Most people, when discussing suicide, take a very somber tone. Someone ending their own life is almost universally considered a tragedy—almost. Not totally universal, because out there in the world is a very determined group of people campaigning for the ‘right to die’, i.e., the right to medical euthanasia.

The majority of these conversations began centered on terminal illness, with the argument being that, as many terminally ill people will face slow and painful deaths, they should have the ability to end their lives quickly and as humanely as possible. Death with Dignity, for example, is an American nonprofit that is focused entirely on securing the legal right to die for the terminally ill. Their website makes no mention of the other groups that are often included in the international discussion of the right to die, such as those with disabilities and severe mental illness.

This is likely because those two groups illustrate the inherent issues of current advocacy for the right to die most starkly. The simple fact is that the merits of any discussion of it—moral, philosophical, legal—are nonexistent until the people that these groups claim need a right to die are actually provided with the means to live.

People want to die for a whole host of reasons, most of which boil down to the belief that continuing to exist as they are is not worth it—not worth the pain, not worth the cost to others, not worth trying to exist in the world that hates them so powerfully. In some cases, this may be a pain that cannot be alleviated. There are some things we do not have treatments for (yet).

But in the majority of these situations, especially those regarding individuals with disabilities or severe mental illness, the issue is not with the person, but with how their environment fails to support them. So when we offer suicide, but fail to fund accessibility measures or public health services, we send a message to these people that, if they are considering suicide, they are already in a poor mental state. We say that we are prioritizing economics over human lives. We say that it takes too much money, too much work, too much time to help the people who need it most, and that since it is so much cheaper for them to die, we’re going to help them with that instead.

This may seem like hyperbole. I assure you, it is not.

Canada has something called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), which is one of the broadest and most intensive human euthanasia policies in the world. It allows for both the terminally ill and the disabled to opt for medically assisted suicide, and there is an additional planned inclusion of those with several mental illnesses that, thankfully, has been pushed back to 2027. 

The legislation has been criticized by U.N. human rights experts and has drawn international concern due to high-profile examples of its failures. The most infamous of these cases is that of Christine Gauthier, a Paralympian and veteran, who, while attempting to get support to build a wheelchair ramp outside her home, was instead offered medical assistance in dying by Canadian Veteran Affairs. Other cases include one man who, after being previously hospitalized for suicidal tendencies, utilized MAID to end his life, with the request claiming it was due to his hearing loss. Additionally, there are multiple disturbing cases of disabled Canadians opting into MAID because they found themselves unable to live on or navigate disability benefit income. There are people who, quite literally, decided to kill themselves because they were not receiving the support they needed. The government failed to provide support.

Do I think this is what every person campaigning for the right to die wants? Of course not. But this isn’t a slippery slope so much as it is a step or two to the right. I have seen, time and time again, how even the most well-meaning policy can be weaponized against vulnerable communities—in some cases, the very ones they were meant to protect. 

The widespread ableism that results from these policies is not a coincidence, and cannot be viewed as an acceptable cost. Whether or not anybody deserves a right to die is simply not a conversation I think any of us can properly have until everyone is provided the means to live.