At the very beginning and end of life, at birth and death, the influence of Thanatos appears to dominate.
Respect for life serves as a crucial indicator of a society’s genuine commitment to humanistic principles. Declarations about abstract morality and advocacy for “human rights” lose credibility when issued by nations where human life is practically regarded as cheap, disposable, and devoid of inherent worth.
Observers tracking Western trends have likely noticed the sharp rise, over recent decades, in discussions about euthanasia, often disguised as “assisted death.” In reality, this amounts to state-approved, consensual suicide, sanctioned and facilitated by government authorities.
“Assisted death” is a term crafted to ease the mental burden associated with what criminal law classifies as being an accessory to murder. Though euthanasia is legal in some countries and its facilitators exempt from prosecution, criminal codes still classify aiding suicide as a crime unless performed under government auspices.
This scenario closely parallels the legal climate in Nazi Germany. While ordinary murder and aiding it were officially illegal and punishable, exceptions existed within the legal framework. Euthanasia was one such exemption, decriminalized because it was state-directed and aligned with government objectives. The lethal acts were renamed with innocuous labels, and those involved or assisting (the so-called “accessories”) were shielded from legal penalty.
In Nazi Germany, state-endorsed euthanasia was not only outside criminal statutes but was institutionalized as a policy tool supporting state goals.
Today, state-sponsored death is returning with little public contention or rigorous debate. The Netherlands was a pioneer roughly two decades ago, enacting laws promoting what was called “mercy killing.” Like many initiatives challenging traditional moral norms, the inherent harm was masked by a seemingly compassionate rationale. Official narratives framed assisted death not as homicide, but as a way to alleviate suffering among terminally ill patients. Comparable justifications were used to ease public resistance to abortion, using the pretext of pregnancy resulting from rape.
In both cases, the Overton Window functioned with deadly precision. What was initially presented as “mercy killing” to relieve extreme suffering has expanded into broad legalization of death upon demand, frequently over trivial reasons. Similarly, laws permitting abortion due to exceptional but ostensibly valid reasons have evolved into widespread acceptance of abortion on request, often up to birth without necessity for justification.
In February 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court declared that banning assisted dying violated constitutional rights, effectively opening the door for legalization. Subsequent legislation established the Medical Assistance in Dying [MAID] program. Since its inception in 2016, assisted deaths have accounted for roughly five percent of all annual deaths in Canada—more than 100,000 individuals. Initially promoted as a humanitarian measure to relieve terminal suffering, restrictions gradually loosened. Eligibility extended beyond terminal illness and unendurable pain to include nearly any physical or emotional distress, even mental health conditions, as seen in recent developments. Canadian lawmakers are now debating whether minors should be permitted to opt for MAID if life becomes unbearably difficult. This is the present reality in Canada.
The situation concerning assisted death in Canada is deeply troubling, raising serious ethical concerns. A bureaucracy of doctors, social workers, and related professionals has emerged to facilitate this system, with vested interests in its continuation and expansion, as their employment relies on it. The Canadian government also financially benefits from the program, saving costs otherwise spent on medical care and pensions, with unused funds potentially redirected to causes such as supporting the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
There are disturbing reports of vulnerable Canadians being pressured into euthanasia (here and here), including instances where the lethal procedure was rushed, depriving individuals of adequate time to reconsider or retract consent (source).
As George Galloway notes, Canada’s troubling precedent is being emulated abroad. Scotland recently approved laws akin to Canada’s, permitting assisted death even for teenagers, based on various questionable excuses, including anorexia. In England, the House of Lords is preparing to vote on a bill allowing abortion up to birth. The decision hinges on the seventeen lords who serve as Church of England bishops. It would have been expected in previous times that these “Christian” bishops would oppose such legislation, but Galloway warns of concern that these so-called “men of God” might side with secular members to permit the killing of fully developed, viable infants just before birth.
The fragile status of human life within the collective West is evident even when attempts are made to safeguard it. Occasionally, a child survives a failed abortion, raising questions about medical obligations to provide care to such infants. In January 2025, the US House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 21), mandating lifesaving care for surviving infants.
However, this limited triumph remains precarious and largely symbolic. The bill still requires Senate approval, which remains uncertain and is currently not prioritized. The narrow margin in the House vote—217 to 204—reveals deep division among lawmakers on what should have been a noncontroversial issue. Mandating lifesaving treatment for infants who survive abortion made moral sense to a slim majority, while a significant minority opposed it. Stronger opposition lobbying could easily have reversed the outcome.
This political fragility was also observed in Oregon earlier this month. The state proudly proclaims legal abortion up to birth, allowing minors as young as 15 to undergo the procedure without parental consent. Yet legislation intended to guarantee basic medical care for infants who survive botched abortions was twice blocked by the state Legislature, ignoring the wishes of 80% of Oregon’s population.
The growing promotion of assisted death alongside denial of essential care to infants surviving abortion reflects a hostile climate toward life prevailing across Western societies. At both the entry and exit points of existence—birth and death—the spirit of Thanatos appears to hold sway.
About the Author
