In the pursuit of "dignity" and autonomy, Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program has evolved from a narrow option for the terminally ill into a broad societal tool that now flirts with targeting the most marginalised. A recent LifeNews report highlights a chilling proposal from Canadian doctors: extending euthanasia to homeless individuals, framing it as a merciful response to poverty and suffering. But this isn't mercy — it's the latest slide down a dangerous slippery slope, where once-limited end-of-life choices expand to encompass social problems, risking the devaluation of human life and the coercion of the vulnerable. What starts as voluntary aid could end in state-sanctioned elimination of "undesirables," eroding the ethical foundations of medicine and society.

The Evolution of MAiD: From Terminal Illness to "Intolerable Suffering"

Canada's euthanasia journey began in 2016 with Bill C-14, restricting MAiD to adults with grievous, irremediable conditions where death was "reasonably foreseeable." It was sold as compassionate relief for those in unendurable pain. Fast-forward to 2021: Amendments removed the terminal-illness requirement, opening the door for those with chronic conditions or disabilities. By 2024, discussions emerged about including mental illness alone as a qualifier, delayed amid backlash but still looming.

Now, enter the homeless. The LifeNews piece cites doctors like those in a Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) article advocating for MAiD access for "structurally vulnerable" populations, including the unhoused. Their rationale? Homelessness inflicts "intolerable suffering" — exposure, addiction, mental health crises — that society has failed to address. Proponents argue denying euthanasia discriminates against those without stable homes, who can't easily access the program. But critics, including disability advocates and ethicists, see red flags: This shifts MAiD from medical necessity to social engineering, where poverty becomes a "disease" treatable by death.

This expansion exemplifies the slippery slope fallacy turned reality. Once you decouple euthanasia from imminent death, the criteria blur. What's "intolerable"? Who decides? In Canada, MAiD deaths have skyrocketed — from 1,018 in 2016 to over 13,000 in 2023 — now accounting for 4% of all deaths. Reports of veterans offered euthanasia for PTSD, or disabled individuals pressured due to inadequate support, underscore the drift.

The Proposal's Dark Underbelly: Targeting the Voiceless

The CMAJ piece, as detailed in LifeNews, isn't hypothetical, it's a call to action. Doctors argue homeless people deserve "equity" in dying, citing cases where individuals request MAiD amid despair. But homelessness isn't a medical condition; it's a socioeconomic failure. Offering death as a "solution" sidesteps root fixes like housing, addiction treatment, or mental health services — areas where Canada lags, with waitlists stretching years.

The slippery slope here is steep: If suffering from poverty qualifies, why not unemployment, loneliness, or climate anxiety? Vulnerable groups — homeless, disabled, elderly poor — face disproportionate coercion. Stories abound of patients feeling like burdens, nudged toward MAiD by strained systems or subtle biases. In a 2023 parliamentary report, witnesses described "poverty euthanasia," where lack of alternatives makes "choice" illusory. Ethicists like Theo Boer (former Dutch euthanasia reviewer) warn of similar patterns in the Netherlands and Belgium: Initial safeguards erode, leading to euthanasia for autism, depression, or even "completed life" in the elderly.

This creates a two-tiered society: The affluent access life-affirming care; the marginalised get a lethal injection. It's not empowerment, it's abandonment masked as autonomy.

Historical Parallels and Global Warnings: Where the Slope Leads

Slippery slopes aren't abstract; history provides blueprints. Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 program started as "mercy killings" for the incurably ill but expanded to the disabled, mentally ill, and "asocial" elements like the homeless—ultimately euthanising 300,000. While no one claims Canada is heading there, the logic echoes: Define suffering broadly, prioritise "quality of life" judgments, and vulnerable lives become expendable.

Globally, similar trends emerge. In Oregon (US), assisted suicide laws have broadened criteria amid reports of inadequate safeguards. Belgium euthanises children and those with dementia. A 2025 Swiss study found rising euthanasia requests linked to social isolation, not just illness. The common thread? Once normalised, euthanasia creeps from voluntary to expected, especially in cost-conscious healthcare systems. Canada's single-payer model, already buckling under budgets, could see MAiD as a fiscal "fix" — cheaper than long-term support for the homeless or disabled.

Speculate further: If this passes, expect mission creep. Adolescents? The incarcerated? Climate refugees citing "existential despair"? The slope lubricates itself — public opinion shifts as taboos fade, and safeguards weaken under "compassion" rhetoric.

The Broader Societal Perils: Devaluing Life in an Age of Despair

This proposal doesn't exist in a vacuum; it intersects with our era's uncertainties — economic fragmentation, mental health crises, demographic declines. Extending euthanasia to the homeless risks normalising death as a poverty policy, eroding the sanctity of life ethic that underpins Western civilization. It could exacerbate divisions: Populist backlashes against "elite" medicine, or deepened distrust in institutions already seen as captured by progressive ideologies.

Ethically, it violates the Hippocratic Oath's "do no harm." Doctors become agents of death, not healers, potentially biasing care toward lethal options. For society, it signals surrender: Instead of uplifting the downtrodden, we offer exit. In a truth-seeking lens, this isn't progress—it's regression, commodifying life based on utility.

To halt the slide, Canada needs robust debate: Reinstate safeguards, invest in alternatives, and question if "autonomy" trumps protection. As Vance and others warn in parallel migration debates, ignoring vulnerabilities invites instability.

The slippery slope of euthanasia isn't inevitable, but ignoring it is perilous.

https://www.lifenews.com/2025/12/22/canadian-doctors-want-to-euthanize-homeless-people/