![]() |
Kathy Matusiak Costa |
With Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care, and Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Office tel. 519-439-6445
CCC Helpline: 1-855-675-8749
![]() |
Kathy Matusiak Costa |
Lord Kevin Shinkwin said the Terminally Ill Adults Bill “puts a price on my head” and he would have felt pressure to agree to having a lethal injection over fear of being a burden.Ferguson further reported Lord Shinkwin as stating:
The Tory's warning comes as campaigners vow to fight the assisted dying bill in the Lords after MPs narrowly backed it by just 23 votes on Friday.
Lord Shinkwin, 54, is a disability rights campaigner who has a severe form of brittle bone disease.
He said: “I am a disabled person. I cost the NHS, over the course of my lifetime, probably several million pounds to keep me alive.When asked if he would be alive today if assisted suicide was already legal, Shinkwin responded:
“This Bill would put a price on my head — on the head of so many disabled people.”
“I think you have hit the nail on the head.Ferguson reported that Shinkwin hopes to amend the assisted suicide bill while other peers are working to prevent the bill from passing.
"Absolutely. I was in intensive care a few months ago, and had a doctor come over to me when I was extremely vulnerable and said, ‘Have you considered assisted dying?’, I would have felt under real pressure to do that.”
![]() |
Meghan Schrader |
The following article was published by the European Institute of Bioethics on June 30, 2025.
![]() |
France National Assembly |
Since the majority opinion in favour of authorising euthanasia issued by the French National Consultative Ethics Committee in September 2022 (in contradiction with previous opinions that had been largely unfavourable), the political timetable on this issue has accelerated. This was followed by a citizens' convention on end-of-life issues in December 2022, and the examination of a government bill in May 2024, halted by the dissolution of the National Assembly a few weeks later. The draft bill that has been before the public since 12 May is based on the text adopted at first reading by the Social Affairs Committee.
Towards a right to "use a lethal substance
Article 1 of the bill establishes a ‘right to assistance in dying’, i.e. authorising a person who so requests to ‘have recourse to a lethal substance [...] in order to administer it or have it administered by a doctor or nurse’. Under the heading of ‘aid in dying’, this means that the person requesting it can commit suicide after being given the means to do so, or be euthanised by a carer if he or she is no longer capable of administering the lethal substance.
Subjective conditions for access
In addition to the conditions of majority and French nationality (or residence in France), the text provides, as does Belgian law, for a condition linked to medical condition and a condition linked to the state of suffering:
Patients must also be considered as ‘capable of expressing their wishes in a free and informed manner’.
Following the example of Belgian law, the text therefore does not stipulate that the patient's death must be expected in the near future in order for his or her life to be terminated. Some people, such as the French National Authority for Health, have stressed the vague and non-objective nature of the notion of ‘advanced or terminal phase’, as well as that of ‘life-threatening prognosis’.
Non-binding opinion of other healthcare professionals
The doctor asked by the patient to end his or her life must obtain the opinion of another doctor (who is not obliged to consult the patient), as well as the opinion of another medical auxiliary or care assistant (if necessary from a distance), without these opinions being binding.
A minimum period of a few days between the request and death by lethal injection
If, within the two-week period, the doctor decides in favour of the patient's request, the patient may be euthanised or die by assisted suicide after a period of reflection of at least two days. In practice, this means that the time between the patient's initial request and death by lethal injection can be reduced to a handful of days. This will depend on how quickly the doctor makes his or her decision and how soon the person chooses to have their life ended.
Carers involved in all cases
Insofar as it is envisaged that the person will in principle administer the lethal substance themselves, the programmed death provided for in the text under discussion corresponds to assisted suicide. Only in the event that the person is unable to self-administer the lethal cocktail would euthanasia be carried out by the doctor or nurse.
However, even if they do not administer the lethal substance to the person, the doctor or nurse ‘responsible for accompanying’ the person is required to ‘supervise the administration of the lethal substance by the person’, in addition to having obtained the lethal substance and, where applicable, having taken responsibility for authorising the person's assisted suicide beforehand.
Assisted suicide is a "natural death
The bill also stipulates that the death certificate will state that the person is ‘deemed to have died a natural death’. This echoes an equivalent provision in Belgian law. Justified as a means of guaranteeing access to certain life insurance cover, this legal fiction nonetheless seriously misleads the public about the very reality of the act of death - unnatural death - involved in euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Limited conscience clause
While the text gives doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants the right to refuse to take part in this procedure, pharmacists are excluded from the protection provided by this specific conscience clause, even though they are required to be involved in preparing and dispensing the lethal substance. Furthermore, the freedom of health establishments and retirement homes not to provide for euthanasia or assisted suicide within their walls is explicitly excluded: the staff of these institutions will not be able to oppose the carrying out of programmed death within their walls.
Monitoring compliance with the law after the patient's death
The text establishes a control commission, tasked in particular with assessing compliance with the conditions of the law once the patient has died, on the sole basis of information declared by the carers concerned.
Offence of obstruction for attempting to prevent assisted suicide
The only criminal provisions introduced by the bill concern preventing (or attempting to prevent) others from practising assisted suicide or euthanasia, or from obtaining information on the subject, ‘by any means, including electronically or online, in particular by disseminating or transmitting allegations or information likely to intentionally mislead, with a view to dissuading, as to the characteristics or medical consequences of assisted dying’.
The text grants associations campaigning in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide (‘whose statutory purpose includes the defence of the rights of persons to have access to aid in dying’) the right to bring a civil action to prosecute on this basis.
More articles on France:
![]() |
Meghan Schrader |
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.
People everywhere have been influenced by ableist belief systems, including some opponents of assisted suicide. There are also a lot of attacks on disability rights in the United States right now. (I just spent time weeping over them and the degradation many disabled people could experience as a result.) Hence, I was thinking that I should offer some disability justice “lessons” for readers who do care about people with disabilities, but may not be fully apprised of what disability justice looks like in general. This post will be lesson number one; I hope to provide a general overview of the principle that the equal right to be alive is foundational to disability justice, but disability justice does not stop there.
It’s important that assisted suicide opponents not embrace regressive ideas, language and attitudes. For instance, at Thanksgiving in 2024 I had a very strange conversation with a family member about accommodations for people with disabilities. This family member has been very good to me. But, during a family event I mentioned the story of the time I considered transferring from one college to another. The director of disability services at the college I was thinking of transferring to told me that the school would not accommodate my learning or psychiatric disabilities, so I didn’t transfer. The family member said, “Well, at least they let you know up front that they couldn’t do it. A school is a business. How can they make money if they have to spend $300,000 accommodating one person’s learning disability?” I changed the topic rather than argue with them. I am very surprised that this family member, who has observed my struggles to fit into the world and has stood by me during my fits of psychotic depression, including making generous personal sacrifices for my well-being, would think this way. They know I use the Americans with Disabilities Act to advocate for myself, so they understand that not making reasonable accommodations for disabled people is illegal, right? Why do they think that accommodating my disabilities would cost $300,000? If every college had that attitude, how would I have become educated? Why don’t they understand that the attitude they just articulated is the root cause of disabled people like me being mentally ill, unemployed, uneducated, impoverished, isolated and maybe even dead? This person is really into people working instead of being on welfare. They understand that I am able to work because my employer uses resources to accommodate me, right? I love my loved one anyway, but that attitude is not one that assisted suicide opponents should embrace.
It is important that assisted suicide opponents set high goals for the full participation of people with disabilities in society. Do not excuse inaccessibility because disabled people ostensibly do not “need” the inaccessible thing.
For instance, the Department of Energy has submitted a proposal to weaken Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act’s requirement that newly constructed buildings be accessible to people with physical disabilities. (The department of energy says that such regulations are “unduly burdensome” for various stakeholders and that it would like to give them more “flexibility” about whether new construction has to incorporate disabled people’s needs.) Anti assisted suicide disability rights groups like the Disability Rights Legal and Defense Fund, and the National Council on Independent Living have said that this change endangers disabled people’s right to use any new government buildings or building features. Yet, some assisted suicide opponents seem ready to dismiss these types of concerns. For instance, another, able-bodied assisted suicide opponent who is generally very good to the disabled told me that they think the proposed rule change will still allow disabled people to access all of the things that we need. They told me that of course they support disabled people accessing buildings and building features that facilitate access to government programs and human rights, but perhaps disability rights didn’t mean that disabled people needed to access everything. (At least I think that’s what they meant.) For instance, the mentor said, if a building that allows wheelchair users to access essential services like medical care adds a solarium, does the solarium really need to be accessible to wheelchair users who would like to use it for sunshine and fresh air?
Why yes, it does. It is possible to build an accessible solarium, so it needs to be built that way, even if building it that way is a “burden” to the builder. That’s kind of the point of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Generally if able-bodied people have access to something good, then disabled people are supposed to have access to that good thing. That’s part of first class citizenship. And, of course, the new regulations wouldn’t just apply to “extreme” examples like solariums, they would apply to government funded buildings in general, which would put basic services at risk.
Moreover, people who are concerned with fighting assisted suicide should view the solarium argument in the context of the assisted suicide issue. What if assisted suicide does get legalized for disabled people and some “MAiD”- vulnerable person thinks to themselves, “Gee, I would feel so much better if I could just go into that solarium for some sunshine and fresh air, but I can’t. I’m a second class citizen; I want to die”? That kind of speculation might sound “silly” to some proponents, but that’s the reality that disabled people experience on an everyday basis.
I have also seen publications who have published very good pieces opposing assisted suicide turn around and use the r word repeatedly, as a joke. Or using words like “midget” to describe Little People. My dudes, you simply cannot do that. Using the r word is a huge no no. So is using the word “midget.” Most people in the disabled community consider both words to be slurs.
Before anyone pounces on the idea that assisted suicide proponents are generally more “enlightened” about non assisted suicide disability issues, allow me to try and humble such people a bit. Assisted suicide supporters also have a history of ignoring disabled people and not understanding disability justice. Right to die leaders have collaborated with Peter Singer, who has argued that raping disabled people is ok and compared disabled people to pigs and orangutans. Right to die leader and “disability rights advocate” Christopher Riddle has compared disabled people who will die in accidents related to assisted suicide to car accident statistics. People of all political stripes cut funding for the disabled, support inaccessible buildings and deprioritize disability justice in their non assisted suicide advocacy efforts. Ableism is everywhere.
But, perhaps it is possible to combine advocacy for justice with grace. No matter where someone stands on the assisted suicide issue, ableism isn’t always entirely the fault of people doing the ableist things. Most people don’t grow up learning about disability history and justice. A lot of people inadvertently allow ableist conditions to exist because they haven’t had the opportunity to understand that these conditions are ableist. But people need to understand that disability justice is like a tapestry, with laws related to things like Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act forming the “threads” of the tapestry. If someone pulls out one thread, then the whole tapestry starts to fray.
So, if you are someone doing the good work of helping the disabled community fight assisted suicide but maybe do not “hang out in” mainstream disability justice circles and you have not had the opportunity to study trends in disability justice and history, try to set aside some time to educate yourselves. Beware of any argument that disabled people should not have access to something nice because making it accessible is a “burden.” This is, after all, the logic motivating the assisted suicide proponents who think the early deaths of “burdensome” disabled people are good.
It is not realistic to expect assisted suicide opponents to agree with one another on every nuance of every issue, but any effort seeking to revert disability rights laws back to what they were in the 1960s is a bad thing. If a disability rights organization that fights alongside you to oppose “MAiD” says that a policy is bad, don’t write their expert advice off. It’s important that anti assisted suicide activists of all political stripes support the disability justice movement’s goals regarding things like accessible buildings, employment, deinstitutionalization, education and community living. Doing that is one of the most important ways that one can connect one’s advocacy for disabled people’s lives with the broader fight for disability justice.
Previous articles by Meghan Schrader (Articles Link)
The following true story was sent to our EPC "Story Contest"
Please visit our "contributor info" (Link) "recent stories" (Link) and "story index" (Link). We would be thrilled to receive your story at: story@epcc.ca
The British assisted suicide bill passed on June 20, 2025 by a vote of 314 to 291 and will soon be debated in the British House of Lords.
The Telegraph reported that the US State Department sent this message to the British Parliament:
“As the UK Parliament considers support for state-subsidised suicide, euphemistically called a Bill for ‘terminally ill adults’ the United States reaffirms the sanctity of life,” the US bureau of democracy, human rights and labour said.
“The Western world should stand for life, vitality and hope over surrender and death.”
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is pleased with the clear statement from the US State Department.
We are also asking our supporters to urge New York Governor Kathy Hochul to veto the New York assisted suicide bill that passed in the New York Assembly on April 29, 2025 and in the New York Senate on June 9, 2025. The bill has not been signed by Governor Hochul yet.
We need to urge Governor Hochul to reject state-subsidised suicide - veto assisted suicide bill A136/S138 (Link to contact Governor Hochul)
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
![]() |
Tamara Jansen MP |
Bill C-218 will likely receive it's first hour of debate in November 2025.
When Canada expanded the euthanasia law in March 2021 by passing Bill C-7, one of the expansions in the law permitted euthanasia for a mental illness alone. At that time the government approved euthanasia for mental illness alone with a two-year moratorium to give time to prepare.
For Bill C-218 to be
successful, we will need stories from Canadians who have lived with, (or
currently live with) mental health concerns and may have died by euthanasia
(MAiD) if it had been available at that time. Contact us with your story at: info@epcc.ca
It is not easy to share stories, but the courage to share your suffering may lead to protection for other people.
A February 2023, Angus Reid Institute poll indicated that 31% of Canadians supported euthanasia for mental illness alone, with the highest support being in Quebec (36%) and the lowest support being in Saskatchewan (21%). A September 2023, Angus Reid Institute poll indicated that support for euthanasia for mental illness alone had dropped to 28% of Canadians.
Bill C-218 is identical to Bill C-314 that was sponsored by the Hon. Ed Fast and narrowly defeated in parliament by a vote of 167 to 150 at second reading on October 18, 2023.
The Bill C-314 debate prompted the government to delay the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.
During the Bill C-314 debate many Canadians came forward with powerful personal stories that witnessed to the fact that people who are living with mental health concerns that suicidal ideation is often a symptom of mental health concerns.
For Bill C-218 to be successful, we will need stories from Canadians who have lived with, (or currently live with) mental health concerns and may have died by euthanasia (MAiD) if it had been available at that time. Contact us with your story at: info@epcc.ca
Bill C-218: (Link to Bill C-218)
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
R.S., c. 46
Criminal Code
1 Subsection 241.2(2.1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Exclusion
(2.1) For the purposes of Insertion start subsection (2) Insertion end, a mental Insertion start disorder Insertion end is not Insertion start a grievous and irremediable medical condition Insertion end .
Coordinating Amendments
2 (1) In this section, other Act means An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 2021.
(2) If section 1 of this Act comes into force before subsection 1(2.1) of the other Act, then that subsection 1(2.1) is repealed.
(3) If subsection 1(2.1) of the other Act comes into force before section 1 of this Act, then section 241.2 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exclusion
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (2), a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition.
(4) If subsection 1(2.1) of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 1 of this Act, then that subsection 1(2.1) is deemed to have come into force before that section 1 and subsection (3) applies as a consequence.
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
![]() |
Alex Schadenberg |
Recently we had a retired United Church minister, who gave a talk on “Dignity in Dying”, which, although it included other topics, was mostly a presentation in favour of MAID.I was approved to speak for this August.
I have also spoken at several other civic events and once again there was respectful dialogue.
It concerns me when groups prevent free and open dialogue. I would never be "hateful" or "discriminatory" but clearly the Men's Club is closed to our point of view.
Oh, by the way, Yes, I do oppose killing people.