Fazal Masood Malik and Farhan Khokhar, Canada
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) or Euthanasia has become an uncomfortable mirror reflecting modern society’s approach to human suffering. An answer, according to some, to addressing systemic social challenges. Since Canada legalised the practice in 2016, what began as a means to provide dignity in death for those with terminal illnesses has evolved into something far more complex and troubling.
The numbers tell a stark story. In the Netherlands, euthanasia cases have more than tripled from 2,216 in 2000 to 8,720 in 2022 (“Number of reported euthanasia cases in the Netherlands from 2000 to 2022”, www.statista.com). Canada’s experience is equally striking with over 44,000 people choosing MAiD between 2016 and 2022, with more than 13,000 in 2022 alone. These figures are not merely statistics; they represent a profound shift in how society handles its most vulnerable members.
The conventional argument for MAiD centres on personal autonomy—the right to choose one’s fate when facing unbearable suffering. Yet this framing oversimplifies a complex issue. True independence requires meaningful choices, not just the freedom to choose death when other options seem unapproachable. Consider, for example, the case of Zoraya ter Beek or Aurelia Brouwers, both Dutch, and neither terminally ill. They were permitted to end their own lives, via state-assisted suicide, on account of psychiatric illness (“The troubled 29-year-old helped to die by Dutch doctors”, www.bbc.com). In Canada, a 51-year-old woman successfully went through the MAiD program this summer, citing severe sensitivities to chemicals and an inability to live on the disability pay that she received monthly. Now, the case of Lisa Pauli, a 48-year-old anorexic who wants the state to permit her legal suicide, is being debated. (“She’s 47, anorexic and wants help dying. Canada will soon allow it”, www.reuters.com). This rising popularity of MAiD does not indicate a triumph of personal liberty, but rather a failure of social support systems.
Historical comparisons of death can teach us some things, but they’re not exact. Society has long honoured those who risk their lives for noble causes—soldiers defending their homeland, and parents sacrificing for their children. But choosing death to escape hardship poses fundamentally different ethical questions. Should a compassionate society not strive to alleviate suffering rather than simply offering an exit? What does it say about a society that permits its suffering to die, rather than help them come out of the situation that has befallen them?
Islamic teachings provide a thought-provoking perspective on this dilemma. The injunction of the Holy Quran against taking one’s life—“And kill not yourselves. Surely, Allah is Merciful to you” (Surah an-Nisa, Ch. 4: V. 30)—reflects a deeper understanding of life’s sanctity. Similarly, the Holy Prophet Muhammad’ssa teaching that even minor sufferings can have spiritual value— “No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness, nor hurt, nor distress befalls a Muslim, even if it were the prick he receives from a thorn, but that Allah expiates some of his sins for that.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-mardh, Hadith 5641 and 5642)—suggests a framework where suffering serves a purpose beyond mere pain.
Yet the issue extends far beyond religious considerations. The growing reliance on MAiD reveals troubling gaps in social services, mental health care, and community support systems. When death becomes the most accessible solution to suffering, society has failed its fundamental obligations. As the Prophet Muhammadsa noted, “The one who looks after a widow or a poor person is like a Mujahid (warrior) who fights for Allah’s Cause, or like him who performs prayers all the night and fasts all the day.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab an-nafaqat, Hadith 5353)—a reminder that caring for the vulnerable is a collective responsibility.
The path forward requires a fundamental shift in approach. Rather than expanding access to MAiD, it might do society well to focus on addressing the systemic failures that make death seem like the only viable option. This means investing in comprehensive mental health services, strengthening social safety nets, and developing more sophisticated palliative care options. According to a study, “Main reasons for requesting MAiD were a self-perceived unacceptable quality of life […]” (“Experiences and perspectives of people who pursued medical assistance in dying”, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
The rise of MAiD represents more than a medical or legal development—it is a symptom of broader societal neglect. As individualism grows and collective responsibility wanes, the most vulnerable find themselves increasingly isolated and perceive death as a viable solution. The solution lies not in making death more accessible, but in creating systems and communities that support life with dignity.
True compassion demands more than offering an escape from suffering; it requires actively working to alleviate it. As countries grapple with expanding MAiD programs, they would do well to consider whether they are truly serving their citizens’ needs or merely providing an expedient solution to deeper social problems. Rather than presenting Medical Assistance in Dying as an answer to societal problems, we must focus our collective efforts on improving the quality of life and addressing the underlying conditions that lead people to consider such options.
