceeded to inform me that she was “gone.” Saddened, I offered my condolences and asked what had happened. “She went for MAiD,” he said, his gaze drifting into a thousand-yard stare just to my right. “We didn’t agree with her choice, but she said that if she was not able to walk on her own after a year, she was going to go for it.” Sure enough, a year went by and she still was not able to walk on her own. I replied: “I’m sorry my colleague killed your sister.”
As I said it, a wave of sadness hit me, not just for the despair this woman must have felt, but also that a doctor—one who had sworn an oath to “do no harm”—had affirmed her darkest thoughts.
The brother seemed surprised at what I’d said. I told him it had been a pleasure taking care of his sister and assured him that this was not the “medicine” that I had signed up for. He thanked me, almost as if my view of care was a unique approach to “the healing art.” In Canada, it increasingly is.
The curious thing about my “unique” way of practicing medicine—where I refuse to kill my patients—is that it’s actually not unique at all. Historically, medical ethics has always maintained that doctors have no business killing their patients, as evidenced by texts from ancient China, India, and Greece, all the way up to modern times. It was not until 2016 that it became legal in Canada for doctors to kill their patients, and then only for cases that were “grievous,” “irremediable,” and “terminal.” Physicians were assured that “their independent, professional judgment makes them uniquely capable of detecting a patient’s vulnerability.”
The normal medical practise of not killing patients has in a short period of time shifted to a the normalization of patient homicide.
Bannon compares Canada's euthanasia program to the California assisted suicide program. Both were legalized in 2016 but Canada, which has a similar population as California, had a little more than 60,000 deaths between legalization and 2023 and in the same time-frame California had almost 4300 assisted suicide deaths. Bannon continues:
The independent investigative panel probing the reason for Canada’s rapid uptick in MAiD deaths found that 428 cases did not meet the criteria for euthanasia, making the deaths legally homicides (and these are only the cases that we know about). But there has been no referral to criminal authorities.
There have been a few instances where provincial police have launched criminal investigations. One woman with an untreated post-concussion syndrome was euthanized without her daughters’ knowledge. Another investigation and subsequent lawsuit found that a bipolar man received MAiD while on a day pass from a hospital stay without anyone’s knowledge.
Bannon then comments on the fact that the government has already approved euthanasia for mental illness alone, that it has agreed to implement in March 2027. Bannon then comments on the discriminatory nature of the law
The protocol for administering MAiD reveals a sinister view of anyone who is not completely sound in body and mind. If I, in good health, wanted to die and attempted to kill myself, physicians would have the ability, by law, to restrain me against my will and ensure that I receive treatment for this desire to die. But if I was handicapped or ill, then the same physicians could help me end my life. The MAiD system says that the healthy are worthy of suicide prevention, and the disabled and ill are not. This is not just my opinion, but also that of the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights. Furthermore, the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has formally recommended that Canada repeal its Track 2 MAiD program due to such injustices. The bias doesn’t stop with the sick and disabled: Many Canadian MAiD providers are quietly struggling with euthanasia requests from vulnerable populations, including the poor, homeless, and those living in long-term care homes.
Bannon finishes his article with the axiom:
It is often said that the true measure of a society lies in how it treats its most vulnerable members. By that standard, Canada is a society that is headed down a very dark path.
Thank you Dr Bannon for being opposed to patient homicide.
