Reflections on Euthanasia and Poverty

A striking moment from Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol comes to mind. Ebenezer Scrooge, confronted by two men asking for donations for the poor, questions the necessity of prisons and workhouses, dismissing the plight of the needy with a cold remark about reducing the surplus population. Later, he feels deep regret for his harsh words. Fast forward to today, and we find Lord Falconer of Troton suggesting in the House of Lords that perhaps being poor could justify assisted dying.

He raises a provocative question: if someone’s desire for assisted dying stems from the influence of their difficult circumstances, should their poverty disqualify them from such a choice? Personally, this raises a lot of thoughts. In a healthcare system like Britain’s, financial barriers to surgery aren’t an issue. Instead, it appears he proposes that those feeling ashamed of their poverty might seek a “right to die.” It’s somewhat disturbing to think of poverty as a fate worse than death.

It seems Lord Falconer, perhaps unwittingly, echoes Scrooge’s sentiment, which casts a shadow on his intentions. Should he consider asking, “Perhaps we should instead think about euthanasia clinics? Are they still operating for the poor?” And while he hasn’t suggested organizing a state-run initiative for impoverished individuals to access suicide pods, the idea—real or not—presents a slippery slope. We’ve seen slippery arguments before, of course, such as those in Canada and Colorado, where the rationale for assisted dying has expanded significantly from terminal illnesses to encompass severe mental health conditions, for instance.

In fact, cases have emerged in Canada where mental health issues and even autism qualify individuals for medical assistance in dying. It begs the question: what kind of trials in life would warrant such a drastic measure? A bad breakup? Missing out on a dream job? It feels reminiscent of darker times in history, and, interestingly, it does stir up unsettling parallels with past ideologies we’ve all sought to move away from.

Every person holds intrinsic dignity and worth, regardless of their health or financial status. The notion that value diminishes merely through suffering or poverty is troubling. The church’s role today is clear: to affirm life and protect the vulnerable. As Stanley Hauer has pointed out, if future generations see Christians as those who defend the lives of children and the elderly, then perhaps we’ll be moving in the right direction.

Related Articles

• 10 things you need to know about physician-assisted suicide
• How should Christians respond to the growing trend of assisted suicide?