Majority of Canadians support MAID for mentally ill, which proves Canada is a decadent country, possibly subject to God's judgement.

[blackbird]

According to this report the great majority of Canadians have rejected the basic morals of the Bible, such as "thou shalt not kill".  This does not bode well for Canada.  

When some places in the Bible became very evil and decadent, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, God judged them and destroyed them.

There are many people in Canada who are mentally-challenged in various ways.  We see it all the time in the news and on the streets.  Now offering these people MAID and thinking that is a rational thing to do is a recipe for self-destruction of large numbers of people.  Offering death to people with mental problems is not compassion.  It is the worst kind of evil imaginable.  

Removing Bible readings from public schools decades ago has obviously contributed to this problem and well as the rejection of Canada's Judeo-Christian heritage in favour of multi-culturalism, which has no moral compass.

Majority of Canadians support MAID for mental illness patients, research says | Watch

"

What is the Bible's stance on euthanasia?

Definition and Context of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is commonly defined as the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain or suffering, sometimes referred to as “mercy killing.” In contemporary discussions, this topic intersects with medical ethics, quality of life, and personal autonomy. However, the biblical framework, shaped by themes of human dignity, divine sovereignty, and the sacredness of life, provides comprehensive principles that address this issue.

Though the Scriptures do not mention the specific term “euthanasia,” biblical teachings on the value and sanctity of human life, God’s dominion over life and death, and human responsibility toward one another inform an overarching stance.

The Value of Human Life in Scripture

From the earliest chapters of Genesis, humanity is distinguished as made in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27). This foundational truth imbues each person with inherent worth, transcending health status or length of life.

The psalmist reflects on divine involvement in human life, proclaiming: “For You formed my inmost being” (Psalm 139:13). This passage underscores the belief that each individual is personally and intentionally known by the Creator.

When evaluating any practice that ends human life prematurely, these foundational texts remind readers that life itself bears a unique value. It is not merely a biological or utilitarian phenomenon; it is a sacred trust given by God.

Key Biblical Principles Regarding Life and Death

1. God’s Sovereignty Over Life: Scripture consistently affirms that ultimate authority over life and death rests with God (see 1 Samuel 2:6), indicating that human interventions should not presumptuously usurp this divine prerogative.

2. Sixth Commandment: One succinct directive undergirds traditional Christian views on ending life: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). While euthanasia does not always carry the malice associated with murder, this command reveals how carefully Scripture safeguards human life.

3. Hope and Trust in God: In moments of extreme suffering, biblical examples highlight reliance on God’s sustaining presence (see Psalm 23:4). This perspective curtails the notion of taking one’s life or the life of another to halt suffering, focusing instead on the possibility of redemption within hardships.

4. Stewardship of Life: Believers are called stewards of what God has given, including their own bodies (see 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). As stewards, individuals acknowledge that they do not have absolute autonomy over their lives but remain accountable to the One who grants life.

Biblical Examples of Suffering and Endurance

Several examples illustrate how Scripture addresses suffering without sanctioning a premature end to life:

• Job’s Trials: Facing profound physical and emotional affliction, Job never seeks an “early release.” Instead, he wrestles with God, his suffering, and his friends' counsel, ultimately recognizing his life remains in God’s hands (Job 2:9-10).

• Jesus’ Example: In the agonies preceding His crucifixion, though He prays for relief, He surrenders to the Father’s will (see Luke 22:42). This example challenges the belief that immediate cessation of suffering is the ultimate aim.

These narratives present hardship as a context for personal growth, divine intervention, and demonstrations of faith. Within this biblical worldview, life’s darkest seasons do not justify intentional termination.

Moral and Ethical Concerns

1. Diminishing the Image of God: Euthanasia risks framing life’s worth solely through a lens of suffering versus comfort. Yet biblical teaching insists that the divine image persists in every circumstance.

2. Slippery Ethical Boundaries: Once the deliberate taking of life is permitted on the basis of compassion, broader questions arise about who decides when suffering justifies ending a life. Historically, such expansion of criteria (e.g., mental distress or infirmities) raises serious concerns about the potential devaluation of persons seen as “less fit.”

3. Legal and Cultural Implications: Societies have debated laws that permit forms of euthanasia. Yet Scripture’s caution against taking life invites scrutiny of any legal framework that places personal preference or expediency above the sanctity of life.

Compassion, Care, and the Role of Hope

Compassion remains a hallmark of the biblical perspective toward the suffering. While calls for euthanasia often stem from a desire to end pain, Scripture points to various alternatives:

• Palliative Care and Support: Providing medical, emotional, and spiritual comfort honors both the dignity of the individual and God’s design for compassion. Throughout Scripture, believers are urged to “Bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2).

• Prayer and Community Intervention: Biblical communities often rallied around the sick, seeking God’s intervention and offering practical support (Acts 9:36-41). This communal aspect reflects the responsibility to care for, rather than hasten the end of, those in distress.

• Hope in Eternal Life: Beyond earthly affliction, Scripture holds out the promise of a renewed future free from suffering (see Revelation 21:4). While this does not diminish present pain, it shapes a perspective in which life remains a gift until God’s appointed time.

Conclusion

In surveys of biblical texts, the consistent theme is that life is sacred, divinely given, and under God’s sovereign care. Scripture affirms compassion for the suffering yet does not endorse terminating life as a solution. Instead, believers are called to uphold life by offering comfort, medical support, prayer, and the hope that arises from trust in God.

Euthanasia, evaluated against these principles, stands outside the Bible’s moral framework. While Scripture recognizes the reality of pain and illness, it ultimately presents life-and its sanctity-as resting in the hands of its Creator. Adherents are thus encouraged to respond to suffering with patience, care, and trust in God’s redemptive work, affirming that every moment of life bears value and divine purpose.

unquote

What is the Bible's stance on euthanasia?

Edited April 23 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

Mental illness is a big subject. I wouldn’t want to see young people offered MAID but what about a 60 year old man who has suffered from psychotic illness for forty years? 

[Goober National]

It's one heck of a solution for the growing homeless problem.

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, Goober National said:

It's one heck of a solution for the growing homeless problem.

It's also the solution to a health care system that's completely off the rails and will remain so for the next 25 years... assuming we start fixing it today.

If the argument in favour of MAID were framed in that manner, and if people (knowing that to be the reality) still wanted it, I would be more inclined to go along with it than I am now. I only say that because this snuck in through the back door.

As originally envisioned, I think MAID would have (reluctantly) passed muster with most voters... if originally presented as it is now I doubt it would. Those who defend it now (meaning as is) always revert to the original concept as a deflection tactic. I don't think most people with Doctors (which is still the majority) or those with acute conditions (which are generally well handled) even realize how dire the situation is for everyone else. Or for that matter, how long it will take (with the retirements pending) to fix the situation given the training time required to grow more Doctors. 

Using the pilot analogy, especially in the RCAF, that's pretty much what happened. During the days of abundance the grey haired folks in the crew room warned anyone who would listen what was looming on the horizon.... but as Yoda would say: "listen they would not." In the civilian world it was a combination of low starting salaries FW) and TFWs (Helo) that largely created the shortage. Many pilots who left the RCAF (of my vintage) found that they were better off driving trucks. Initially, there wasn't a shortage of pilots, there was a shortage of highly experienced pilots willing to work for poverty wages. Clearly a different stream but when you substitute for X and Y a pattern emerges and it's nourished by complacency.

 

Edited May 26 by Venandi

[John Johnston]

I'm thinking of going into Soylent Green Farming. Takes care of a few issues. Plus I can make a few bucks along the way. 😎

 

But in all seriousness. That's is really none of anybody else's business when it comes to these issues. 

[Venandi]

14 minutes ago, John Johnston said:

But in all seriousness. That's is really none of anybody else's business when it comes to these issues. 

I wouldn't have said this before Covid but if you're going to pay for it yourself, please feel free to do it whenever you want... or pay to have someone do it for you. Personally, I don't like it and don't think it should be legal but you could probably convince me if the majority want the option and are willing to pay for it.

But... offering it to a veteran (at public expense) who was simply looking for assistance with a wheel chair ramp is a firm non starter with me. You may be all for that but I'm not, and for that reason,  I'll be there every time to cancel your vote.

Edited May 26 by Venandi

[Goober National]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

I wouldn't have said this before Covid but if you're going to pay for it yourself, please feel free to do it whenever you want... or pay to have someone do it for you. Personally, I don't like it and don't think it should be legal but you could probably convince me if the majority want the option and are willing to pay for it.

But... offering it to a veteran (at public expense) who was simply looking for assistance with a wheel chair ramp is a firm non starter with me. You may be all for that but I'm not, and for that reason,  I'll be there every time to cancel your vote.

It's already occurred that a family wanted help for their mentally ill son or daughter but the person was offered MAID for their mental illness, which was depression. The family could not intervene to stop it once the person signified they want to be put to death. So no treatment, no chance for tomorrow.

Edited May 26 by Goober National

[Zeitgeist]

Certain protections should never be up for debate.  There must be firm legal protections for the mentally ill so that no government can vote to let people who are not of sound mind get government assistance and approval to commit suicide.  It’s simply medically unethical.  This is why we have constitutional protections for minorities, to prevent the tyranny of the majority from deciding disabled people should be euthanized like happened in Nazi Germany.  Any court that signs off on MAID for the mentally ill is morally reprehensible.  If such people have the power of life and death over Canadians and make decisions like that, we should be very worried about the direction of the country and our so-called healthcare system.  What happened to medical ethics?

[Army Guy]

On 5/26/2026 at 12:24 PM, John Johnston said:

I'm thinking of going into Soylent Green Farming. Takes care of a few issues. Plus I can make a few bucks along the way. 😎

 

But in all seriousness. That's is really none of anybody else's business when it comes to these issues. 

And yet we can not imprison any one that is not mentally fit, because they are not mentally fit for trail, but some how they are mentally fit to say yes i want to be put under the needle.....How do we square that hole.....kind of sounds like WWII Nazi's.... 

Killing thousands ever year is everyone's business...we've turned it it into a industry

[SpankyMcFarland]

Again, how long should somebody who has suffered from schizophrenia be prohibited from using MAID? I wouldn’t want to see people in their twenties using it but a sixty year old has surely reached a point to decide about their life? 

[Army Guy]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Again, how long should somebody who has suffered from schizophrenia be prohibited from using MAID? I wouldn’t want to see people in their twenties using it but a sixty year old has surely reached a point to decide about their life? 

I agree for those in constant pain and poor quality of life....sure...it is what maid was designed for...but i think there is a lot of cases where that is not the case....

[paxamericana]

What’s wrong is wrong, but just because it’s wrong doesn’t mean it has to be illegal.

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, paxamericana said:

What’s wrong is wrong, but just because it’s wrong doesn’t mean it has to be illegal.

Anyone can try to kill themselves without legal consequences.  That’s very different from a taxpayer-funded physician showing up with an apparatus that pumps fluid into your body to paralyze you and cause you to drown to death.  It’s bad enough that our healthcare system provides this collaborative murder to adults of sound mind.  To do it for mentally ill people who may be experiencing situational depression or may not know how to access or be refusing to access treatments for whatever reason, is simply a far too slippery slope into a careless killing complex that resorts to killing as an easy, cheap way out of treating people with illness, which is supposed to be the purpose of healthcare. It marks a decline in healthcare and morality. Such rights to MAID are only expanded, never curtailed.

Edited May 28 by Zeitgeist

[paxamericana]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s very different from a taxpayer-funded physician showing up with an apparatus that pumps fluid into your body to paralyze you and cause you to drown to death.

as opposed to them jumping off a bridge or crashing a jumbo jet? 

[User]

On 5/27/2026 at 4:43 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Again, how long should somebody who has suffered from schizophrenia be prohibited from using MAID? I wouldn’t want to see people in their twenties using it but a sixty year old has surely reached a point to decide about their life? 

Well... you could start with the medical definition of what schizophrenia is...

Then ask yourself, are they competent enough to make that decision?

I mean... hell... how long should a depressed person have to be depressed before you are OK with them killing themselves?

The boundaries never stop moving. 

[Venandi]

On 5/27/2026 at 8:43 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Again, how long should somebody who has suffered from schizophrenia be prohibited from using MAID?

Again, significantly longer than they should have to wait to get adequate treatment.

Right now some 41% of the Canadians with diagnosed mental health disorders are not receiving the care they need... or are receiving no care at all. 

I'd suggest that your question, by its nature (not meaning your intent BTW), is most likely to corral those at the extreme end of that demographic into a separate pen labeled "candidates." They're the ones most people would acknowledge to be the least able to make rational determinations about their treatment or prognosis... yet now we are to believe they're fully capable of deciding to opt for MAID and that we should honour that decision by virtue of legal parameters we were assured would never be contemplated in the first place. If a veteran seeking a wheel chair ramp is offered MAID they'll tell you exactly where to stuff the option... would a person with mental health issues do the same? The lack of universal outrage over the several unsolicited offers to veterans should have resonated far more and far louder than it ever did. I expected a loudly articulated WTF reaction... there was a whisper of it but it wasn't what I expected. 

This is absolutely not what was offered up to Canadians who reluctantly agreed with the original concept of MAID.  Most of us who fell into the "reluctant" category were in that category for one reason... the fear (for me it was the absolute bloody certainty) that this sort of thing was going to happen and that it would be supported by people who actually favoured that option from the get go but refused to put all their cards on the table.

Frankly, I expected this to happen simply because of the assurances that it wouldn't.

When mental health and disability advocates warned of an "open season" on their constituents, they were dismissed as extremists and conspiracy seekers... now, here we are, exactly where they warned us we would be. 

If MAID were put to a plebiscite right now I would be checking the box that says "HELL NO" unless the government provided iron clad assurances that the policy would never be expanded beyond what it was originally conceived as. Had this version of MAID been offered initially (and honestly) at the get go, I don't believe it would ever have been accepted by the majority of voters. 

For me, this isn't even a discussion or debate topic, guess I'm simply providing an overview of what my vote would be assuming this ever came to vote. We are now considering the idea of normalizing that which I accepted, at face value, would never be normalized... and we're doing it in such a casual manner as to make me wonder WTF happened to those old school liberals I once counted myself part of.

My "liberal values" haven't changed since I got out and saw the world at the age of 18... further exposure only reinforced and entrenched those values and they haven't changed a bit over the years. It leaves me wondering how we ever got to this point... because it wasn't me that changed. I would have said the very things I'm saying right now back when I was 19 and the difference is that few people and virtually no liberals would have argued with me about iy. The only ones who would have would be the hard core eugenics freaks.

Edited Saturday at 03:31 AM by Venandi

[Zeitgeist]

On 5/28/2026 at 11:51 AM, paxamericana said:

as opposed to them jumping off a bridge or crashing a jumbo jet? 

As opposed to jumping off a bridge.  Crashing a jumbo jet is mostly homocidal.

[SpankyMcFarland]

20 hours ago, User said:

Well... you could start with the medical definition of what schizophrenia is...

Then ask yourself, are they competent enough to make that decision?

I mean... hell... how long should a depressed person have to be depressed before you are OK with them killing themselves?

The boundaries never stop moving. 

Let’s take a simple example: a 60 year old man who has been suffering from recurrent episodes of disabling, psychotic, paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations for forty years. There’s no doubt about the diagnosis. His quality of life is very poor by any measure and has been so for decades. He’s in an extended interval of recovery and has repeatedly expressed the wish to end his life. 

I have no desire to see young people brought into the MAID program but at a certain point a line has to be drawn as it is with laws in many situations. Nobody should have to suffer indefinitely. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 hours ago, Venandi said:

Again, significantly longer than they should have to wait to get adequate treatment.

Right now some 41% of the Canadians with diagnosed mental health disorders are not receiving the care they need... or are receiving no care at all. 

I'd suggest that your question, by its nature (not meaning your intent BTW), is most likely to corral those at the extreme end of that demographic into a separate pen labeled "candidates." They're the ones most people would acknowledge to be the least able to make rational determinations about their treatment or prognosis... yet now we are to believe they're fully capable of deciding to opt for MAID and that we should honour that decision by virtue of legal parameters we were assured would never be contemplated in the first place. If a veteran seeking a wheel chair ramp is offered MAID they'll tell you exactly where to stuff the option... would a person with mental health issues do the same? The lack of universal outrage over the several unsolicited offers to veterans should have resonated far more and far louder than it ever did. I expected a loudly articulated WTF reaction... there was a whisper of it but it wasn't what I expected. 

This is absolutely not what was offered up to Canadians who reluctantly agreed with the original concept of MAID.  Most of us who fell into the "reluctant" category were in that category for one reason... the fear (for me it was the absolute bloody certainty) that this sort of thing was going to happen and that it would be supported by people who actually favoured that option from the get go but refused to put all their cards on the table.

Frankly, I expected this to happen simply because of the assurances that it wouldn't.

When mental health and disability advocates warned of an "open season" on their constituents, they were dismissed as extremists and conspiracy seekers... now, here we are, exactly where they warned us we would be. 

If MAID were put to a plebiscite right now I would be checking the box that says "HELL NO" unless the government provided iron clad assurances that the policy would never be expanded beyond what it was originally conceived as. Had this version of MAID been offered initially (and honestly) at the get go, I don't believe it would ever have been accepted by the majority of voters. 

For me, this isn't even a discussion or debate topic, guess I'm simply providing an overview of what my vote would be assuming this ever came to vote. We are now considering the idea of normalizing that which I accepted, at face value, would never be normalized... and we're doing it in such a casual manner as to make me wonder WTF happened to those old school liberals I once counted myself part of.

My "liberal values" haven't changed since I got out and saw the world at the age of 18... further exposure only reinforced and entrenched those values and they haven't changed a bit over the years. It leaves me wondering how we ever got to this point... because it wasn't me that changed. I would have said the very things I'm saying right now back when I was 19 and the difference is that few people and virtually no liberals would have argued with me about iy. The only ones who would have would be the hard core eugenics freaks.

I have been advocating for better care for the mentally ill, especially for those with chronic psychoses, for a long time so I have no argument there. But again, at what age would you allow a person to apply for MAID who has suffered from a debilitating mental illness for decades? Sure, make it a complex process that protects the vulnerable and promotes informed consent as far as possible but shouldn’t this be an option at some age? 

[User]

25 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let’s take a simple example: a 60 year old man who has been suffering from recurrent episodes of disabling, psychotic, paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations for forty years. There’s no doubt about the diagnosis. His quality of life is very poor by any measure and has been so for decades. He’s in an extended interval of recovery and has repeatedly expressed the wish to end his life. 

I have no desire to see young people brought into the MAID program but at a certain point a line has to be drawn as it is with laws in many situations. Nobody should have to suffer indefinitely. 

Notice that you still haven't addressed the core question: how do we determine that a person with a severe psychiatric illness is competent to make an irreversible decision to die?

Your example assumes the answer. You describe someone with forty years of schizophrenia, psychosis, paranoia, hallucinations, and a poor quality of life, then conclude that because they have repeatedly expressed a wish to die, we should honor it.

But the whole debate is whether that wish is itself a symptom of the illness, or a competent and autonomous decision despite the illness.

With a terminal cancer patient, the disease doesn't typically impair their ability to evaluate reality. With severe mental illness, assessing decision-making capacity is much harder because the illness can directly affect judgment, perception, hopelessness, and self-worth.

So where is the line? How do you distinguish between a rational desire to die and a desire that is being driven by the very condition that qualifies someone for MAID?

That's the question I don't think you've answered.

Edited Saturday at 07:08 PM by User

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, User said:

Notice that you still haven't addressed the core question: how do we determine that a person with a severe psychiatric illness is competent to make an irreversible decision to die?

Your example assumes the answer. You describe someone with forty years of schizophrenia, psychosis, paranoia, hallucinations, and a poor quality of life, then conclude that because they have repeatedly expressed a wish to die, we should honor it.

But the whole debate is whether that wish is itself a symptom of the illness, or a competent and autonomous decision despite the illness.

With a terminal cancer patient, the disease doesn't typically impair their ability to evaluate reality. With severe mental illness, assessing decision-making capacity is much harder because the illness can directly affect judgment, perception, hopelessness, and self-worth.

So where is the line? How do you distinguish between a rational desire to die and a desire that is being driven by the very condition that qualifies someone for MAID?

That's the question I don't think you've answered.

I think I have answered it. I have spent a considerable period of time in my life with people who have suffered these chronic illnesses. Such patients usually have long episodes where they are competent to make decisions for themselves by any legal criteria; when they have a settled wish about their future it should be respected. I’m talking about times when they are not hallucinating or delusional and can answer reasonable questions about the reality around them. Grant them at least some agency to manage their own lives. 

Edited Sunday at 01:26 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, User said:

With a terminal cancer patient, the disease doesn't typically impair their ability to evaluate reality. With severe mental illness, assessing decision-making capacity is much harder because the illness can directly affect judgment, perception, hopelessness, and self-worth.

How ill have you ever been? Serious brushes with death of any sort profoundly affect judgement, perception and the rest. The brain isn’t walled off from the rest of the body. Are you saying people with schizophrenia are chronically incompetent to make decisions about their own lives? What about people with cerebral palsy, stroke or MS? 

 

Edited Sunday at 01:34 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, User said:

Notice that you still haven't addressed the core question: how do we determine that a person with a severe psychiatric illness is competent to make an irreversible decision to die?

You have a psychiatrist make that determination. Schizophrenics usually have lucid periods between psychotic breaks. The breaks are when they suffer in fear dreading the next one.

 

[User]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

You have a psychiatrist make that determination. Schizophrenics usually have lucid periods between psychotic breaks. The breaks are when they suffer in fear dreading the next one.

 

This is my point. The person has no agency to make a life-ending decision then. Now you are promoting the system, declaring people's lives are not worth living. 

 

[User]

17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think I have answered it. I have spent a considerable period of time in my life with people who have suffered these chronic illnesses. Such patients usually have long episodes where they are competent to make decisions for themselves by any legal criteria; when they have a settled wish about their future it should be respected. I’m talking about times when they are not hallucinating or delusional and can answer reasonable questions about the reality around them. Grant them at least some agency to manage their own lives. 

I think you're missing my point.

I'm not saying people with schizophrenia are incapable of making decisions about their lives. Obviously that's not true.

What I'm questioning is whether we can reliably determine that the desire to die isn't itself part of the illness.

That's what makes this different from something like cancer.

If a guy has terminal cancer, the cancer isn't convincing him that his life has no value. It's killing him regardless of what he thinks.

With schizophrenia, severe depression, and other psychiatric illnesses, hopelessness, despair, suicidal thoughts, distorted thinking, etc. can all be part of the condition itself.

So how do you separate a truly rational, settled desire to die from the illness talking?

And once you accept psychological suffering alone as justification for MAID, where does the line actually get drawn?

You gave an example of someone with schizophrenia for 40 years. Okay.

What about someone with severe depression for 20 years?

What about someone who has been suicidal for 15 years?

What about someone with PTSD who says they're never going to get better?

Every time I hear these discussions, the line keeps moving.

My concern isn't that people with mental illness have no agency. My concern is that we're asking the state to decide when a desire to die is a symptom that should be treated and when it's a wish that should be facilitated.

That's a line I don't think anyone can draw with nearly the confidence people pretend they can.