Medical Aid in Dying (MAID): Why It’s Never a God-Given Answer

Editor's Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Regent University, its faculty, administration, or affiliates.

The New York State Assembly recently passed the most lenient and unchecked euthanasia bill, not only in America, but throughout the world. Awaiting Senate approval and the governor’s signature, the bill — entitled Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) — seriously lacks safeguards, which instigated a bipartisan voting result. Twenty Democrats broke ranks to vote with the Assembly’s 47 Republicans against the bill, while 81 remaining Democrats voted for passage.

The bill fails to require patients to be psychiatrically evaluated before opting for suicide. MAID also does not outline a mechanism for recovering the lethal drug administered for death from those who request it but then, later, decide against using it. Furthermore, while two physicians are required for the fatal prescription, they may be consulted virtually — no in-person meeting is required. Most significant is that MAID sends a troubling message that life can cease to be worth living.

Those most vulnerable to this fatal influence will consist of those too poor to obtain adequate medical care, the marginalized, and women. Research reveals that women are a particularly vulnerable segment of this group. (See Women and Assisted Suicide: Exposing the Gender Vulnerability to Acquiescent Death, 4 Cardozo Women’s L. J. 241 [1997]).

Finally, while a few other state jurisdictions have some type of assisted suicide allowance, New York’s legislation requires no waiting period whatsoever. The Empire State is on the verge of turning suicide into a spur-of-the-moment decision and a medical-treatment option.

While some may argue in favor of euthanasia as an individual choice, Madeline Kearns of The Free Press (June 8, 2025) noted some authentic concerns:

“The assisted-suicide advocates I spoke with have many admirable qualities. Chief among them is their strong will and clear-mindedness. But they risk assuming that everyone facing a devastating diagnosis is of a similar disposition. What they might not appreciate is that in insisting on control at the end of life, they are chipping away at the agency of those who have so little to begin with and whose motivations may be compromised by depression, uncertainty, loneliness, ambivalence, grief, poverty, or despair. We owe these New Yorkers more than we currently give. And much more than a cocktail of barbiturates.”

Because life is created in God’s image, He finds it sacred. So should we. The sanctity of life is not diminished by sorrow or suffering. It is a principle that emphasizes the inherent value of human life, as sacred, holy, and worthy of protection. As a divine gift from God, life must be safeguarded and respected, possessing an inherent dignity and worth from the Creator Himself.  This standard is upheld by a loving community that cares for those who suffer, honors the blessing of life, and trusts God with outcomes.

States that do not uphold the value of human life reduce it to utilitarian qualities alone, ignoring inherent value made in the image of God. The danger of viewing life as simply “a clump of cells” or “not worthy of living any longer” ends in nihilism, and worse, can turn into a “duty to die,” rather than a compassionate choice.

The most vulnerable among us need our strong voices of biblical conviction. They deserve our protection from these challenging choices that make a difference in eternity.