Regulating Killing Before It Regulates Us
For my fellow Californians
California prides itself on being a place of innovation. But innovation in lawmaking, without moral guardrails, becomes experimentation on the vulnerable subjects of the law.
Today, under the gentle‑sounding label MAID—Medical Assistance in Dying—(that verbal chameleon formerly known as ‘PAS’, “Physician-assisted suicide”), our state now faces one of the most serious medical‑ethics questions since the adoption of the Hippocratic Oath.
Those who have studied medical ethics for years recognize the pattern. Once physicians are encouraged to act against the ancient command to “do no harm,” the logic does not stop. It expands. What begins as rare cases of terminal suffering soon becomes a broader category of despair, disability, loneliness, poverty, or depression.
California has already loosened its assisted‑suicide law repeatedly. Waiting periods have shortened. Eligibility has widened. Euphemisms multiply. Meanwhile, citizens are told not to worry.
But Californians should look north.
In Canada, MAID was introduced with promises of strict limits. Within a few years, thousands of deaths were occurring annually, and the program is being employed even for non‑terminal patients. Provinces like Alberta are now debating stronger regulations after recognizing the dangers of expansion and the pressure placed on vulnerable citizens. The government will NOT pay for many types of beneficial or even ameliorative care. But it will swiftly pay for the death dose.
Even those sympathetic to assisted suicide increasingly admit what many ethicists predicted decades ago: once killing becomes a medical option, it becomes a medical solution.
The deepest issue is not legal technicalities. It is medical ethics.
When Roe v. Wade instructed physicians to disregard the Hippocratic tradition and perform abortions based on personal judgment rather than objective medical necessity, medicine took a catastrophic turn. The same logic now appears in MAID. Doctors are asked not merely to relieve suffering—but to eliminate the sufferer.
This is not medicine. It is a philosophical revolution.
A physician’s authority exists because society trusts doctors to protect life, especially when patients are weak, frightened, or confused. When that trust is compromised, every patient becomes uncertain: Is my doctor trying to heal me, or quietly deciding my life is no longer worth the effort?
Assisted‑suicide laws assume safeguards will protect the vulnerable. But safeguards are fragile. When loneliness, depression, or economic hardship drive requests for MAID—as critics in Canada warn—we are seeing not compassionate care, but abandonment disguised as autonomy.
A society that offers death faster than it offers care is not compassionate—it is efficient.
Californians should not pretend immunity. Our health‑care system already struggles with access, cost, and staffing shortages. Insurance companies calculate expenses. Families face crushing bills. Elderly patients fear becoming burdens. In such a climate, assisted suicide is not neutral. It quietly becomes the cheapest option.
If California continues to permit assisted suicide at all, strict regulations are essential:
1. Require independent medical review boards before approval.
2. Prohibit MAID for mental illness, disability, or economic distress.
3. Mandate palliative‑care consultation and meaningful waiting periods.
4. Protect conscience rights for physicians.
5. Publish transparent data on every MAID case.
California voters and legislators must act now. Study the experience of Canada and Alberta. Insist on regulations that defend life, not merely manage death.
Ask your physician whether they uphold the Hippocratic tradition. Speak to your representatives in Sacramento. Demand hearings, safeguards, and transparency.
Ask the current batch of candidates, there are lot of them, at every level of office, if they will advocate for or against such policies.
Because the real test of a civilization is not how it treats the strong—but how it protects those who feel weak, unwanted, or afraid.
California can still choose compassion without killing. But only if its citizens stand and speak now.