The scourge of anti-life laws and provisions in our Western society is expanding at a rapid pace. Regarding euthanasia, the Catholic Church is absolutely clear: it is strictly forbidden. This is part of the perennial teachings of the Church; it will never change. The Church is also very clear about its acceptance of organ donation, under well-regulated safeguards which respect the dignity and life of the donor and where death is clearly and ethically determined and not willed.
The Church does not sanction hastening people’s death to harvest their organs. Paragraph #2296 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “…it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.”
Furthermore, in Paragraph #2279, in its teaching on caring for the sick and palliative care, the Church states that death should not be “willed as either an end or a means” and that care must be given as a form of “disinterested charity.”
These statements highlight the fact that death should not be willed. In the case of death by organ donation, death is necessarily willed, and there does exist a goal, which is the harvesting of a person’s organs. It is in fact the commodification of human life under the guise of helping the life of another person. Now, more than ever, the Church needs to speak out against the horrendous ideology of death by vivisection/death by organ donation which is now being advocated by proponents of medical assistance in dying (MAiD).
The euthanasia industry is reaching a new low in their ideological quest for choosing one’s own death. The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper on July 8, 2026, “Contextualizing the Dead Donor Rule in an Era of Voluntary Euthanasia,” which, in the abstract, argues that since there is a growing acceptance of euthanasia, and organ donations are needed, the DDR (Dead Donor Rule) needs to be revisited and recontextualized to eventually open the door to death by organ donation.
What used to be ethically unacceptable would now be reassessed. With unvarnished logic, death by vivisection (the cutting and operation on a living being) would become the norm, and organ donations would be secured from live patients who had previously requested medical assistance in dying; they would therefore die by donating their organs. The mindset is that these organ donors requested assisted death anyway; it is thus the adage of killing two birds with one stone being put in motion.
This is a horrific low point on the scale of ethics in the euthanasia industry. The argument by the three doctors, two of whom are Canadian critical-care physicians, includes the ultimate logical solution of harvesting organs before the patient is dead. This idea aims to normalize the procedure of death by vivisection. As euthanasia gradually has been been accepted by society, so would this new form of dying.
The use of the “choice” narrative plays a major role in this growing acceptance of evil deeds. Death by organ donation would become a person’s choice of assistance-in-dying method. It is the logical next step in a culture gripped by death on one’s own terms. In addition, the rhetoric presents a false virtue: “helping others” receive much-needed organs thanks to one’s “choice” of being euthanized.
As reported by Valerie Hudson, PhD. in her July 2026 opinion piece, the three proponents of the death-by-vivisection method have stated, in relation to the DDR, that:
…the moral significance of strict temporal sequencing is diminished. In death by organ donation, the patient’s authorization, experience, and outcome are not altered by whether death occurs moments before or during organ retrieval. Ethical focus should therefore shift away from identifying a precise moment of biologic death and toward respecting patients’ autonomous decisions…
They openly advocate the shifting away from ethical concerns to a strictly logical and practical viewpoint, thus erasing any moral reservations people might have against this expansion of euthanasia.
So far, in the organ donation/organ harvesting system, the DDR has functioned as a “do not kill rule”; the removal of organs is supposed to occur after death has been ascertained. Whenever this edict is not being strictly adhered to, scandal erupts. However, if this new proposal of death by vivisection becomes implemented in law, it will have the veneer of legal respectability, thus immersing itself in the culture as just another autonomous choice. Once again, the evil of relativism and subjectivity will rear its ugly and malevolent head. What was once regarded as unacceptable would now be viewed through a softer lens under the guise of “freedom of choice.”
Historically, vivisection was viewed as an atrocity; it was part of the Nazi war crimes which were tried at the Nuremberg trials, namely the “Doctors Trial,” where doctors were charged and tried for the medical experiments and torture inflicted on their prisoners. Who could have dreamed that less than a century later, it would be advocated as a right?
While I am shocked to learn about this bold advocacy from medical professionals, I am not surprised. The push for assisted death is reaching new heights. This proposal of death by vivisection is just another step in the euthanasia mindset. It is not surprising that two of the three physicians arguing for this concept are Canadians. Canada has opened the door to legal killing of its vulnerable citizens since 2016 and has outnumbered every other country in numbers of deaths by MAiD. It is therefore not unexpected that some Canadian doctors would want to expand the accessibility to assisted dying and find a practical solution to combining organ donations with euthanasia.
So far, however, this procedure is not legal in Canada; death must be declared before the removal of organs. It is prohibited to kill solely to obtain organs. However, this new argument from the three doctors may soon change the way Canada regulates its medical laws surrounding euthanasia. Canada seems to be on the path of pushing the boundaries when it comes to assisted dying. Only time will tell where this new proposal will lead.
In closing, let us pray that the culture of death reverses before more unseemly barbaric acts of legalized killing continue. The scourge of euthanasia, like abortion, must be opposed by caring and concerned people everywhere. Let us continue tirelessly to be vocal in our opposition to the prevailing culture of death and advocate for a culture of life.
Pope St. John Paull II, tireless advocate for life, pray for us.
Photo by Mathurin NAPOLY / matnapo on Unsplash
