The unbearable burden may still be worth bearing



Across Canada, Europe, and a growing number of U.S. states, assisted death is increasingly presented as relief from suffering. The Netherlands even uses “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement” as part of its legal standard for euthanasia.

Before lawmakers and physicians define suffering as unbearable, they should listen to someone who has borne it.

No one can bear a lifetime of suffering at once. But the shepherd gives grace for the next 24 hours.

In a recent interview with my longtime friend Joni Eareckson Tada, she addressed California’s End of Life Option Act.

“It’s almost like people who feel they live with unbearable suffering can just move to California and end it all,” she said.

“Unbearable” does a great deal of heavy lifting in that sentence.

A diving accident at 17 left Joni a quadriplegic. Now turning 77, she has endured two rounds of breast cancer and decades of chronic pain.

By almost any ordinary measure, Joni has endured what lawmakers increasingly describe as unbearable suffering. Yet she is still here. Still serving. Still living a life of substance and consequence.

She has written more than 60 books, reaches more than a million radio listeners, and leads a worldwide disability ministry. Few living Christian voices speak more clearly to those who suffer.

At the end of our interview, I asked whether she would ever retire.

“No.”

Joni cited Paul, torn between departing to be with Christ and remaining because others still needed him. Heaven was “far better,” but the work was unfinished.

She does not minimize pain. She rejects death as its most compassionate answer.

I have spent 40 years beside my wife, Gracie, who has endured 98 operations, bilateral amputations, and relentless pain.

Joni sees unbearable suffering from the wheelchair. I see it from beside the wheelchair.

She sees the suffering person think, “My life has become a burden.”

I see the caregiver think, “This burden is mine alone.”

My own recent cancer treatment brought a familiar question to the front row: Who will care for the person I love when I no longer can?

As assisted death spreads, vulnerable people can hear another question beneath the language of choice: Would everyone else be relieved if I were gone?

That is where compassion can become something darker.

RELATED: Euthanasia and the lie of the ‘good death’

Mininyx Doodle/iStock/Getty Images

Death can begin to look like the answer to suffering we fear, consequences we refuse to bear, or lives that ask more of us than we believe we can give.

The prevailing creed is autonomy: I alone decide what suffering I will endure and what another person’s life may require of me. The same logic appears in abortion: No life may demand more of me than I am willing to give.

But once death becomes an accepted answer to suffering, the judgment does not remain entirely private. Families, physicians, insurers, and institutions inevitably begin weighing burdens, costs, prognosis, and quality of life.

They may call that compassion. Christian compassion asks something harder.

Compassion enters suffering. It does not eliminate the sufferer.

If suffering is merely random, eliminating the sufferer can masquerade as mercy. But if a sovereign God rules over this world, suffering is never meaningless or beyond His reach.

Christianity rejects that counterfeit compassion. We entrust ourselves to Christ and enter the burdens of others.

Human worth is not conferred by health, independence, or usefulness. God made us in His image. Paul calls members of Christ’s body who appear weaker “indispensable” (1 Corinthians 12:22).

But what sustains us when the pain does not end?

Joni’s answer is not willpower. Gracie’s answer is not optimism. They are sustained by Christ.

What does that look like?

No one can bear a lifetime of suffering all at once. But the shepherd gives grace for the next 24 hours. Psalm 23 does not promise a short valley. It promises we will not be abandoned within it.

Following Gracie’s 92nd operation, she returned to her hospital room tangled in tubes and IV lines. A young nursing assistant came in to check on her.

Still emerging from anesthesia, Gracie sensed something was wrong.

“How are you?” she whispered.

Tears filled the woman’s eyes as she confided that her marriage was in trouble.

Gracie threaded her hand through the lines and took the woman’s hand. Then she weakly quoted her friend Joni: “God permits what He hates to accomplish what He loves.”

Neither woman could see what God was doing. Neither believed He was doing nothing.

RELATED: The small mercy of a pressed pillowcase

zsv3207/iStock/Getty Images

The woman’s shoulders straightened, and she breathed a little easier.

Gracie was one beggar showing another where she had found bread.

We do not become someone else’s savior. Even from within our own anguish, we can help people catch their breath and point them to the Savior who understands their suffering and whose purposes extend beyond what we can explain.

“Bear one another’s burdens,” Paul writes, “and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).

That command applies to everyone who belongs to Christ. It cannot be outsourced.

If we say Christ is sufficient, visible obedience should follow.

Do we take Him at His word? If we do, how would anyone know?

They would see us entering the burdens of others.

Sometimes to sit. Sometimes to carry. At all times, to point to the Savior.

Parents sue after Catholic hospital in Canada refused to kill their terminally ill daughter



A Canadian couple is now suing a province and two health authorities after a Catholic hospital refused to euthanize their daughter who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Sam O’Neill, an avid runner and devoted vegan, was diagnosed with stage-4 cervical cancer in early 2022. The cancer was so aggressive that it eventually spread to her spine, breaking at least one vertebra. She also suffered from recurrent kidney infections and osteoporosis.

'You’re being told what you’re requesting is sinful.'

A year later, Sam's health continued to deteriorate. She was then admitted to St. Paul's Hospital, a publicly funded Catholic facility in Vancouver, British Columbia, owned by Providence Health Care, a Catholic medical organization. In spring of 2023, Sam requested — and was granted — assisted suicide services called medical assistance in dying, or MAiD.

Though MAiD has been the law of the land in Canada since 2016, the law provides exemptions for faith-based institutions like St. Paul's, which, in keeping with Catholic doctrine, does not kill its patients, even those with terminal illnesses. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unequivocal about the evil nature of intentional euthanasia, calling it "murder," regardless of its "forms or motives."

Even with that strict prohibition, St. John Hospice, which is also owned by Providence Health, does kill patients in accordance with civil law. St. Paul's agreed to transfer Sam to St. John, which soon afterward did kill Sam. She was just 34 years old.

On Monday, Gaye O'Neill, Sam's mother and the administrator of her estate, filed a lawsuit against British Columbia through its minister of health, Providence Health, and regional public health authority Vancouver Coastal Health, claiming that the defendants had forced her daughter to endure added pain and suffering because St. Paul's refused to kill her upon demand.

"The circumstances surrounding the forced transfer and Ms. O’Neill’s access to MAID caused and exacerbated Ms. O’Neill’s egregious physical and psychological suffering, and denied her a dignified death," it said.

Gaye O'Neill also went into great detail about her final conversation with her daughter, which apparently took place in a bathroom shortly before Sam's transfer to the hospice.

"We were allowed to say a quick goodbye, so I said to her, 'Sam, I’m so sorry this is happening to you.' And she said, 'Well, it is what it is,'" Gaye recalled.

The family exchanged "I love yous" before Sam was given pain killers and sedatives to ease her journey to St. John. Sam's father, Jim O'Neill, accompanied her in the ambulance.

"It was really, really hard," he said. "You watch her writhing and moaning in pain, not conscious and she’s not going to be conscious ever again."

Jim O'Neill described the experience as "horrendous" and "cruel."

Moreover, the O'Neills claim, Sam never chose to go to St. Paul's in the first place. By refusing to perform MAiD, St. Paul's "violated [Sam's] choice of religion," Gaye claimed.

"They can’t go on hurting people."

In addition to Gaye O'Neill, the lawsuit has two other plaintiffs who seem to have animus against a Catholic hospital for abiding by Catholic teaching. One of the plaintiffs is an organization called Dying with Dignity Canada. Its vice chairwoman, Daphne Gilbert, a University of Ottawa law professor, accused faith-based hospitals of attempting to "stigmatize" the practice of assisted suicide and those who request it.

"You’re being told what you’re requesting is sinful," she said.

Dr. Jyothi Jayaraman, a so-called palliative care physician and coplaintiff, also took issue with a hospital following its founding Christian precepts. "[Canadian Charter law] allows me freedom of religion, which also means that nobody else’s religious beliefs should be imposed on me," she insisted. "I think that is what’s happening, that Providence Health’s religious beliefs are imposed on me in such a way that I can no longer provide care in a medically appropriate and ethical way."

In a statement to Global News, Providence Health reaffirmed the organization's commitment to Catholic teaching and to refusing MAiD practices. However, it claims that it works with Vancouver Coastal Health facilities willing to perform them. "If there are issues or concerns with transfers, the two organizations work to improve the transfer processes wherever possible," Providence Health said.

Health Minister Adrian Dix gave a statement as well: "MAID is a legal end-of-life choice. In British Columbia, it’s strictly regulated, but it’s a legal end-of-life choice. And it’s our job to ensure that people have access to MAID in our province."

In an email to Blaze News, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition noted that "Sam O’Neill was not denied MAiD," and indeed, received MAiD services at an alternate facility. He also suggested the only crime St. Paul's committed was "refusing to kill their patients."

Finally, he slammed the lawsuit as little more than thinly veiled political activism. "Dying with Dignity, Canada’s leading euthanasia lobby group, is committed to forcing every medical institution to provide euthanasia," he told Blaze News. "Dying with Dignity will not accept any dissent from their demand that all medical institutions must provide euthanasia."

"This story is about using the death of Sam in order to force all medical institutions, including religiously affiliated medical institutions, into providing euthanasia."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Does Kamala Harris REALLY want to 'REDUCE POPULATION'? These 2 stories suggest so



Sometimes Freudian slips are humorous; sometimes they suck the air right out of the room.

Kamala Harris’ recent blunder certainly falls into the latter camp.

In a recent speech about climate change, the vice president said, “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.”

After her ridiculous speech about artificial intelligence, in which she said AI is a fancy thing with two letters, this gaffe has only made matters worse for Kamala.

Although the White House has come forward with a seemingly sincere explanation that she meant to say “reduce pollution,” not “reduce population,” audiences across the country can’t help but wonder if her slip reveals a genuine support of population control.

“I think you could make the case,” Glenn Beck says, “with all of the things that we point out in ‘Dark Future’ that she may have meant pollution in this speech, but they actually do intend on reducing the population.”

He then tells two stories – one involving a Canadian moose and the other involving assisted death (euthanasia) – both of which seem to suggest that population reduction is indeed on the horizon.

Watch the full clip below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.