Thursday, March 14, 2024

: Treatment Resistant Depression Disorder Recovery and Euthanasia

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan Schrader
Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 Texas - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

In his 2015 essay “Treatment Resistant Depression Disorder and Assisted Dying,” Udo Schuklenk says that people with treatment resistant depression should be helped to die by suicide not only because the disorder can be excruciatingly painful, but because the person essentially has “two selves”: a real self that existed prior to the onset of the clinical depression, and a depressed self that has taken over the person’s life.  He asserts that for some people this former “real self” is never coming back, and so the kindest thing is to give them the option of being put out of their misery.

Indeed, as someone who has experienced episodes of treatment resistant depression since my teens, I must say that the most painful thing about my disorder is that I have not felt like myself. Between the ages of about seven and 16, before my mental illness started, I was considered unusually mature, wise, caring and polite for my age. So how did I go from that to the F word being every other word out of my mouth? Why was I yelling at people all the time and sharing whatever immature or rude thought that came into my mind? I had always been a good student, so why was my mind so cloudy now, like I was trying to think through static? I was a talented vocalist, so why didn’t I have the energy to sing anymore? Why was my impulse control suddenly so bad that I impulsively did foolish things that “the real me” would never do?

These changes in myself caused deep hurt. When I was about nine, my mom’s good friend told me that everyone had a metaphorical “love light” inside of them that guided how they treated others, and she kindly remarked that my “love light” was very bright. But in my late teens I began thinking and acting in ways that made me feel as though my “love light” had gone out or was constantly flickering. The real me was still “in there somewhere,” but I couldn’t put her back in the driver’s seat. The mental illness was always at least partially in control, and the intense dysphoria that it caused was like a stalker that wouldn’t leave me alone. This change in myself has sometimes been very difficult to understand.

There are, however, some logical explanations for why I’ve felt as though my “love light” isn’t functioning properly. I’m an adoptee, and since meeting my biological family about 10 years ago, I’ve learned that a lot of these issues are genetic. My bio family has a lot of terrific people in it and I’m glad that they are my family, but also many of those terrific people have suffered from severe mental illness. So, clearly there is a biological component to my symptoms that would exist no matter what, and that’s one of the reasons that I’ve experienced the sense of my “love light” not burning brightly anymore.

The other reason for that change is lack of accommodation for my Nonverbal Learning Disability. The disability is not painful by itself, but it causes a severely impaired sense of direction, slow processing speed, and various executive functioning weaknesses. However, despite that disability coming from a mild brain injury that I got when I was being born, people often don’t believe me when I tell them it exists. Usually that disability is not accommodated properly, no matter how many times I patiently explain what accommodations I need. That situation causes toxic stress: I experience getting hopelessly lost in public and having to constantly ask strangers for help, panic-induced autistic hand-flapping, making loud exclamations of despair that everyone around me hears, and having people stare at me because of these embarrassing behaviors. That situation naturally incites anger and depression; indeed, these kinds of circumstances lead to many neurodiverse and disabled people having suicidal thoughts. (Link) And of course those kinds of feelings get in the way of adding fuel to one’s “love light.”

This lack of accommodation for my neurological impairment and its impact on my “love light” is cruel. It’s not a situation that I chose, it’s a result of how the world has been designed. I firmly believe that I would have landed in the psychiatric hospital far less often-and maybe not at all-if only people would stop complaining about what a terrible hassle accommodating me is and just consistently do it.

But, in the last few years, a wonderful thing has happened to me and my “love light.” A mentor who loves me helped me find my job at the University of Texas’s postsecondary program for people with intellectual disabilities. I get all the accommodations that I need for my learning disability, so much of the environmental impetus for depression has been removed. My employer basically allowed me to create my own job mentoring students, advocating at the Texas state capitol, and offering lessons in ethics, the fine arts, independent living and peer support. In 2021 I accompanied a student who had a diabetic crisis to an emergency room and stayed with him until his family arrived. I consoled another student who was having suicidal thoughts. Last year I helped a student advocate for a bill to add disability history to the Texas state history curriculum. I take students to music performances at UT’s school of music to expose them to opera and symphonies and Caribbean music. This year I helped a student who was struggling with incontinence when she had an embarrassing accident. And this is the best part of my job: because of my work with these students, I have felt as though my “love light” has been turned back on, and the real me is alive again.

In Schuklenk’s world, mentally ill people should die — I should have died — because their (my!) unaccommodated disorders contributed to people's “love lights” going out. What a terrible waste it would have been if policies created by Schulenk and his pals had been able to shape my fate in such a heartless, thoughtless, evil way!

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

27 year old autistic Alberta woman approved for euthanasia. Her father is challenging the decision in court.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Link to the CBC News video (Link to video).

CBC News reported on March 12, 2024 of an Alberta court case concerning a father who has petitioned the court to prevent the euthanasia death of his 27-year-old autistic daughter, who lives at home. The father is stating that his daughter does not have a medical condition that qualifies under the law, whereas the daughter has already been approved for death by lethal poison.

This case affects me greatly since I have an autistic son and I have significant life experience concerning my sons lived reality.

CBC News reported on the case that:
A publication ban protects the identities of the parties and the medical professionals. CBC News will identify the daughter as M.V. and the father as W.V.

At issue is whether the courts can step in when family members, with no legal standing, have concerns about the MAID approval process.
CBC news stated that there is no explanation for the MAID qualification.
Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby heard that M.V. — who lives with her father — was approved in December. Her date to receive MAID was set for Feb. 1.

The day before she was scheduled to die, W.V. was successful in seeking a temporary injunction, preventing M.V. from accessing MAID.

She has not submitted any medical documentation that could explain why she qualifies for MAID.

In a brief filed with the court, W.V. argued "M.V. suffers from autism and possibly other undiagnosed maladies that do not satisfy the eligibility criteria for MAID."
The lawyer for the daugher, "M.V." is stated that it is none of her father's business.
But M.V.'s lawyer Austin Paladeau argued she's "not trying to withhold or hide anything."

"She's saying 'it's none of [W.V.'s] or the public's business, I've been approved by two doctors, I am entitled to this and, court, it's none of your business either.'"

Sarah Miller, the lawyer for the father, called the situation "a novel issue for Alberta."

"As it stands, AHS [Alberta Health Services] operates a MAID system with no legislation, no appeal process and no means of review," wrote Miller in her brief for the court.

Miller has asked Feasby for a judicial review of M.V.'s MAID approval.
CBC reported that the father stated that his daughter's claims are unreliable.
The father submitted a 2021 report with the court, authored by a doctor at a neurology clinic who concluded M.V. required no followup and was "normal" and sent her back to her family doctor.

Miller also pointed out that on her initial MAID application, M.V. indicated her death had become "reasonably foreseeable" yet she was approved as a "track 2" MAID patient, which means death is not reasonably foreseeable.

"Therefore M.V. is not a reliable witness," wrote Miller in her brief.
According to CBC the father argued that his daughter is also depressed.
W.V. believes M.V. is not eligible for MAID and that her "capacity to consent to MAID is impacted by mental illness." He also feels she's been "unduly influenced by a third party," according to one of the documents filed with the court.

If the MAID approval process is not followed as set out in the Criminal Code, medical practitioners could be charged criminally.
CBC reported that a lawyer for the father argued that MAiD (euthanasia) is unique because a person who is wrongfully approved is dead.
Emily Amirkhani, another lawyer for W.V., argued that MAID is "an incredibly unique system" where if a person seeking MAID is wrongfully approved, "that person is never going to cause anyone to look behind that curtain" because they got what they wanted.

"It's unlike any situation I can think of where the wrongful administration of the system cannot be brought to light but for someone besides the patient," said Amirkhani.
CBC reported that the lawyer for the daughter argued that he understands that the father doesn't want his daughter to die, but she has autonomy.
M.V.'s lawyer Austin Paladeau stressed the case boils down to an adult's right to medical autonomy.

"He's at risk of losing his daughter and while this is sad, it does not give him the right to keep her alive against her wishes," said Paladeau.

"One of the real challenging parts of this process … is what's actually happening," said Paladeau.

"I completely understand [W.V.] does not want his daughter to die … I represent [M.V.], I don't want her to die either but that doesn't play into account here.

"Even though we have or may have very strong views … at the end of the day this is [M.V.'s] decision."
The Judge stated that this is a vexing case. The only medical assessment that was given is from 2021 and it indicates that the daughter is not ill. The Judge reserved his decision on the injunction.

Euthanasia lobby poll indicates that a majority of UK citizens support assisted dying for hard cases.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paul Brand reported for ITV news on March 11 that a poll conducted by the UK euthanasia lobby group, Dignity in Dying, found that 75% of the repondents in the UK support legalizing assisted dying.

The news article did not publish the poll question, but it is known that when people are asked the question - Should terminally ill people who are suffering be able to ask for assisted dying, that the majority will say yes.

When you poll a group of people with a question that is based on a hard case scenario -- the person is terminally ill and suffering uncontrolled pain -- the respondent will react to that specific question.

If you ask people in a poll about real life scenario's, such as in Canada where we are having euthanasia deaths for poverty, homelessness, disability or an inability to obtain medical treatment (not based on futility but based on medical backlogs) then the response changes.

When you poll a group of people with a question that employs inaccurate language, then you will get stronger support. The media article indicates that the Dying in Dignity poll asks if a person should be legally allowed to seek assisted dying.

It is one question to be legally allowed to seek, it is another question whether a doctor or nurse should be legally allowed to poison their patients to death. 
Also, the term assisted dying is intentionally imprecise. We all want "assistance in dying". That assistance could be home-care or pain and symptom management (if necessary) but the euthanasia lobby use the term assisted dying to confuse us about the act of doctors and nurses killing their patients with poison.

Finally, it is the real life stories that are important.

When you legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide you may think that you are opening the door to specific scenario's but based on human reality there is always other doors behind the door that you have opened.

The recent court case in Alberta is a prime example of the further doors that are opened when you legalize euthanasia.

The Alberta court case concerns a father who has petitioned the court to prevent the euthanasia death of his 27 year old autistic daughter, who lives at home. The father is stating that his daughter does not have a medical condition that qualifies under the law, whereas the daughter has already been approved for death by lethal poison.

The father says that his daughter, who is autistic, has been influenced to believe that death is the answer to her social and personal difficulties, but she doesn't have an irremediable medical condition, as required by the law. Her father also believes that his daughter is depressed but depression doesn't qualify under the law.

The lawyer for the daughter is arguing that it is understandable that the father doesn't want his daughter to die by euthanasia, but the law doesn't give him legal standing. The lawyer for the daughter is saying that the law only requires approval by two medical professionals, and that has been accomplished.

When debating the legalization of euthanasia, the public is presented with the hard case scenario -- the terminally ill person who is suffering uncontrolled pain -- but the reality is that euthanasia cannot be legalized for specific hard case scenario's. The end result is a case of an otherwise healthy 27 year old autistic woman who lives at home who has been approved for death by lethal poison.


Killing is never the solution to social problems, we need a society that offers care.

Minnesota Assisted Suicide Bill is on a paved road to euthanasia.

Testimony in strong opposition to Minnesota Bill HF 1930 End of Life Option Act
March 12, 2024

Stephen Mendelsohn
By Stephen Mendelsohn

Rep. Jamie Becker Finn and members of the House Judiciary and Civil Law Committee:

I am an autistic adult and one of the leaders of Second Thoughts Connecticut, a coalition of disabled people opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide. I also serve on the board of directors of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA.

I submit this testimony in response and opposition to previous testimony from Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD on March 7, 2024 before the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.1 Pope argues that there is no “slippery slope” leading to a radical euthanasia regime like that in Canada. I will demonstrate that this “slippery slope” is actually a paved road, in which proponents have openly boasted about using an incrementalist, bait-and-switch strategy to first pass less ambitious legislation and then later expand the law whether by legislation or through the courts.

Pope erroneously claims that the Minnesota Legislature has total control to regulate the parameters of assisted suicide (which he calls “medical aid in dying” or MAID). Not so: Compassion & Choices has successfully sued the states of Oregon and Vermont to get them to eliminate their residency requirements. They currently have a lawsuit against New Jersey on the same issue. This shows that states that have legalized assisted suicide do not have full control over regulating the parameters of the legislation they pass.

It is true that under Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, and state courts have consistently rejected attempts to compel enactment of these laws. Nonetheless, challenges to laws legalizing assisted suicide based on equal protection and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from both sides remains largely an untested issue.

While one case (Shavelson et al. v. Bonta et al.) seeking to force California to allow for lethal injections for persons who may not be capable or may lose the ability was denied, it is easily conceivable that another court in another jurisdiction would rule otherwise. The core “safeguards” of six months terminal illness, mental competence, and self-administration all make distinctions on the basis of disability, granting some people suicide prevention and others suicide assistance. I would also note there is currently a disability-rights lawsuit, United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al., seeking to overturn the End of Life Option Act on ADA and 14th Amendment equal protection grounds.2

Pope claims that “… no U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the terminal illness requirement. No U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the self-ingestion requirement.” His testimony was rendered utterly false a mere one day after it was submitted. On March 8, 2024, California State Senator Catherine Blakespear submitted a press release on SB 1196, explaining the provisions of her bill to radically expand that state’s End of Life Options Act.3 This legislation would eliminate the terminal illness requirement, replacing it with “a grievous and irremediable medical condition” similar to what was originally enacted in Canada. It would allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to access the law, and would also allow for lethal injection, moving from assisted suicide to active euthanasia. In addition, it would eliminate the meager 48 hour waiting period, allowing for a same-day death.

Pope himself is a zealous advocate of expansion in this direction.4 He posted to his Medical Futility Blog, “California Makes Big Move on Medical Aid in Dying,” approvingly.5 Even under current law, he has advocated using voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED) as a bridge to enable non-terminal patients to qualify for assisted suicide in states such as Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Hawai‘i which have either significantly shortened the waiting period or allowed it to be waived. Pope published an article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society approvingly citing the case of Cody Sontag, an Oregon woman with early-stage dementia who used VSED to qualify for lethal drugs under that state’s law.6 He notes that “if anyone can access VSED, then anyone can qualify for MAID,” thereby doing an end-run around the law’s terminal illness requirement.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying (ACAMAID) has an “Ethics Consultation Service” report on “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying” noting that:

Legally, there is nothing in the letter of the law of any of the U.S. states’ aid in dying bills that explicitly prohibits accepting voluntary stopping of eating and drinking as a terminal diagnosis to qualify for aid in dying. This remains a legal gray zone.7
ACAMAID confirms that allowing VSED to qualify for lethal prescriptions would “essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness to qualify.”

Most significantly, if passed, HF 1930 would be the most expansive and permissive assisted suicide law in the nation to date. Similar to the extreme euthanasia bill in California, it has no waiting period at all, thus allowing anyone—theoretically even otherwise healthy people who may be depressed—to instantly qualify for the lethal dose and die on the same day. It would thereby enact two principal elements of Canada’s radical death regime—widespread eligibility for non-terminal conditions and same day deaths.

Passage of HF 1930 would also shift the Overton window toward more radical legislation. Over the past two years, while no new states have enacted laws to legalize assisted suicide, several states have moved to expand their laws. It is far easier to pass an expansion bill after a state accepts the principle that it is acceptable for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients than it is to pass legislation to legalize the practice in the first place.

Proponents of assisted suicide bills across the United States have not been shy about their incrementalist bait-and-switch strategy and desire for future expansion. In my home state of Connecticut, Rep. Josh Elliott openly admitted he wanted to get anything on the books even if it was unusable so it could be later expanded. Paul Bass reports in the New Haven Independent:

Elliott has been sponsoring bills for years to allow terminally ill people to take their lives (aka “aid in dying”). The bill finally passed the legislature’s Public Health committee; it got stuck in Judiciary.

The version he plans to resubmit this year has been narrowed to cover terminally ill people with prognoses of less than six months to live, with sign-offs from two doctors and a mental health professional, monthly check-ins, and at least a year of state residence.

“Almost no one” would qualify under that restricted version of the law, Elliott said. But passing it would open the door to evaluation and expansion.8

Here is the full on-air quote from Rep. Elliott on Dateline New Haven:

The bill would be, um, exceptionally narrow in scope, it would be the most narrow in scope bill of this kind were we to pass it. It would be, uh, six months left to live, you have to get sign-offs from multiple doctors—two doctors and one mental health physician—uh, and then you need to go for frequent check ins—I think it's like once a month—and you have, there is a one year residency requirement, so there are so many ways we limit who could actually use this bill, to the point I believe if we were actually to implement the way that we are talking about it, almost nobody would use it. But the important thing for me is to get this bill on the books, and then see how it's working, and if it's not and people aren't using it, than make those corrections to actually allow people to use it. So that is what we've been discussing.9
Similarly, J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, was quoted on a similar bill in his state, saying “Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”10 And Compassion & Choices past president, Barbara Coombs Lee said almost ten years ago regarding assisted suicide for people with dementia unable to consent, ““It is an issue for another day but is no less compelling.”11

There is much here that I have not covered. To cite a couple of examples, there is an explicit requirement in HF 1930 Section 12 to falsify the death certificate as to the cause and manner of death, thereby covering up foul play. There is also widespread evidence, most recently from ACAMAID, that the laws in other states are not being followed, and with no consequences to the prescribing medical practitioners.12 You will hear plenty of testimony on other problems with this legislation, particularly from others in the disability rights community.

I conclude by emphasizing that HF 1930 is not merely a “slippery slope,” but a paved road north to Canada’s radical euthanasia regime where disabled people are routinely denied services needed to survive but offered “medical aid in dying” instead. Please do not put Minnesota—and the rest of the nation—on this path. 

Please reject HF 1930. Thank you.


1 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Written Testimony in Support of H.F. 1930 , Before the Minnesota House of Representatives Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy: https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/peqp-qSyH0aRdWY7Tn41Bw.pdf, pp. 95-98
2 United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al. https://endassistedsuicide.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Complaint_Accessible.pdf; for more detail, see https://endassistedsuicide.org
3 Senator Catherine Blakespear, Factsheet on SB 1196: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cd607dce-3325-492b-b030-b0a22331af65/downloads/SB%201196%20(Blakespear)%20Factsheet.pdf?ver=1709911469736
4 Thaddeus Mason Pope (2023) Top Ten New and Needed Expansions of U.S. Medical Aid in Dying Laws, The American Journal of Bioethics, 23:11, 89-91, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244
5 https://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2024/03/california-makes-big-move-on-medical.html
6 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Lisa Brodoff, JD, Medical Aid in Dying to Avoid Late-Stage Dementia, “ https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jgs.18785?domain=author&token=VA68TTBJN9VDRCRMRPIP
7 American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, Ethics Consultation Service, “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying, January 3, 2023: https://www.acamaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Voluntary-Stopping-Eating-and-Drinking-and-Medical-Aid-in-Dying.pdf Pope is part of ACAMAID’s Ethics Consultation Service’s team.
8 Paul Bass, Elliott Readies Next Legislative Steps Toward Freedom, New Haven Independent, January 4, 2004: https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/elliott_readies_next_legislative_steps_toward_freedom
9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0hWOjITspE at clip position 21:30

Sunday, March 10, 2024

Quebec euthanasia deaths increase in 2023 to the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

2023: Québec had a 17% increase in euthanasia deaths. 7.3% of all deaths were euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

CBC Radio Canada published an article on March 9, 2024 stating that there was a 17% increase in Québec euthanasia deaths with 5,686 reported deaths representing 7.3% of all deaths, which is the highest rate in the world in 2023. The Radio Canada report is based on the Quebec euthanasia deaths between January 1 - December 31, 2023.

I recently wrote an article based on the analysis by Amy Hasbrouck, the leader of Toujour Vivant - Not Dead Yet concerning the inconsistent data published in the The Quebec Commission on End-of-Life Care Annual Reports.

The Quebec Commission on End-of-Life Care Eighth Annual Report indicated that there were 5211 reported euthanasia deaths (April 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023) which was up from 3663 in the previous year (April 1, 2021 - March 31, 2022).

Hasbrouck's analysis of the Eighth annual report found that there were:

  • 5,211 euthanasia reported by doctors in declaration forms (§ 3.2 p. 13)
  • 5,401 euthanasia reported by hospitals and institutions (table C6 p. 46) 
  • 5,208 euthanasia declaration forms received by the Commission (§ 2.1, p. 6)

This means that there was a discrepancy of 190 euthanasia deaths in the Eight Annual Report. Further to that, the Seventh Annual Report had a discrepancy of 289 euthanasia deaths.

In my article I asked the question: How many Quebec euthanasia deaths actually occur?

In early February I wrote an article stating that: There were approximately 16,000 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2023 and more than 60,000 since legalization I made my prediction based on the euthanasia data from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia.

Zoom Meeting (March 21): Euthanasia in Canada. What's Next?

Join the rescheduledZoom meeting on Thursday, March 21 at 2 pm (Eastern Time) (11 am Pacific Time) 

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Kathy Matusiak Costa, Director of Compassionate Community Care and Ottawa human rights lawyer, Lia Milousis will discuss - Euthanasia in Canada. What's Next?

Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link). 

Lia Milousis
Lia has become an expert on euthanasia based on her professional and personal experiences.

Kathy Matusiak Costa will discuss the direction of Compassionate Community Care and its programs that provide training and support for community groups and families.

Alex Schadenberg
Alex Schadenberg will speak about the direction of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Bill C-62, the bill to postpone the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 2027 has passed. We will talk about what is next.

We will discuss the problems and opportunities for Canadians to stop euthanasia.

Saturday, March 9, 2024

California Senator drops the mask, proposes the legalization of euthanasia.

Gordon Friesen
By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Critical statements have quickly appeared across the web, denouncing proposed "expansions" to California's assisted death system. However, with respect, I would suggest that this word is not nearly strong enough. For although it is still hard to say exactly what California is up to (considering that the full text of proposed Senate Bill 1196 is not yet available), a preliminary fact sheet clearly reveals that a new phase may be reached in that State's march towards a true, Canadian-style, poison death-medicine paradigm.

In another place (please see appendix i table) I have demonstrated that there are two main regimes of medically justified assisted death (not to be confused with true "right-to-die" countries like Germany and Switzerland). And that one of these (including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain) has a proportion of assisted deaths which is ten times greater that of its lessor competitor (commonly known as the "Oregon Model, and which includes all of the American States having legalized assisted death thus far).

What accounts for the lower numbers reported by American States lies in their common requirement of a "terminal condition" (usually understood to mean a six months prognosis) and self-ingestion (the exclusion of doctor-performed euthanasia). The basic idea being that someone who is already facing death might choose exactly how and when they would actually die. Hence the name of existing California Law: the "End of Life Options Act".

Crucially, there is no mention in this scheme of physical (or other) suffering, as we shall see: any legislation based on suffering is truly a "horse of a different color".

In Canada, by way of comparison, eligibility is all about suffering (for which euthanasia is explicitly defined as a medical treatment). And it is this fact which explains why all of the original Canadian "safeguards" have so rapidly fallen apart in that country (either through court challenge or new legislation). One after another --"major age", "capacity to consent", "death reasonably foreseeable"-- all have fallen by the way-side, because "suffering" knows no such boundaries.

Should SB 1196 pass (which, to be sure, it has every likelihood of doing) it is the Canadian model which California will effectively be adopting. The appropriate headline, therefore, should be: "California prepares to embrace Canadian-Style substitution of death for medical treatment".

Proposed changes in legal text

Getting down a little farther "into the weeds" (to satisfy the curiosity of those who have been following the nuance of legislative texts on this subject), the main change in SB 1196 is to be found in the replacement of "terminal disease" to "a grievous and irremediable medical condition", which term, as textually lifted from Canadian Law, is defined as "(a condition which) Causes the individual to endure physical or psychological suffering due to illness, disease, or state of decline that is intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable".

It will be most interesting to see whether or not California legislators will actually dare to take the final step of definitely defining "Medical Aid in Dying" like some other States have done, as "the medical practice of...". However, this is hardly even necessary, in light of the all-embracing "grievous condition" definition cited above, and of the fact that not only assisted-suicide, but euthanasia also (intravenous administration) will now be available in California. For how could euthanasia be considered in any other way than that of a true medical treatment, when it is defined as a procedure performed by a doctor in order to alleviate suffering?

In sum: we are rapidly approaching the end of any further obfuscation or deceit.

Practical effect of the medical definition

As seen in Canada, euthanasia (as a medical treatment for suffering) cannot be reserved for people at the end of life, or for those capable of consent, or for those of major age.

But there are also other factors which have, thus far, received little attention:

1) Euthanasia as a preventive measure, applied to perfectly stable patients, with the goal of avoiding not present, but potential future suffering (as presently practised in Canada, at the mere pronouncement of any serious diagnosis).

2) The systematic promotion and prescription of euthanasia (to all and sundry) by enthusiastic doctors who believe they are simply performing their most fundamental duty of proposing what they sincerely believe to be optimum medical treatment in specific circumstances.

3) (as also seen in Canada) The institutional normalization of euthanasia practice and promotion, which just happens to be in the budgetary interest of public health services such as the Veterans' Administration, Medicare and Medicaid.

4) Lessor development and availability of other treatments (for conditions such as cancer) which will inevitably be reduced in exact proportion to the adoption of euthanasia as a legitimate medical substitute.

In short:

California SB 1196 does not represent a mere expansion of eligibility requirements for a choice-based system of assisted death. It actually signals a full-blown tipping-point, where publicly funded medicine in that State will begin its transition to a euthanasia-based utilitarian paradigm of death-medicine --a routine substitution of death for care-- as already observed in Canada (from which place the relevant legal language has been textually copied).

One bright spot:

It will at least become more difficult for apologists of assisted death to keep a straight face --or even to make eye contact-- when using the word "safeguards" (or disparaging the "slippery slope").

Gordon Friesen, March 9, 2024

Friday, March 8, 2024

California Bill will expand law from assisted suicide to euthanasia and more.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

California Senator Catherine Blakespear (D) has sponsored the most extreme assisted suicide expansion bill in America by introducing Senate Bill 1196

SB 1196 will expand the California assisted suicide law by:

1. Changing the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” meaning No time limit.

2. Allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide/euthanasia; even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent. 

3. Allow euthanasia—by IV, as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses)

4. Remove the California residency requirement. This would allow California to join Oregon and Vermont, which dropped their residency requirements and now allow suicide tourism.

5. Remove the 48 hour waiting period between first and second request by the patient. Same day death. 

6. The California assisted suicide law is scheduled to sunset in 2031. This bill proposes to remove the sunset date.

Changing the California assisted suicide law to euthanasia, is not simply changing how the act is done it is legalizing a new act by amending California Homicide Laws. Assisted suicide requires medical practitioners to be directly involved in an act of killing someone. Euthanasia requires the medical practitioner to actively carry out the act. Canada legalized euthanasia by creating an exception to homicide, California will need to do the same.

Changing the criteria from a terminal illness (6 months prognosis) to having a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' will lead to people with disabilities "qualifying" for death by lethal poison for reasons of poverty, homelessness, an inability to obtain necessary services or difficulty with obtaining medical treatment as has happened in Canada. (Article Link).

Euthanasia is sold to the public as allowing competent adults who are capable of consenting to die by lethal poison. Allowing euthanasia for people with dementia permits medical practitioners to kill someone who is not competent and unable to consent.

Removing the 48-hour waiting period will enable a same day death by euthanasia.

Homicide tourism would be permitted if Bill SB 1196 is passed since the bill permits death by euthanasia/homicide and it removes the California residency requirement.

Thank you to Dr Mark Komrad for alerting me to the purpose of Bill SB 1196.

California needs to reject Bill SB 1196.

Don't follow Canada's lead.

Thursday, March 7, 2024

Slovenian government announces referendum on euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Picture from Slovenian interview
I recently travelled to Slovenia to talk about Canada's experience with euthanasia. As I reported in July 2023, Slovenia has been debating a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. When I closely examined the bill, it was clear that Slovenia was debating a Canadian style euthanasia bill.

In late January 2024, I had the opportunity to speak with Slovenian politicians, several media outlets, television news, interview shows and to a large audience in Ljubljana, Slovenia's capital, where I felt that my message had caused a stir.

Today I was informed by the leader of the groups that are opposing euthanasia, that the Slovenian government defeated the euthanasia bill. I also learned that the Slovenian government announced that intend to have a referendum on the "basic question" of euthanasia rather than the bill that they have been debating.

The groups who oppose euthanasia have not seen the language of the referendum but they are organizing to win.

Illinois Assisted Suicide Bill SB 3499 is a more permissive bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have recently written how most of the assisted suicide bills are "bait and switch" bills, meaning, they are intentionally written in a "tighter" manner with the intention of passing the bill and expanding it later.

Illinois Assisted Suicide Bill SB 3499 is not a "tightly" worded bill, but even the provisions in the bill, once legalized, will soon be pushed for further expansion.

Almost all assisted suicide bills have employed a 15-day waiting period. SB 3499 has a 5-day waiting period that can be waived if the assessor considers the person to be nearing death.

Almost all assisted suicide bills require that a person be a resident of the State. Bill SB 3499 also requires that a person be a resident of Illinois, but the bill then has 11 statutes explaining how a person can establish themselves as being an Illinois resident. It doesn't take very long to obtain an Illinois drivers license.

The typical concerns with assisted suicide bills remain part of Bill SB 3499. For instance, a person with questionable competency may be referred for a mental health capacity test, but the licensed mental health professional only needs to determine if the person is mentally capable. A person can be determined to be mentally capable and at the same time be depressed and feeling hopeless.

The assisted suicide lobby claims that no slippery slope exists, yet, in the past few years existing assisted suicide laws have been expanded by: reducing or eliminating waiting periods, allowing non-doctors to participate in assisted suicide, allowing assisted suicide approvals by tele-health, expanding the meaning of terminal illness and removing state residency requirements.

Assisted suicide law expansion bills have been passed in California (2021), Hawai'i (2023), Oregon (2019, 2023), Vermont (2022, 2023) and Washington State (2023).

Illinois needs to reject assisted suicide Bill SB 3499 and commit to a caring culture.

More resource articles on this topic:
  • The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize assisted suicide in your state (Link)
  • The Nationalization of assisted suicide in America (Link).
  • Minnesota assisted suicide bill is lethally deceptive (Link). 
  • EPC - USA statement to the New York legislature (Link).
  • The assisted suicide lobby pass restrictive bills and expand them later (Link).

West Virginia Resolution would add - Protection from Assisted Suicide in the Bill of Rights.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.


Roger Hanshaw who is the Speaker of the House in West Virginia has sponsored House Joint Resolution (HJR 28) to add protection from assisted suicide in the state Bill of Rights. HRJ 28 states the following:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of West Virginia amending Article III thereof by adding thereto a new section, designated section twenty-three, relating to the protection from medically-assisted suicide or euthanasia in West Virginia; numbering and designating such proposed amendment; and providing a summarized statement of the purpose of such proposed amendment.

Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia, two thirds of the members elected to each house agreeing thereto:

That the question of ratification or rejection of an amendment to the Constitution of the State of West Virginia be submitted to the voters of the state at the next general election to be held in the year 2024, which proposed amendment is that Article III thereof, be amended by adding thereto a new section, designated Section twenty three, to read as follows:

ARTICLE III. BILL OF RIGHTS.


§3-23. Protection from medically-assisted suicide.

No physician or health care provider in the State of West Virginia shall participate in the practice of medically-assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing. Nothing in this section prohibits the administration or prescription of medication for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort while the patient's condition follows its natural course; nor does anything in this section prohibit the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, as requested by the patient or the patient's decision-maker, in accordance with State law, so long as the intention is not to kill the patient.

Resolved further, That in accordance with the provisions of article eleven, chapter three of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, such amendment is hereby numbered "Amendment 1" and designated as the "Protection from medically-assisted suicide" and the purpose of the proposed amendment is summarized as follows: "The purpose of this amendment is to recognize that West Virginians shall not have medically-assisted suicide or euthanasia forced upon them by prohibiting such actions."
Currently HRJ 28 passed in the House by a vote of 88 to 9. It still needs to pass in the Senate.

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

A day for people grieving after a euthanasia death. Saturday May 25 in Toronto.

Are you grieving the loss of a loved one through Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia)?

Compassionate Community Care and St John The Compassionate Mission are hosting a retreat day for hospitality, support, reflection and sharing for those who are hurting from losing a loved one (friend or family) through (MAiD) euthanasia.

Anyone who is grieving is welcome.

Link to the event poster (Link).

The event is: Saturday May 25, 2024 from (noon) 12 pm to 8 pm.

The location: 155 Broadview Ave., Toronto ON M4M 2E9

There is a suggested donation of $100. Meals are provided.

For more information and to register email: outreach@stmarysrefuge.org

Project Anna and Simeon

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

How many Quebec euthanasia deaths actually occur?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg
In early February I wrote an article stating that: There were approximately 16,000 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2023 and more than 60,000 since legalization I made my prediction based on the euthanasia data from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia. I wrote in my February article:

The Quebec Commission on End-of-Life Care released it's Eighth Annual Report which indicated that there were 5211 reported euthanasia deaths (April 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023) which was up from 3663 in the previous year (April 1, 2021 - March 31, 2022). According to the data there have been 15,997 reported euthanasia deaths from legalization until March 31, 2023 in Quebec.

This represents more than a 42% increase in Québec euthanasia deaths in 2023 representing 6.8% of all Québec deaths, which is the highest in the world.

The report also indicates that from April 1 - June 30, 2023 the number of reported Québec euthanasia deaths increased by another 24%, a slower pace of growth, but substantial considering the massive number of euthanasia deaths.

Amy Hasbrouck

When analyzing the Québec data I noticed some significant concerns. Were there 5211 Quebec euthanasia deaths or were there 5401?

Amy Hasbrouck from Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet, provided further analysis of the data found in the Eight Annual Report of the Québec Commission on End-of-Life care. Hasbrouck's indicates the following: 

How many Euthanasia deaths? 

  • 5,211 MAiD reported by doctors in declaration forms (§ 3.2 p. 13)
  • 5,401 euthanasia reported by hospitals and institutions (table C6 p. 46) 
  • 5,208 MAiD declaration forms received by the Commission (§ 2.1, p. 6)

Total euthanasia deaths since legalization?

  • 15,997 Adjusted MAiD from declaration forms (figure 3.2 p. 13, Row 3) or
  • 16,044 (p. 28, “Observations”) 
  • 18,532 Total declared by hospitals and institutions. (AR Table C6, QAR stats Row 7) 

Non-compliance with the law:

  • The Commission concluded that 16 people did not have a serious and incurable illness
    • Some people had loss of independence due to aging,
    • Others had serious symptoms, but not clear diagnosis,
    • Three people had disabilities, but no serious illness, which is a requirement for Québec’s statute 
    • One non-compliant because doctor did not get confirmation from a second physician,
    • One form was not signed by a health or social service professional,
    • Two did not have valid QC health insurance. Since May 2022, the Commission no longer declares as “non-compliant” cases where the health insurance card has expired. This applied to 11 additional cases documented in the 8th annual report.

It must be noted that every year the Québec report admits to cases of non-compliance with the law. None of these cases have resulted in legal or professional actions. In August 2023, Dr. Michel Bureau, the President of the Québec Commission on End-of-Life Care sent a letter to euthanasia doctors urging them to stop abusing the law. In that letter Bureau claimed that there were two to three euthanasia deaths each month that did not fit the criteria of the law.

The 2022 - 2023 report was not the first year with concerns. In fact, all of the reports of the Québec Commission on End-of-Life Care have contained issues.

Hasbrouck reported in her article on the 7th Annual report that:

The seventh annual report from Québec’s Commission on end of life care was filed in Québec’s National Assembly on December 9, 2022. The report covers the 2021-2022 period (April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022).

The Commission reported 3,663 euthanasia deaths declared by doctors during the fiscal year (p. 13), while the number of euthanasia deaths reported by facilities (3,629) and the Collège des Médecins du Québec (323) totalled 3,952 (p. 25 at note 25); a discrepancy of 289 deaths.
Hasbrouck stated in that article:
In light of the discrepancy (289 deaths) between the number of euthanasia reported in doctors’ declaration forms (3,663) and the facilities’/CMQ reports (3,952), and the unaccounted MAiD requests that didn’t end in euthanasia, (78 people) it’s hard to take seriously the Commission’s claim that 99.6% of euthanasia complied with the requirement of the MAiD law.

Québec is the only Canadian province that has two streams for euthanasia reporting, enabling the uncovering of under-reported euthanasia deaths. Quebec is also the only province that provides information indicating that some of the euthanasia deaths were outside of the law.

It is likely that under-reporting and non-compliance with the law exists in other provinces except that the other provinces don't have a dual reporting system and they are not analyzing the reports to determine if all of the deaths fit the criteria of the law. 

For the sake of brevity, I will provide links to previous articles concerning anomalies from the Québec reports on End-of-Life Care. 

Previous Quebec reports on End-of-Life Care:

  • Quebec euthanasia deaths increase by 51% in 2021 - 22 annual report. A discrepancy of 289 deaths (Link).
  • Quebec 2020 - 2021 annual euthanasia report. Euthanasia deaths increase by 37% unreported deaths continue (Link).