Deadly Cynicism
It was a series of moves that showed a cynical disregard for morality and the will of the people. Introduced as the “Sanitary Food Preparation Act” in February of 2025, Illinois Senate Bill 1950 was then radically amended in May, with all text replaced and the bill renamed the “End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act.”
After months of vigorous debate and strong pushback from the public, the bill was tabled in the House, believed to be dead. Then, it was “jammed through” at the last minute. Months later, in a cowardly, middle-of-the-night special veto session, SB 1950 narrowly passed the Senate on Halloween. In short, lots of tricks and no treats for Illinoisans.
On December 12th, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the bill into law, giving the Land of Lincoln the dubious distinction of being the first state in the Midwest and the 12th state (plus D.C., with New York Governor Kathy Hochul signing a similar law this month) overall to legalize the practice of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), now referred to by its sanitized, more “compassionate” name, “medical aid in dying.”
The law will go into effect in September of this year. Naturally, pro-death, euphemistically-named organizations like Compassion & Choices and Death With Dignity, which advocate for laws like this, were thrilled.
Stipulations Are Not Ethics
Pritzker and other proponents disregard years’ worth of evidence to the contrary from other nations and states where PAS has been inflicted upon their residents as they tout the law’s so-called guardrails, which they claim will protect the vulnerable from being coerced to choose death when facing suffering. These stipulations are detailed in the text of the bill and summarized in a press release from the Governor’s office, but some of the key “guardrails” are as follows:
Patients:
- Must be over 18 years of age
- Must have a terminal illness that two physicians determine will result in death within six months
- Must be deemed mentally capable of making medical decisions by their physician
- Must personally make two requests for the medication, with a five-day waiting period between the requests
- Must have their written request witnessed by at least two individuals who can attest that the patient is mentally fit and is not being coerced
- Must be able to administer the medication themselves
Medical institutions:
- May opt out (several religiously-affiliated Illinois hospital systems have already stated they will), but they must refer patients seeking PAS to other providers who will prescribe the drugs.
- Cannot penalize staff members who promote PAS, as long as they prescribe the drugs off-site
Physicians and institutions who participate in PAS:
- Must attribute the patient’s cause of death to the underlying terminal disease on their death certificate
They Aren’t Guardrails if They Move
It’s difficult to know where to begin with legislation that is this unethical on its face, but the stipulations listed above deserve scrutiny, as well as a response from a biblical worldview informed by a basic understanding of medicine and ethics.
Generally speaking, “medical aid in dying” ought to be a nonstarter for believers and anyone who recognizes the inherent dignity of the human person. To allow that there is a point at which someone is better off dead is dangerous, capable of placing untenable pressure on those facing a terminal diagnosis (and even those who are not terminal but represent a “drain” on society, resources, and loved ones). This mentality has led to atrocities throughout history, and it is proven to spread beyond the “guardrails” its proponents trust will keep it in place.
One need only look at nations like the Netherlands, where the parameters have repeatedly spread since euthanasia and PAS were legalized in 2002. According to Family Research Council’s David Closson, writing at The Washington Stand, the law now includes those whose suffering is “primarily psychiatric,” minors with parental consent, and those with advanced dementia. The Dutch government plans to soon “expand euthanasia eligibility to include terminally ill children between the ages of 1 and 12.”
So too, Canada’s law has crept outside the original boundaries, beginning with those who are terminally ill and now amended so that a “patient’s death no longer needed to be ‘reasonably foreseeable.’” In 2027, our neighbors to the north plan to begin including those “suffering solely from a mental illness” as eligible for PAS.
The goalposts in this cultural moment are constantly moving, with moral and ethical consistency abandoned. Is it too simplistic to ask how it is that we can fund and promote suicide hotlines and mental health resources on the one hand, while allowing psychiatric suffering as a reason for state-sanctioned suicide on the other? The western world is in a mental illness spiral, but here we are, advanced nations, disguising death as medicine.
As we’ve seen repeatedly in this age of radical self-expression and the elevation of feelings over all else, whoever defines terms has the power. But when life and death are at stake, who is qualified to define “suffering?” In a society increasingly allergic to inconvenience, let alone true suffering, it’s very attractive to short-circuit the process of dying entirely.
The Beauty of End-of-Life Care
In the Illinois law, physicians are required to review all end-of-life care options, not just PAS. This is a good provision, but it was likely included to appease some legislators who were on the fence about their support of the bill. Otherwise, wouldn’t Illinois be consistent and require abortion facilities to discuss life-affirming options with mothers experiencing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? No, because Pritzker and others do not believe human life is sacred.
Many people are not introduced to the other available end-of-life options until they or a loved faces a terminal diagnosis, but both palliative and hospice care are worth exploring. Not only can symptoms be managed through the process of dying, but many patients who end therapies and shift instead to increasing their quality, rather than quantity, of life, end up living longer anyway.
There are theories for why this may be, but somehow, patients’ bodies often respond positively. Dying Well by Dr. Ira Byock, a pioneer in the fields of palliative and hospice care, is an excellent resource on these disciplines.
The main difference between using end-of-life care versus life-ending medications is that one is passive, allowing the biological process of death to run its course, while the other is active, taking matters into one’s own hands and putting oneself in the place of God, Who alone has marked out our days (Job 14:5).
The Unseen Effects of Physician-Assisted Suicide
One of the main secular arguments against PAS is that it puts doctors in the position of killing, not healing their patients. Most people know that the first few words of the Hippocratic Oath, a statement all physicians recite when they graduate from medical school, state, “First, do no harm.” Again, definitions matter here, because proponents of PAS will say that ending the life of someone with a terminal illness is ending “harm.”
But not only do laws like SB 1950 create an ethical problem, they also subject physicians and providers to moral harms, even if they opt out of providing the life-ending drugs. By requiring that even those hospital systems that refuse to participate in PAS refer their patients somewhere they can get the lethal medications, they are being made to participate. Even the coroner or medical examiner isn’t left unscathed since he necessarily must lie on the patient’s death certificate per the wording of the bill.
The terminally ill patient’s family and friends are not left unharmed here, either. Aside from their grief at the loss of their loved one, they must stand by as that life is cut short. They may attempt to persuade the patient, but could potentially find themselves silenced or “cut out” if other friends and family have bought the lie that unfettered “autonomy” is itself a moral good.
As for the harms to the patient (other than the obvious), while they are under no obligation to follow through with their plan to commit suicide, this law does not consider that they may end up dying alone. By removing the physician from the actual administration of the medication (absolving them, in theory, of direct involvement), the patient could, in a moment of pain or despair, take the lethal dose sooner than they had planned or discussed with others.
Proponents will say the patient has already made their peace with this end, but handing them the means to end their lives leaves no room for doubt or a change of heart.
Many disabled men and women stand strongly against PAS, and for good reason (see this article on the ongoing fight in the UK). Disabled citizens already battle daily against godless viewpoints and institutions that see them in purely utilitarian terms, as well as the prevailing thought process that goes, “I could never live like that.” As John Stonestreet of The Colson Center for Biblical Worldview often says, in cases like these, “the right to die often becomes the duty to die.” As the guardrails slip, and they will, the creep towards our disabled neighbors is inevitable.
Pushing Back the Culture of Death
So, what is to be done to fight the advancing darkness? Much, from our homes and churches to our communities and the public square. We face a culture with a pathological fear and hatred of suffering, even as we acknowledge the transformative work of hardship in those we admire most. We can and must first call out that cognitive dissonance.
PAS robs the ill, their loved ones, and society at large of the important, life-changing experience of facing mortality and the self-sacrifice inherent in loving and caring for someone who is dying. Starting with ourselves, we must choose to live in submission to the will of our good God when we face hardship, suffering, and even death (Rom 5:3-5). Our example will speak louder than a thousand articles, social media posts, or protest signs.
In our churches, we must seize this opportunity to strengthen our families and communities so that the main reasons terminally ill people cite for seeking PAS (loss of autonomy, decreasing ability to participate in enjoyable activities, and loss of dignity) can be supported, softened, and met by loved ones.
Pastors, too, ought to teach on this topic, giving their congregations a much-needed biblical framework for approaching increasing confusion on this and other worldview issues (see this survey from FRC’s Center for Biblical Worldview for more).
In the public square, we must hold our representatives accountable for their stance on this issue, while also calling upon them to bolster funding and tax breaks for palliative care and hospice organizations in Illinois. We can also support groups like the Thomas More Society, which is committed to defending the healthcare providers who will inevitably find themselves caught between obeying the law and living by their belief in the sanctity of human life.
Even as the state government persists in dragging Illinois further into the dark, we can and must stand for life, speak the truth, and walk out what it means to live (and die) well because of the hope we have.
