Ontario MAiD Death Review stories. Do you have a (MAiD) death story?

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death?

Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario?
Why has there been no medical license suspensions? 

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The recent Ontario MAiD Death Review that released by the Chief Coroner of Ontario in conjunction with the Review Committee outlines several Ontario euthanasia stories.

According to the Review Committee, these euthanasia stories were not the only stories but they were representative of concerns with the euthanasia deaths in Ontario.

The purpose of this article is to outline the stories in the Ontario MAiD Death Review report and help other people with their concerning euthanasia cases.

Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee report.

Case 1: Complex Medical Condition

Mr. A was a male in his late 40s who experienced suffering and functional decline following three vaccinations for SARS-Cov-2. He received multiple expert consultations, with extensive clinical testing completed without determinate diagnostic results. Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed. He had a significant mental health history, including depression and trauma experiences. While navigating his physical symptoms, Mr. A was admitted to hospital with intrusive thoughts of dying. Psychiatrists presented concerns of an adjustment disorder, depression with possible psychotic symptoms, and illness anxiety/somatic symptom disorder. During a second occurrence of suicidal ideation, Mr. A was involuntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, post-traumatic stress disorder was thought to be significantly contributing to his symptoms. He received inpatient psychiatric treatment and care through a specialist team. He was also diagnosed with cluster B and C personality traits.

The MAiD assessors opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

No pathological findings were found at the time of post-mortem examination. The cause of death following post-mortem examination was provided as post COVID-19 vaccination somatic symptom disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder.

In this case the person who died by euthanasia had no pathological findings that were found at the time of post-mortem examination. In other words he was otherwise healthy. Whether his health issues were related to psychological issues or some other health concern, Mr. A was killed without having 

Case 2: Concurrent Mental Illnesses

Mr. B was a male in his late 40s. He was diagnosed with longstanding severe gastric and duodenal ulcers with unknown etiology. Mr. B concurrently presented with multiple mental illnesses, namely depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type 2. He had chronic suicidal ideations.

A year prior to the provision of MAiD, Mr. B attempted suicide with a descent from a height. He experienced polytrauma and required extensive medical and surgical management and rehabilitation. Psychiatry was involved in the MAiD assessment process. Mr. B was deemed by psychiatry to be capable of participating in the MAiD process, and the suicide attempt was determined to be a reflection of profound existential suffering. A psychiatrist determined that neither psychiatric illness nor suicidal ideations were facilitating the request for MAiD.

Mr. B may be experiencing suicidal ideation and yet psychiatry found him capable of participating in MAiD and determined that his previous suicide attempt and existential suffering were not leading him to ask for death by MAiD. Since a person with psychiatric concerns can die by euthanasia, in Canada, if they have another health condition, this case shows how it is impossible to determine whether the psychiatric condition is driving the request to die, or not.

Case 3: Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder

Mr. C was an older male in his 80s, who experienced chronic back pain (15 years) due to spinal stenosis and post-surgical adhesive arachnoiditis. He was followed by a specialist pain clinic. Mr. C was also diagnosed by a psychiatrist with an adjustment disorder leading up to his request for MAiD. He declined further pharmacological interventions for same. The psychiatrist determined that this approach was in-keeping with an informed decision. Mr. C’s adjustment disorder was mainly influenced by irremediable chronic pain, and less likely to be responsive to pharmacologic intervention.

Mr. C needed support related to his adjustment disorder and he required relief from chronic pain. Some members of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee suggested that a 90-day waiting period was insufficient in this case because Mr. C needed a time to adjust to his condition. Mr. C did not need to be killed.

Case 4: Social Vulnerability

Mr. A was a male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. He received extensive treatment for this illness. It was reported that partly due to the course of his illness, Mr. A did not have an active social network: he could not maintain employment, he found personal relationships difficult to sustain, and he was dependent on family for housing and financial support. As a result, Mr. A lived with reduced social supports. He had declined multiple social support programs and psychosocial services.

Mr. A had a history of mental illness, previous episodes of suicidality, and on-going alcohol and opioid misuse. He lost his driver’s license secondary to his addictions. During a psychiatry assessment, the psychiatrist asked him if he was aware of MAiD and presented information on the option. While Mr. A was believed to have maintained decisional capability, his substance use was not explored in the MAiD assessments, and he was not offered addiction treatments.

During the MAiD process, there was no documented input from Mr. A’s family, nor a statement about why there was no engagement with family. The MAiD provider documented that the family had concerns about his request for MAiD.

The MAiD provider personally transported Mr. A in their vehicle to an external location for the provision of MAiD.

The MAiD Death Review Committee expressed concerns related to Mr. A and his lack of social connections, his family not supporting the death decision and his addiction and mental health problems.

Mr. A was killed without being offered an alternative to live. Even the fact that the MAiD provider gave Mr. A a ride to his death opens the question as to whether Mr. A was killed due to his request or based on the MAiD providers convictions.

Case 5: Housing Vulnerability

Ms. B was a female in her 50s with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS). She had a history of psychiatric hospital care for depression, anxiety, suicidality, and post-traumatic stress disorder, related to childhood trauma.

Ms. B had difficulty securing housing that met her medical needs. After years of attempts to secure appropriate housing, the Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling to allocate funds to renovate her apartment. These renovations did not satisfactorily address her MCSS symptoms. A remaining option presented was to live in a small hypoallergenic space (i.e., a bubble). As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCSS, Ms. B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD.

It is safe to conclude that Ms. B is dead because she was not provided suitable housing. Housing is a serious problem in Ontario but in this case the lack of affordable suitable housing resulted in the death of Ms. B.

Case 6: Disability

Mr. C was a male in his 40s living with quadriplegia following a motor vehicle collision. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to vulnerability in his medical journey (e.g., social isolation). Mr. C received rehabilitation without physical or functional gains. Due to his complex medical conditions, returning home with supports was not feasible.

The MAiD assessors considered his death non-reasonably foreseeable, thereby proceeding with Track 2 safeguards. However, one of the MAiD assessors considered the 90-day assessment period to be a “waiting period” and documented the possibility of “reducing the timeline should his natural death become reasonably foreseeable” (e.g., untreated septicemia).

Mr. C was separated from his family while receiving on-going complex continuing care. He was distressed about perceived limits of maintaining an ongoing relationship with his young children. Mr. C was a member of a racialized and religious community, with associated challenges with acceptance of MAiD.

Mr. C is the prime example on how one's disability can lead to their death by euthanasia. Mr. C needed an adjustment period to come to accept his new life with a disability. It is normal for an able-bodied person to grieve and feel that their life lacks meaning and hope after a serious accident that led to a serious disability.

Further to that Mr. C was living with social isolation since he was now separated from his family. If care-givers provided him the opportunity to re-intergrate into his family/home and/or provided a positive peer support to encourage him to adjust to his disability, then he would likely be alive today.

Mr. C. didn't need death, he needed an opportunity to live.

It is important to restate that the six cases that were outlined in the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee Report were representative of cases, not the only cases. 

These cases were based on six areas of concern: Complex Medical Condition, Concurrent Mental Illnesses, Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder, Social Vulnerability, Housing Vulnerability, Disability.

Some of these themes were present within more than one of the cases, especially concerns around disability, mental health (psychiatric conditions) and social vulnerability.

The greatest question related to these cases is: Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario and/or why has there been no medical license suspensions?

These cases have been discussed after the person died. Clearly there is a problem with the death approval system. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because these acts result in the killing of a person. The current approval system enables two doctors or nurse practitioners to approve a death and carry out the killing. There is no committee or “third-party” to ensure that there is effective oversight before a person is killed. You can’t bring any of the 6 people featured in these case back from the dead.

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death? Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1). 

Canadian government will discuss euthanasia by advanced request.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian government will launch a consultation on expanding Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law to permit euthanasia by advanced request. 

David Baxter reported for the Associated Press on October 28 that Canada's Health Minister, Mark Holland, made the announcement on October 28.

Baxter explained that the Québec government announced that, starting on October 30, they will permit advanced requests for euthanasia to enable people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease to request euthanasia while the person is still competent. Euthanasia by advanced request is not permitted in Canada's euthanasia law.

Health Minister Mark Holland

Baxter reported Holland as stating:

“What we’re saying very clearly is that this is an incredibly difficult issue, that we need to take the time to have a national conversation that includes our provincial and territorial colleagues, that where these lines are drawn and whether or not the system is ready is a very important step,” Holland said at a press conference on Parliament Hill on Monday.

“This continues to be illegal in this country, that if you act on an advance request, the Criminal Code is very clear that that is not legal.”

The Quebéc government announced on September 7 that they had asked the provincial Crown prosecutor’s office to not pursue charges against doctors as long as they comply with the provincial law. Euthanasia by advanced request changes the requirement of consent.

Canada's euthanasia law requires that a person be capable of consenting to euthanasia when the doctors or nurse practitioners approve the death. The Québec government will enable someone to state, in advance, their wish to die and then it would be legally carried out at a later date, even if the person has become incompetent.

Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia.

"A lack of proper care and inadequate safeguards are driving some Canadians with disabilities to choose assisted death."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho was published by the Globe and Mail on October 28.

Coelho is a family physician whose practice serves marginalized persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. Coelho is also a member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review committee that recently released it's report outlining the experience in Ontario with legalized euthanasia.

Coelho states in her article in the Globe and Mail:

A lack of proper care and inadequate safeguards are driving some Canadians with disabilities to choose assisted death. This is just one of the disturbing findings revealed by a report released earlier this month by the MAID Death Review Committee, which was launched in January by the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

As a member of the committee, I am dismayed to confirm the validity of repeated warnings from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) that some Canadians with disabilities are opting for medical assistance in dying because they lack access to essential supports and health services.

The MDRC report also underscores a troubling trend: some MAID providers may end the lives of Canadians with disabilities without fully exploring other care options, considering the effects of non-medical factors influencing requests for death, or questioning whether MAID should even be an option. The law must change to prevent these needless deaths.

The federal government legalized MAID in 2016 as a last resort for suffering individuals facing a “reasonably foreseeable death,” now called “track one″ deaths. It expanded that in 2021 to include Canadians with disabilities who are not dying but are “suffering intolerably” and “in an advanced state of irreversible decline of capability,” or “track two″ deaths. Of the 4,644 MAID deaths recorded in 2023, 116 were track two.

We found that track-two patients tend to come from a younger cohort, with the majority falling between ages 18 and 59. Alarmingly, out of all 116 such deaths, 61 per cent were female. Research shows that twice as many women attempt suicide, but then benefit from suicide prevention and do not reattempt. Individuals who chose a track-two death were also more likely to reside in areas with higher levels of marginalization.

Worryingly, the report also suggests that MAID recipients lacked adequate mental health and disability supports before ending their lives. Only 8.6 per cent of Canadians who chose track-two deaths were first offered housing support, and 6 per cent were offered income support.

The case reviews are telling. In one situation, a man with inflammatory bowel disease was informed about MAID – an example of potential undue influence. Although the man also struggled with untreated addictions, social isolation, and mental health issues, those appear to have been largely overlooked, as were his family’s concerns. In another case, a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities opted for MAID due to suffering caused by isolation and her housing situation.

As a physician serving marginalized patients for 17 years, I have seen how a lack of care, discrimination and social isolation can deepen despair. In contrast, supportive care can ease wishes for death and lead to healing – even if it requires significant effort and time.

The vague language used in MAID legislation only exacerbates the situation. Terms like “reasonably foreseeable death,” “intolerable suffering,” and “irreversible decline” remain largely ambiguous, making their use as eligibility criteria worrisome. Patients are legally entitled to refuse treatment options (they can decline, or services might simply be inaccessible) before opting to end their lives, but clinicians only need to inform patients that treatments exist; they do not have to provide access to treatments and social support. These factors highlight the risk of abuse in the process.

Medicine has developed standards of care designed to protect patients, and these standards should apply equally to MAID. To suggest that eligibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as expansionists have repeatedly argued, is an irresponsible approach. In Canada, some doctors have deemed patients eligible for MAID due to suffering exacerbated by long wait times for care. Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers is offering clinicians guidance on how to convert track-two MAID requests into track-one cases, facilitating a quicker MAID death.

But since health conditions can improve and suffering can be alleviated through care and support, it is crucial to emphasize the need for better care and to address issues like housing, addictions, and palliative care for those in terminal situations.

By offering Canadians with disability easy access to MAID, physicians are reinforcing ableism – the belief that disabled lives are less valuable. Many in the disability community strongly opposed MAID’s legalization – including a coalition of disability groups that has launched a Charter challenge against track-two deaths, alleging that MAID for people with disabilities violates their equality and security rights – but Ottawa has largely dismissed their concerns.

Moving forward, we must actively listen to the disability community in these conversations. It’s a matter of life or death.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1). 

The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law, admits abuse of the law

"In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Cameron Henderson reported for The Telegraph on October 26 that the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) admits that Canada's euthanasia is being abused. It was the BCCLA that carried the Carter case that legalized euthanasia in Canada to the Supreme Court. According to Henderson:

Assisted dying is being abused in Canada with doctors coercing patients into ending their lives, members of the group who helped to legalise it have admitted.

Henderson reports that:

The Telegraph can now reveal that members of the British Columbia Civil liberties Association (BCCLA), the group that spearheaded efforts to legalise assisted dying, have privately raised fears the practice is being “abused”.

Staff members also fear disabled people in Canada are being coerced by doctors into choosing to end their lives.

Henderson's report is published one week after the Chief Coroner of Ontario pubished a review of Ontario's experience with euthanasia which indicated that:

those on lower incomes who were offered the scheme were more likely to opt for it.

Henderson uncovers the information from a leaked footage from a video call last year between BCCLA staff and a Canadian disabled patients’ group.

In the footage a BCCLA employee admits that:

“we are seeing MAiD being abused”.

Henderson further reports that:

In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss.

On the same call, it was claimed some medical colleges in Canada had been advising against referring to MAiD on patients’ long-form death certificates, in a move which could distort the true numbers of people using it.

Some BCCLA staff members feel very uncomfortable with Canada's euthanasia law. Henderson writes:

One staff member admitted feeling “very uncomfortable” about the group’s previous campaigning on assisted suicide.

Speaking on the call, one of the two current BCCLA employees said: “It is the social and material aspect of [patients] disability and how that isn’t supported and how that’s treated in the community that’s creating intolerable conditions.

“In my view, that’s not proper,” they said, adding that healthcare providers should not raise the subject of MAiD with patients as “it’s far too easy for that to become coercive”.

In a separate voicemail message shared with The Telegraph, another alleged employee voiced regret about the campaigning group’s past agenda and spoke of trying to formulate a new policy that “distances the BCCLA from its past work”.

Henderson reports that the Joseph Arvay, for the BCCLA, argued before the courts in the Carter case that:

the risk of people unnecessarily ending their lives through an assisted dying scheme was negligible.

The euthanasia review from the Chief Coroner of Ontario of the euthanasia law was published last week. Henderson reports:

Yet fast-forward eight years, and the first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, revealed last week by The Telegraph, found vulnerable people faced “potential coercion” and “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

According to the data, disproportionate numbers of people who ended their lives through assisted dying when they were not terminally ill – 29 per cent – came from Ontario’s poorest areas.

That compares with 20 per cent of the province’s general population living in the most deprived communities.

The Telegraph is reporting on Canada's experience with euthanasia as the UK parliament is scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize assisted suicide on November 29.

BC Judge grants a 30 day injunction preventing euthanasia death.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Similar to the WV / MV case in Calgary where a father was granted an injunction in the euthanasia approval of his 27-year-old autistic daughter because he claimed that his daughter didn't have an irremediable medical condition. In this case the woman's husband sought an injunction claiming that his wife does not have an irremediable medical condition.

More information will be provided as soon as it is available.

The Assisted Suicide Bait and Switch

This article was published by the National Review on October 27.

By Philip Reed

Advocates of so-called medical aid in dying promote a waiting-period safeguard, which they work to jettison once assisted suicide has been made legal.

One could be forgiven for not knowing that assisted-suicide legislation is progressing across the United States. Supporters of assisted suicide mask their effort with euphemism and obfuscation, most notably by denying that a doctor who prescribes life-ending drugs to help patients intentionally end their lives assists suicide. Suicide, it’s often said, is an impulsive act; “medical aid in dying,” on the other hand, is undertaken rationally and only after careful consideration.

Yet the recent trend of reducing or eliminating waiting periods for assisted suicide belies that claim and reveals it as a bait and switch.

In the popular imagination, suicide is an impulsive act: Desperate individuals who feel trapped by their circumstances unthinkingly take their own lives because they see it as the only way out of adverse circumstances. While it can sometimes include planning, many believe the person who commits suicide does so rashly while overwhelmed by stress or suffering acute mental or physical pain.

Assisted-suicide legislation originally insulated “aid in dying” against that kind of impulsivity by mandating waiting periods. Advocates believed they could persuade the public that the practice was different from suicide in part because the law required enough time to prevent careless and impulsive choices. Terminally ill individuals who wanted to end their lives had to make a request, wait at least 15 days, and then make a second request. Waiting periods were sold as a safeguard; individuals could not choose to bring about their deaths on a whim and without sufficient consideration of alternatives.

But now that “aid in dying” is up and running in ten U.S. states, waiting periods are being recklessly abandoned. Oregon, the first state to allow legal access to life-ending drugs, amended its legislation in 2020 to allow individuals to waive the waiting period if the doctor believed that the patient could not survive long enough to ingest the drugs. Other states have been more brazen, simply shortening their waiting periods to seven days (Colorado), five days (Hawaii), or as little as 48 hours (California).

Of the states that mandated at least a 15-day waiting period in their assisted-suicide legislation, that safeguard has either been reduced or limited or could be limited in pending legislation in every state except Maine.

Indeed, legislative efforts are souring on the idea of significant waiting periods altogether. When New Mexico passed its assisted-suicide legislation in 2022, it became the first state to abandon a meaningful waiting period from the start, opting for a trivial 48-hour waiting period that could be waived. Assisted-suicide legislation introduced in 2024 in Iowa and New Hampshire followed New Mexico’s lead. Similar legislation introduced in New York and Minnesota omitted waiting periods entirely. This free fall toward death on demand mirrors the situation in Canada, which in 2021 also abandoned its ten-day waiting period for terminally ill patients.

The trend to eliminate waiting periods is motivated by a push to expand access to assisted suicide. After California shortened its waiting period in 2021 from 15 days to 48 hours, it subsequently saw a 47 percent increase in lethal prescriptions. The waiting period, once seen as a safeguard that would protect patients from rash decision-making, is now seen as a barrier to so-called standard and essential medical care. Waiting periods were once a necessary way of making assisted suicide an option of last resort. Their swift erosion shows how death as a treatment option becomes a simple and immediate solution for terminal patients and their doctors.

The playbook was predictable from a mile away: Insist that patients ingesting fatal drugs isn’t suicide because impulsive decisions are prohibited by law; leave aside the inconvenient truth that suicides are not actually regularly impulsive; then, once “aid in dying” language takes hold in the public consciousness, the alleged difference from suicide can simply be discarded altogether as a matter of denying patients what they need and want.

What is not being asked, however, is how patients are protected by the abandonment of waiting periods for assisted suicide. Why do we need to extend dying patients the option of suicide if their deaths are imminent? And, more important, how can we be sure these decisions are being made with sufficient thoughtfulness, care, and consideration of all options?

Supporters will say that we need to abandon waiting periods at least in certain situations because patients are so sick that they can die before being able to take life-ending drugs. What they don’t explain is why death needs to come by the patient’s so-called choice and the doctor’s assistance. The idea that suicide is chosen to prevent unbearable physical suffering at the end of life is mostly contradicted by the data. Assisted-suicide proponents also neglect to mention that dying patients often experience moments of lucidity and energy, as well as positive deathbed visions, just before they die.

The original instinct for waiting periods was right. If we’re going to make death a treatment option, we’d better be sure that people are not choosing it out of desperation and rashness. If we’re going to introduce intentional killing into professional medicine, we need to give people time before making an irreversible and fatal decision.

The now almost universal abandonment of waiting periods suggests that these reasonable considerations were never part of the motivation to legalize assisted suicide in the first place. Instead, they were temporary measures to sell the public on a controversial and risky policy that could be discarded with less outcry once people become acclimated to it as a medical option.

The erosion of waiting periods is not the only safeguard being abandoned in the push to legalize assisted suicide but is particularly revealing about the progressing culture of death. Assisted suicide is not different and was never expected to be different from other cases of suicide. Advocates now argue, unsurprisingly, that we can’t make people wait for “aid in dying,” an often ill-considered act masquerading as legitimate medical care.

Irish columnist changes his mind and now opposes euthanasia.

“What’s happened under the MAID programme in Canada is everything the anti-euthanasia brigade used to warn me about in debates,”

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Ian O'Doherty

The Irish parliament (Dáil Éireann) recently voted 76 - 53 to accept a report of an Oireachtas Committee that recommended the legalization of assisted suicide in Ireland.

Ian O'Doherty, who is a columnist for Mediahuis Ireland covering the Irish Independent and Sunday Independent has went from strongly supporting euthanasia to completely opposing euthanasia.

James Wilson published an interview on newstalk with Ian O'Doherty from Lunchtime live on October 24 concerning the legalization of euthanasia. As stated earlier, O'Doherty has changed his position on the issue.

O'Doherty told Wilson that he supported euthanasia when Diane Pretty, who had Motor Neuron Disease, sued the British government to overturn the law preventing assisted suicide. But since he has changed his mind. 

O'Doherty tells Wilson:

“There was a case in Belgium involving twins - the Verbessem twins,” he said.

“They weren’t terminally ill but they were deaf and they were going blind - they were suffering from macular degeneration.

“They decided that they wanted to get euthanised together.”

Although the twins’ family were against it, the pair went ahead and died together.

“I just thought that was wrong,” 

“They weren’t dying.”

O'Doherty then speaks about Canada:

In 2016, Canada legalised euthanasia and five-years later it broadened the eligibility to include people with incurable conditions.

The Medical Assistance in Dying or ‘MAID’ programme is something that has given Mr O'Doherty pause for thought.

In particular, he heard of a man with a severe disability who requested euthanasia because he was about to become homeless.

“What’s happened under the MAID programme in Canada is everything the anti-euthanasia brigade used to warn me about in debates,” he said.

“I would dismiss their warnings as being ‘scaremongering’ when they talk about the slippery slope.”

O'Doherty has been reporting on the issue of euthanasia for a long time. We hope that his knowledge and experience will help others understand why euthanasia, if legalized, cannot be controlled.

It is impossible to predict if a person has 6 months to a year to live.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK will soon debate an a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Kim Leadbeater (MP) will soon introduce a bill to legalize assisted suicide. The language of the bill has not been released but it is anticipated that the bill will permit a doctor to prescribe lethal poison to a person with six months or a year to live.

An article by Janet Eastham that was published in the Telegraph interviews end-of-life care medical professionals. Eastham reports:

The Telegraph revealed that Ms Leadbeater’s legislation is expected to specify the timeframe within which someone is reasonably expected to die, with prognoses of between six and 12 months being considered.

Eastham then reports:

Prof Katherine Sleeman, Laing Galazka chairman at King’s College London, told The Telegraph: “It is not possible to accurately determine someone’s prognosis as a number of months, say six months or 12 months.

“As a doctor, patients do ask me, ‘How long have I got left?’ and I would never say, ‘Six months or fewer.’ I might say, ‘Your prognosis is probably measured in months, or “long months”.’ That’s as precise as I would be.

“When someone has only a few days, or certainly only a few hours left to live, it can be easier to understand with a higher degree of certainty that they’re likely to die within that time-frame. But when we’re getting into the territory of months, it is very, very difficult.”

Prof Sleeman noted the “arbitrary” nature of a six or 12-month prognosis, something illustrated by the DWP’s data, which “shows that people who were estimated to live for only 12 months ended up living for more than three years”.

Medical professionals told Eastham that a 6 month or 12 month terminal prognosis is arbitrary. Why not four months or eight months. 

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a cross-bench peer and former professor of palliative medicine tells Eastham:

“Predicting life expectancy is impossible… I have known people who live well and actively for years after they were thought to have no more than a few weeks to live.”

Eastham interviews Prof Chris Parker, a senior oncologist, who said he had seen one such patient “only this morning” and said:

“Ten years ago, he was told that he had terminal cancer, and he’s now alive and well,”

Parker offered Eastham a warning:

“I have little doubt that some patients would choose assisted suicide if it was legal, because they were told they had less than six months to live, but in truth, if they had not had assisted suicide, would have lived for years and enjoyed a good quality of life, because I’ve seen patients like that.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that a six or twelve month prognosis is included in assisted suicide bills to suggest that the law will be limited to people who are actually terminally ill but it is impossible to accurately predict a six month terminal prognosis.

Further to that, once legalized the six or twelve month terminal prognosis becomes discriminatory to people who are not dying but have a chronic condition. 

What begins as a "safeguard" is soon eliminated because it denies unequal access to a legal procedure.

Euthanasia for post Covid-19 vaccination syndrome

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1)

I have already published several articles concerning the stories that are outlined in the recent euthanasia review that was published by the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

• Ontario Coroner report: Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link). 
• Ontario Coroner's euthanasia review: Poor at risk of coercion (Link)

Sharon Kirkey focuses on the case of the man who was living with post Covid-19 vaccination syndrome who died by euthanasia in her article that was published by the National Post on October 24, 2024. Kirkey writes:

An Ontario man in his late 40s with a history of mental illness died by euthanasia after his assisted death assessors decided that the most reasonable explanation for his physical decline was a post COVID-19 “vaccination syndrome.”

The term is controversial — Canada’s current vaccine reporting system for adverse events doesn’t include “post-vaccine syndrome” — and multiple specialists consulted before his death couldn’t agree on a diagnosis, raising questions as to whether the man’s condition met the criteria for an “irremediable,” meaning a hopeless, incurable condition.

The death of the man with Covid-19 vaccination syndrome was one of 6 concerning deaths outlined in the Ontario Coroner's review. Kirkey continues:

Identified as “Mr. A,” the man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2. He also suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders, and, “while navigating his physical symptoms,” was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, with thoughts of suicide.

“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” according to the report. However, his MAID assessors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

There were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, though people’s experiences can’t be discounted just because medicine can’t find what’s wrong with them.

So let's be clear. The man had no identified cause of his condition and after his death the post-mortem identified no physiological diagnosis, and yet he was killed by euthanasia (lethal poison). Kirkey continues:

Some members of the MAID death review panel also questioned whether a condition “previously unrecognized in medicine” — namely, a possible “post-vaccine somatic (meaning affecting the body) syndrome” — could be considered incurable.

The case highlights the challenges and uncertainties of granting euthanasia for people who aren’t terminally ill and whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable — so-called “Track 2” cases.

Kirkey then examines other cases that were published in the Chief Coroner of Ontario's euthanasia review:

Another case involved a different man in his late 40s with severe ulcers and multiple mental illnesses, including depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, bipolar disorder and chronic thoughts of suicide.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content

A year before he died by an assisted death, he attempted suicide by jumping from a height.

Another case involved an unemployed male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease who was living with few social supports, was dependent on family for housing and financial support, and who struggled with alcohol and opioid addictions. He wasn’t offered treatment for his addictions, and his family had concerns about his request for MAID.

During a psychiatric assessment, the man was asked if he was aware of MAID, and given information on the option.

His MAID provider later personally drove the man to the location where he was euthanized, which multiple members of the death review committee considered a transgression of professional boundaries that could be seen as “hastening a person towards death.”

All of these deaths show how Canada's euthanasia law has gone out-of-control.

What is more concerning is that there are people who have been killed and yet there have been no attempted prosecutions of doctors and no medical licenses have even been attempted to be removed even though the review outlines 6 cases that were representative of other euthanasia deaths that fell outside of the law.

Nations/Jurisdictions should never legalize euthanasia. 

The reality is that once killing is legalized it nearly becomes impossible to regulate.

Canada's euthanasia horrors are accelerating.

This article was published by the National Review online on October 24, 2024.

Wesley and Alex last year.

By Wesley J Smith

The horrors unleashed by Canada’s legalizing euthanasia are growing increasingly clear. Case after case of vulnerable people being killed instead of cared for have now been reported. More than 15,000 Canadians are euthanized annually. Some are even asking to die because they can’t access proper care in Canada’s socialized system, or out of loneliness as much as illness. One Canadian death doctor admitted to killing more than 400 people.

A medical association has even urged doctors to suggest euthanasia to their qualified patients! Indeed, the push for euthanasia can apparently become quite aggressive at times, including just before cancer surgeries. From the National Post story:

The Nova Scotia woman was steeling herself for major surgery, a mastectomy for breast cancer, when an unfamiliar doctor ran through a series of pre-operative questions: What was her medical history? What medications does she regularly take? Any allergies? Was she aware of medical assistance in dying?

Fifteen months later, before a second mastectomy, “it happened again,” the woman said. Different doctor, same inquiry. “In the list of questions about your life and your past and how are you treating these things was, ‘Hey, (MAID) is a thing that exists,’” she said.

“It was upsetting. Not because I thought they were trying to kill me. I was shocked that it happens. I was like, ‘Again? This happened again ?’”

The woman, 51, requested anonymity because she lives in a small area with a limited number of doctors. She believes euthanasia was raised as “I was literally on my way into surgery” not because of breast cancer but because of her long history with autoimmune and other disorders that, theoretically, would make her eligible for MAID.

And yet, the beat goes on.

It isn’t as if the truth isn’t coming out. A recent official report by the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario contains many disturbing conclusions that should — but won’t — derail the euthanasia train. For example, a mentally disturbed, suicidal man was euthanized because doctors decided he had a bad reaction to Covid vaccines. From the Vancouver Sun story (my emphasis):

Identified as “Mr. A,” the man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2. He also suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders, and, “while navigating his physical symptoms,” was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, with thoughts of suicide.

“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” according to the report. However, his MAID assessors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

There were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, though people’s experiences can’t be discounted just because medicine can’t find what’s wrong with them.

In other words, there is a good chance that the poor man was mentally ill and not physically sick.

The report also highlights that some poor people were euthanized because of social isolation or for fear of becoming homeless. From the AP report:

AP’s investigation found doctors and nurses privately struggling with euthanasia requests from vulnerable people whose suffering might be addressed by money, social connections or adequate housing. Providers expressed deep discomfort with ending the lives of vulnerable people whose deaths were avoidable, even if they met the criteria in Canada’s euthanasia system, known nationally as MAiD, for medical assistance in dying.

Here is one of the examples:

Another case detailed Ms. B, a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, with a history of mental illness including suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was socially isolated and asked to die largely because she could not get proper housing, according to the report.

Committee members couldn’t agree whether her death was justified; some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia. Others argued that “social needs may be considered irremediable” if other options have been explored.

At this point, it is worth recalling that euthanasia legalization changes the general morality of society and its respect for life in very disturbing ways. For example, a poll taken last year in Canada found that 27 percent of Canadians strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness. Good grief!

But good on the mainstream media for finally covering these abuses. Perhaps that is why the Welsh parliament just rejected the legalization of assisted suicide and Delaware’s Democratic governor recently vetoed a legalization bill.

Americans may shrug and note that our assisted-suicide states have not gone that far, to which I would add the word “yet.” Several states have already liberalized their suicide-facilitation criteria. And, I would argue, the pace of the expansion has been slower here only because Americans have not fully swallowed the hemlock.

If we ever get to the point that the masses support turning homicide into a medical “treatment,” as have our northern neighbors, we will go down the same dark death road. After all, Canadians are our closest cultural cousins.

Ten myths about assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, who is an emeritas professor of American studies at the University of Sunderland and published a book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation outlines ten myths about assisted suicide that was published by Spiked on October 16, 2024. 

I will simply republish the 10 myths.

1) The British people overwhelmingly support ASE

The support rate for ASE, we have been told over the years, is ‘more than 90 per cent’. The assisted-dying movement leans heavily on a supposedly supportive public to justify itself.

However, support has cooled as of late. More in-depth polling shows that British people are actually deeply ambivalent about legalising ASE. A poll commissioned earlier this year by the group Living and Dying Well found that legalisation came 22nd out of 23 issues in terms of importance to voters, only beating ‘regional devolution’. It also showed that, out of 54 per cent of those who gave an opinion on ASE (nearly a fifth of respondents put ‘don’t know’), most respondents favoured it in principle but didn’t think it was safe or practical.

An even more recent poll this month found that, while 63 per cent of British people favour legalising assisted dying, less than half (45 per cent) want their MP to vote for the law. A majority also say they don’t know enough about how it would work in practice to support a change in the law. Even a poll commissioned by pro-ASE campaign group Dignity in Dying this year found that fewer than half of all Britons wanted their MP to vote for ASE.

2) Assisted dying is not suicide

‘Assisted dying’ sounds much more pleasant than ‘assisted suicide’. But if a doctor hands you a gun and you shoot yourself, we all know that you would be committing suicide. If she hands you a rope and you hang yourself, that’s suicide. Yet if you have six months left to live and she hands you deadly poison and you ingest it knowingly, we are meant to believe that this is not suicide but ‘assisted dying’? ASE campaigners are desperate to hide the reality of what they want to legalise. 

3) Safeguards can ensure that ASE is safe and limited

Leadbeater said earlier this month that, ‘wherever [an assisted-dying] law has been introduced… and it’s got strict, limited criteria with proper safeguards and protections, it hasn’t been widened’. She claimed there is no danger of a ‘slippery slope’. The trouble is, proponents of ASE tend to spin the globe, cherry-picking their examples of supposedly ‘safe’ assisted-dying laws.

They invariably ignore the Netherlands, where at least 39 people with learning disabilities or autism have been euthanised. They also turn a blind eye to Belgium, which has changed the law to include children. Most egregiously, the assisted-dying camp ignores Canada, pointing instead to Oregon, where ASE has been legal since 1997. ‘See?’, they say, ‘the safeguards work’. Except when they don’t.

4) Eligibility criteria do not expand.

There is no jurisdiction where ASE has been legalised where the eligibility criteria have not been relaxed. In Oregon, the definition of what constitutes a ‘terminal’ illness has been massively expanded – so much so that it can include mental illnesses like anorexia. Similarly, the ‘cooling off’ period for patients to change their minds has been cut from 14 days to less than 48 hours. Non-residents are now also allowed to apply for assisted suicides.

In Canada, the slide down the slippery slope has been even more dramatic. The Canadian government introduced its medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme in 2016 for those who were close to death and suffering unbearably. Just a few years later, in 2020, the eligibility criteria were expanded to those whose death was not ‘reasonably foreseeable’. A further vote to extend euthanasia to all those suffering from mental illness will take place in 2027.

This all follows a grim but undeniable logic. If death is redefined as medical treatment, how can it be denied to anyone who is ‘unbearably suffering’?

5) This is not a threat to the vulnerable

Assisted-suicide advocates insist there is no truth behind the claim that those at the margins of society will be placed most at risk from legalisation. It tends to be the educated and wealthy who opt for an assisted suicide, they say. Apparently, this proves that ASE is a freely made ‘choice’.

However, there are now numerous reports from Canada about people who asked for MAID because they were poor, homeless or could not afford medical treatment. Recent research found that at one hospital in Ontario, 58 per cent of requests for MAID were from people belonging to a lower socio-economic status (SES), despite the fact that only 39 per cent of the hospital’s catchment were ‘low SES’.

The story is similar in Oregon, where the number of yearly assisted deaths increased from 16 in 1998 to 278 in 2022. Over this time, patients’ health-funding status changed from predominantly private (65 per cent) to predominantly government-supported (80 per cent). This implies that, when ASE is first legalised, it is indeed taken up mostly by the comfortably off seeking a bespoke death. But it doesn’t take long before those who have little money or prospects start to view ASE not as a choice, but as their only option.

Not unlike eugenics at the turn of the last century, ASE is cleansing society of those who are shamefully seen as a drag on the economy.

6) This is about freedom

‘Each one of us should be free to make our own decisions about how we live – and die – as long as we don’t harm others’, says Professor Alice Roberts, vice-president of Humanists UK. This simple-minded argument is a recipe for approving – and presumably assisting in – any attempt to commit suicide, for whatever reason.

Surely the same logic could also apply to any kind of ‘consensual’ lethal violence. Should we not be able to engage in duelling, which kills only those who have consented to it? What about consensual cannibalism? Such arguments stretch the ‘harm principle’ beyond all recognition. Death, quite literally, destroys one’s freedom. 

7) If you had experienced a bad death of a loved one, you would support ASE

This is a grotesque and insulting claim. Many of us have experienced bad deaths of loved ones and we still think legalising ASE is a horrible idea. This oft-repeated argument reveals that ASE advocacy is an emotional response to an awful situation, not a considered and thoughtful reflection about what should happen in law.

8) Britain’s suicide laws are unfit for purpose

According to Dignity in Dying and its supporters, the Suicide Act 1961 is ‘dangerous and cruel’, a ‘blanket ban’ on compassionate responses to the dying and a ‘broken law’. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee once dramatically called the Suicide Act an ‘instrument of state torture’.

This is far from the truth. The Suicide Act decriminalised suicide, meaning that those who attempt it would no longer be prosecuted. It does, however, make it illegal to aid someone else’s suicide. This strikes a good balance. It signals not only that suicide is wrong and we ought to discourage it – but also that those who attempt suicide deserve our sympathy, not criminalisation. In other words, we do not want to punish those who feel they want to end their lives, but nor do we want to push the proverbial man teetering on the bridge.

How many people are even prosecuted under this supposedly cruel act of state torture? According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2024, 187 assisted-suicide cases were referred to the police. Of these 187 cases, 127 were not proceeded with by the CPS and 36 cases were withdrawn by the police. Six cases are ongoing, four were successfully prosecuted. Eight were instead prosecuted as homicide and one case was acquitted. Even under our current laws, no one is now in prison for participating in a genuine mercy killing.

9) Britons suffer terrible deaths because ASE is not legal

Dignity in Dying’s own figures suggest that your chances of dying a terrible death are pretty small. ASE advocates make much of the fact that 17 people a day ‘suffer’ as they die – but that’s just one per cent of all daily deaths. In one report, Dignity in Dying follows this stat up with a dramatic flourish, saying that some ‘will retch at the stench of their own body rotting. Some will vomit their own faeces. Some will suffocate, slowly, inexorably, over several days.’ Dignity in Dying was forced to withdraw the video version of this report after Hospice UK said the film was ‘sensationalist and inaccurate’.

In any case, legalising ASE does not guarantee a ‘good’ death. A 2022 BMJ article found that, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for more than 20 years, many dying patients still suffer pain and / or restlessness in their final moments. 

10) There is no slippery slope

When I wrote the first iteration of this list for spiked 20 years ago, we lacked any real data on ASE. Now, we have extensive evidence from Oregon, Washington, Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere. As a result, it is very difficult to maintain the idea that, once legalised, ASE will not expand, both in terms of numbers and ever-widening criteria.

In Canada, within less than a decade, euthanasia went from being a rare exception to something that ended the lives of an average of 36 people every day. More than four times as many people end their lives through ASE than through regular suicide.

The numbers dying have continually increased in every jurisdiction where ASE has been legalised. California has recently experienced a jump in cases. Belgium has gone from 235 deaths in 2003 to 3,423 in 2023. In the Netherlands, euthanasia increased from four per cent of all deaths in 2022 to five per cent in 2023.

Yes, the slippery slope is very real, although this isn’t even the most apt metaphor. We should think of legalising ASE as opening the floodgates to something deeply sinister.

Previous article by Kevin Yuill: 

• No safe way to legalise (Link). 
• Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women (Link). 
• UK Labour party leader is dead wrong about assisted suicide (Link).
  

Great news: Welsh parliament rejects assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Great news. The Wales parliament rejected assisted suicide by a vote of 26 to 19 in a motion on October 23. 

The Kim Leadbeater private members bill that will be debated in the UK is proposed to encompass England and Wales. The Welch parliament rejecting assisted suicide may cause the UK parliament to limit the assisted suicide bill to England.

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Care Not Killing (UK) reported in their October 23 media release that Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO for Care Not Killing stated that:

“This is an encouraging result and proves that the more people, including parliamentarians, hear about implications of legalising state assisted killing the more they reject changing the law, because they see how it would put pressure on the elderly, terminally ill and disabled people to end their lives prematurely. This is exactly what we have seen in the handful of places who have legalised state assisted killing.

Macdonald continued his comments by focusing on abuses of the laws permitting euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in the US State of Oregon, in Belgium and in Canada. He then states:

“At a time when we have seen how broken our health care system is, how one in four Brits who would benefit from palliative care, I would suggest this should be the focus of attention, rather than the constant debate about this dangerous and ideological policy.” 

David Deans and Gareth Lewis reported BBC news that:

Senedd members, including First Minister Eluned Morgan and Health Secretary Jeremy Miles, have voted against a motion calling for a new law to allow assisted dying in Wales and England.

Miles had earlier warned of "huge ramifications" for Wales if the law changed.

More articles on this topic:

• UK's Labour MP's are divided on assisted suicide (Link).
• The UK will soon debate assisted suicide. Canada's euthanasia regime should cause caution (Link).

West Virginia votes on Amendment 1 to prevent assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Pat McGeehan on the right.

I had the opportunity to speak in West Virginia on October 22, 2024in support of Amendment 1, which seeks to add protection from assisted suicide and euthanasia to the West Virginia State Constition. The event in Weirton featured Pat McGeehan, a six term representative from Hancock who is a co-sponsor fo the Amendment and myself (Alex Schadenberg).

Craig Howell, the Managing editor of the Weirton Daily Times reported on the event. Howell wrote:

Two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, one local legislator is speaking on why he feels it is important for West Virginia voters to approve Amendment 1.

If approved by voters, Amendment 1, also known as the Protection of Persons Against Medically Assisted Suicide amendment, would modify the West Virginia Constitution to include prohibitions of medically assisted suicide procedures being performed in the state. Such change, if enacted, would be listed under Article III, Section 23 of the Constitution.

McGeehan explained that assisted suicide is not permitted in West Virginia but Amendment 1 will assure that it never will be permitted in West Virginia. Howell reported:

“The citizens of West Virginia have a chance to light a beacon,” 

“The despair of suicide will be rebuked in West Virginia’s Constitution.”

Howell reported what Amendment 1 states:

The language of the amendment will stipulate that “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.”

Pat McGeehan speaking.

McGeehan described assisted suicide as affecting people when they lack hope or believe that they are a burden on others. McGeehan spoke about these deaths and likened them to medical bullying. Howell reported McGeehan as saying:

“We don’t do that here. We’re not like that,” 

“Passing Amendment 1 will make that clear.”

Howell reported that I spoke about assisted suicide in America and more specifically Oregon, as well as I told a few stories from Canada. Howell reported:

Currently, such practice is legal in 10 states – California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, Montana, and Washington – as well as Washington, D.C. Schadenberg, though, expressed concern that once a state makes it legal, those laws will expand to allow medically assisted death procedures to be available for more and more conditions.

Howell further reported me as saying:

“This is a threat to all of us because we are human beings,” he said, pointing to cases where people making such a decision are going through difficult periods of their lives and dealing with fear, a loss of hope or loneliness. “These are the underlying reasons.”

I concluded by saying that assisted suicide is not a right or left political issue but rather it is about killing people.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Amendment 1 and we hope that West Virginia voters do not become confused by the advertising from the assisted suicide lobby.

Previous article on this topic:

• Assisted suicide destroys hope (Link).
• Vote YES to Amendment 1 for protection from assisted suicide (Link).