Do we know enough about euthanasia drugs?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Manuela Callari reported in an article published by Medscape on March 13, 2025 that we don't know enough about assisted dying drugs. Callari interviewed several physicians who are doing euthanasia and a doctor who does palliative care research.

Callari begins the article by stating:

The medical community is accustomed to rigorous standards for drug development and approval. But in the context of assisted dying, there is a surprising and persisting lack of robust scientific data.

Steven Pleiter

Callari interviews Steven Pleiter the former managing director of the Dutch Center of Expertise for Euthanasia (Euthanasia clinic) who states:

“It’s very hard to do scientific research with regard to the usage of drugs for euthanasia. If you apply euthanasia, you want to be successful, and you can’t use any other drugs than the drugs we know work,”

“But the evidence is based on years and years of experience.”

Claud Regnard, MD, a retired palliative medicine consultant in the United Kingdom told Callari that:

“The amount of evidence supporting the use of these drugs is astoundingly small,

 “The last study looking at efficacy and side effects was published 25 years ago, using data from 10 years earlier.”

Dr Claud Regnard

Callari reported that unlike other areas of medicine, assisted dying has largely escaped rigorous scientific evaluation. He reported Regnard as stating:

“You wouldn’t allow this in any way with any other sort of drugs,” Regnard said. In a 2022 study, he found that drugs used for assisted dying have not undergone the usual level of scrutiny.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these drugs at high doses remain poorly understood. “We extrapolate from therapeutic doses, but we have no proper data on what happens at lethal doses,” Regnard said. "That's not science — that's guesswork.”

Collari reported Regnard as stating:

He said most jurisdictions, like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Australia, do not systematically collect or publish data on assisted dying drug efficacy, mechanisms, and complications. “Oregon is the only jurisdiction providing some transparency, but even their data is severely incomplete,”

Collari explained that:

Euthanasia is when a doctor directly ends the life of a patient, while assisted dying is when a doctor provides the means for them to end their own life.

Collari continues:

The Netherlands, one of the first European countries to legalize euthanasia and assisted dying, has developed guidelines on their implementation, now in their third edition.

Pleiter explains how euthanasia is done in the Netherlands:

For euthanasia, the standard Dutch protocol involves an initial injection of thiopental or propofol at doses several times higher than those used in general anesthesia to induce a deep coma. This is followed by administering a neuromuscular blocking agent such as rocuronium, atracurium, or cisatracurium in doses sufficient to cause complete paralysis and eventual death. “Most people die after the coma-inducing drug because it’s such a high dose,”  

“The patient will die within seconds. It’s very rapid.”

We know that the patient does not die within seconds in Oregon, where the Oregon 2023 assisted suicide report indicates that the longest time of death in 2023 was 137 hours. Collari then explains how assisted suicide is done in Switzerland

In Switzerland, a commonly used drug is the fast-acting barbiturate sodium pentobarbital, according to documentation provided by Dignitas to Medscape Medical News. This is usually taken orally or, in some cases, via a gastric tube or intravenously. The documentation did not include specific data on this drug’s efficacy or complication rates. Dignitas declined a request for an interview.

None of these drugs are approved for euthanasia and there is no standardized protocol. Regnard explains:

There is no standardized global approach to drug selection and dosing for either euthanasia or assisted dying, and the process is mainly empirical. “There isn’t a single drug regulatory authority anywhere in the world that has assessed and approved assisted dying drugs [in the doses required for this purpose],”

Instead, these medications are approved for indications such as anesthesia or epilepsy, and their use in euthanasia or assisted dying falls under off-label prescribing. Physicians rely on guidelines established by medical associations, expert committees, and historical clinical practice for their use.

Since Oregon is the only jurisdiction that collects data on the use of assisted dying drug coctails, Regnard provides an analysis of the Oregon data:

There is no standardized global approach to drug selection and dosing for either euthanasia or assisted dying, and the process is mainly empirical. “There isn’t a single drug regulatory authority anywhere in the world that has assessed and approved assisted dying drugs [in the doses required for this purpose],” said Regnard.

Instead, these medications are approved for indications such as anesthesia or epilepsy, and their use in euthanasia or assisted dying falls under off-label prescribing. Physicians rely on guidelines established by medical associations, expert committees, and historical clinical practice for their use.

Pleiter agrees that the evidence concerning the safe use of these drugs and  evidence concerning complications is anecdotal. Pleiter's comments actually reinforce the research by Regnard. Regnard continues by pointing out that:

The lack of reliable data also raises concerns about informed consent. Patients are often reassured that their death will be peaceful, but without comprehensive studies, how can such promises be guaranteed?

Regnard asks:

“How can you get informed consent from a patient when the data isn’t there?”

“Until they produce the data, the data is purely anecdotal. We wouldn’t tolerate that level of uncertainty in palliative care, so why are we tolerating it here?”

Collari reports that Pleiter argued that, based on experience, the Dutch protocols work:

Pleiter noted that euthanasia has been practiced in the Netherlands for two decades, with consistent guidelines that have undergone only minor revisions. More than 100,000 patients have undergone the procedure using these established protocols. The core drug dosages have remained mostly unchanged. “When the correct drugs are administered at the right doses, there are no issues, and the outcome is always certain,” he said. Having overseen almost 5000 cases, Pleiter said he has never encountered complications.

But Mario Riccio, MD, a retired anesthetist, current advisor of the Luca Coscioni Association, an assisted dying group in Italy told Collari

“Even with precautions, the process is not always smooth. There can be moments of discomfort and unexpected reactions — things we simply cannot control. But for someone whose suffering is so excruciating that he is determined to die, minor complications are completely surmountable.”

Clearly there is no evidence concerning the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide poison coctails. 

Links to more articles on this topic:

• Death by assisted suicide is not what you think it is (Link). 
• Assisted suicide: Proceed with caution (Link). 
• Assisted suicide is the wrong prescription (Link). 
• Assisted suicide. It's not that simple (Link). 
• Assisted suicide deaths are not what you think they are (Link). 
• Assisted suicide is neither painless nor dignified (Link).

Japan: Conviction upheld in assisted death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Mainichi Japan news reported on March 13 that the 30 month sentence in the assisted death of a person with ALS has been upheld by the Osaka High Court. The report states:

Naoki Yamamoto, 47, was found guilty by the Kyoto District Court of conspiring with a fellow doctor to administer a lethal dose of a sedative to Yuri Hayashi, 51, in her Kyoto apartment on Nov. 30, 2019, at her request. ALS is a progressive neurological condition for which there is currently no cure or treatment.

The other doctor, Yoshikazu Okubo, 46, is currently appealing his 18-year prison sentence on the same charge.

Euthanasia is not legally recognized in Japan.

The presiding judge Yuko Tsuboi found that Yamamoto played a lesser role in the death but that he understood the nature of the crime. The report states:

Tsuboi also criticized Yamamoto for "showing an extreme disregard for human life," given that he accepted 1.3 million yen ($9,000) from Hayashi as a fee and carried out the crime shortly after their first meeting.

During the appeal, Yamamoto's defense continued to argue for an acquittal, claiming it was factually incorrect that he conspired with Okubo.

Yamamoto was previously convicted of murdering his 77-year-old father in 2011 by unspecified means, for which he has been sentenced to 13 years in prison.

Previous article on this story:

• Two Japanese doctors charged in the assisted death of a woman with ALS (Link).

Persons with disabilities have sought access to medical assistance in dying due to unmet needs: the Canadian “false choice”

This article was published by Vivre Dans La Dignité on March 12, 2025.

Montreal, March 12, 2025 – On March 10 and 11 in Geneva (Switzerland), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities examined the report submitted by Canada under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As this review is flying under the media radar due to current events, the Living with Dignity citizen network would like to highlight some of the interventions of the United Nations experts addressing medical assistance in dying as well as recommendations from Canadian groups participating in the study.

"A False Choice"

The official meeting summary of the United Nations Information Service includes a quote from Ms. Rosemary Kayess, Vice-Chairperson, UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Australia) and Leader of the Taskforce for Canada: «it was concerning that persons with disabilities sought access to medical assistance in dying due to unmet needs, which was a systemic failure of the State party.  The disproportionate impact of these failures, which included poverty, and a lack of access to employment and services, underpinned the so-called choice for seeking medical assistance in dying as an alternative. How was this not State-sanctioned euthanasia?  If choice was the trigger, why was there not also a focus on addressing the support that person needed, which would take them away from social isolation where they perceived dying as the only option they had? ». She also added « For me, it is still a false choice.»

Ms. Kayess went so far as to add during the discussions “Do you not see this as a step back into state-sanctioned eugenics programmes”?

As is too often the case during these reviews, the answers of the Canadian delegation were often prepared in advance and did not appear to satisfy the experts. « The dialogue would have been more fruitful if there was less reliance on prepared statements which frequently did not answer the Committee’s questions. » according to Mr. Markus Schefer, committee expert and taskforce member, who, at the start of the second day, had to remind the delegation to avoid “canned answers”.

Recommendations from Canadian groups

Living in Dignity supports these recommendations made by more than 50 organizations (several of which were in Geneva) in the Civil Society Parallel Report for Canada:

●   Repeal Track Two MAiD;

●  Repeal the legal provisions which will make Track Two MAiD available to people with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition in March 2027.

As Inclusion Canada pointed out in a press release issued on Monday, several organizations defending the rights of persons with disabilities, as well as individuals, have challenged Canada’s expanded MAiD laws by launching a legal Charter challenge in the Ontario Superior Court.

Living with Dignity would also like to highlight this recommendation from the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

“Recommendation #3: That before taking further action on its expansion, Canada conduct a critical and thorough examination of what has happened since the coming into force of MAiD legislation, including by collecting the evidence and testimony necessary so that there is a clear understanding of who is accessing MAiD and why, and by ensuring that the experiences and concerns of those who are most marginalized are listened to, valued and addressed.”

The recommendations of several other groups deserve your attention, including those of the Assembly of First Nations, the Environmental Health Associations of Canada and Québec and the Feminist Alliance for International Action.

All these recommendations are available in the reports posted on this page, as are those of the Canadian delegation, which we invite you to read and analyze. The Parallel Report of Civil Society for Canada can be found under the name of one of the signatories, ARCH Disability Law Centre.

Next step? The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will publish its concluding observations on March 21 (end of its current session).

To review all of the Committee’s exchanges with the Canadian delegation this week (two three-hour sessions):

• March 10, https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1n/k1n09gnpy1 (quotes from Ms. Kayess, Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are at 02:19:04 and 02:25:04);
• March 11, https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1j/k1jvnn43r1.

Media contact:

Jasmin Lemieux-Lefebvre
Coordinator
Living with Dignity citizen network
www.vivredignite.org/en
info@vivredignite.org
438-931-1233

Maryland assisted suicide bill appears to be dead again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was cleaning up emails when I came upon an important article by Jack Hogan that was published in the Maryland Daily Record on March 3, 2025.

The Maryland legislature has debated bills to legalize assisted suicide on a nearly annual basis since 2015. According to Hogan, this year's assisted suicide Bill (HB 1328/SB 926) appears to, once again, lack support in the Senate. Hogan wrote:

Hours before the Maryland House of Delegates on Monday revived a perennial debate over whether to legalize medical aid in dying, state senators canceled a hearing on the bill, appearing to forgo the debate in their chamber and all but guaranteeing that the measure won’t have a serious chance of becoming law until after the next election cycle.

Aid-in-dying advocates and at least one top House member were initially under the impression that Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair Will Smith would reschedule the canceled hearing, which was planned for Wednesday.

But top senators didn’t have plans to reschedule, and House Majority Leader David Moon wrote in a text message that he heard the bill was dead in the Senate.

In 2019, the Maryland assisted suicide bill passed in the House by a vote of 74 to 66 but failed in the Senate by a tie vote of 23 to 23.

According to Hogan, since the Senate does not appear to support the assisted suicide bill that it will not be considered in Maryland again until 2026.

Update on Assisted Suicide bills in Britain, Scotland and Ireland.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Care Not Killing Alliance for a Zoom event on Thursday March 20 at 3pm ET (Toronto Time) (note changed to 3 pm).

Register for the Zoom event in advance (Registration Link).

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO for the Care Not Killing Alliance will provide an update on the assisted suicide bills and debate in Britain, Scotland and Ireland.

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald will provide an overview of the current debate concerning the Leadbeater bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, the McArthur bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland and the debate in Ireland.

Macdonald and Schadenberg will also discuss the assisted suicide bills in the Isle of Man and Jersey.

Dr Macdonald has led the Care Not Killing Alliance for many years. He works with groups and individuals from multiple points of view.

We will make time for questions and answers at the end.

Register for the Zoom event in advance (Registration Link).

Franchising Death (MAiDHouse)

This article was written by Kelsi Sheren and published on her substack on March 12, 2025. 

MAiDHouse is a euthanasia clinic that started in Toronto and are now establishing MAiDHouse "franchises".

MAiD Houses, looking for a recession proof way to profit? Why not death?

Kelsi Sheren

By Kelsi Sheren

MAiDHouse is not healthcare—it's death care. Under the polished, sanitized branding of "compassion" and "choice," what we really have is a killing house with two convenient Canadian locations, Toronto and Victoria. This place exists solely to profit from the despair, isolation, and vulnerabilities of those at their weakest moments.

Let's strip away the comforting language and face the reality: MAiDHouse is actively marketing death to a population already drowning in pain, loneliness, and neglect. By using slick websites, carefully curated newsletters, and targeted outreach to platforms frequented by caregivers, medical professionals, social workers, and even influencers on LinkedIn and other online communities, they're dangling a deadly carrot—wrapped conveniently as "information"—in front of people who desperately need genuine support, community, medical intervention, and psychological care, not assisted suicide.

Their own annual report reveals the extent of their grim enterprise. "What an incredible year it has been for MAiDHouse in 2023! After opening the doors at our new space in 2022, the number of individuals using our space for a MAiD procedure doubled in 2023. That is astounding progress for such a young organization, and reflects the commitment and resolve of our executive director, Tekla Hendrickson, in ensuring MAiDHouse will always be available to serve anyone who needs us, when they need us. One of the things that makes me most proud to be involved in MAiDHouse is the across- the-board positive reaction from those who use our space – whether it be the individuals choosing MAiD, their friends and family, or providers. During a time that is incredibly personal, vulnerable and full of emotion, they still take the time to thank us for the compassionate and competent support they receive; they tell us how much they love our space – its artwork, its comforts, its overall ambiance; they express gratitude for the service MAiDHouse provides." 2023 Annual Report MAiD House. Every individual they "serve" isn't simply guided compassionately to the end of life; they're methodically funneled toward death, carefully recorded as another statistic, another "success story" for their marketing materials. The morally bankrupt justification of providing dignity masks the reality: this is a facility designed not to heal, not to comfort, but to eliminate burdens. By normalizing the idea that one's suffering can simply vanish at the push of a needle, it dangerously opens the door for families overwhelmed by caregiving responsibilities, subtly incentivizing them toward the expedient and cost-saving solution of choosing death over care.

This sinister enterprise exploits the gaping holes in our social safety nets, preying mercilessly on those already abandoned by inadequate healthcare systems, systemic poverty, chronic illness, mental health challenges, and societal neglect. It's not compassion to offer death when society has catastrophically failed in offering meaningful life-affirming alternatives. It is coercion masked as freedom; it is despair presented as liberation. Make no mistake this is seen as abuse—plain and simple. MAiDHouse does not only facilitate this abuse; it actively profits and thrives on it.

Furthermore, by promoting their services to medical professionals and social workers, they insert themselves insidiously into trusted networks. Their marketing subtly reshapes how caregivers view the sanctity and value of human life, pushing a narrative that frames assisted dying as not merely acceptable but preferable, even admirable. The ethical erosion this generates is immeasurable, reshaping societal attitudes to regard life as disposable, contingent on convenience rather than dignity and intrinsic worth.

We must face the uncomfortable truth head-on: MAiDHouse is not about mercy or dignity; it is about convenience, economics, and a profoundly disturbing disregard for human life wrapped in a carefully constructed ethical cloak. This isn't a humane service; it's a cold, calculated, profitable business model that thrives on despair. No civilized society should ever justify or normalize such a practice. MAiDHouse doesn't belong anywhere near the realm of healthcare—it belongs in the category of predatory enterprises we expose, dismantle, and categorically reject outright.

Previous articles by Kelsi Sheren:

• Let's call MAiD what it is: Homicide (Link). 
• The death cult of the euthanasia lobby. A rebuttal (Link). 
• UK veteran in crisis illegally offered assisted suicide (Link).

Louisiana Judge temporarily prevents death by Nitrogen gas.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Erik Ortiz reported for NBC news on March 11, 2025 that Chief U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick of the Middle Louisiana District temporarily blocked Louisiana's first execution in 15 years after lawyers for the condemned man argued a new method known as nitrogen hypoxia would violate his constitutional rights.

Jessie Hoffman Jr. who was convicted of rape and murder, was scheduled to die by execution on March 18 with the use of nitrogen gas. Hoffman stated that the use of a mask to deliver only nitrogen gas, depriving him of oxygen, "substantially burdens" his ability to engage in his Buddhist breathing practices and creates "superadded pain and suffering."

Dr. Philip Bickler, the chief of neuro-anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that the sensation nitrogen hypoxia provides is "very similar to drowning."

"I think for someone like Mr. Hoffman, nitrogen asphyxiation would be a particularly horrible method, a really inhumane choice for an individual who has a history of PTSD," Bickler said.

Judge Dick decided that:

"The public has paramount interest in a legal process that enables thoughtful and well-informed deliberations, particularly when the ultimate fundamental right, the right to life, is placed in the government's hands," she wrote.

She said Hoffman cannot be executed until his claims are "decided after a trial on the merits and a final judgment is issued."

Why is this important to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition?

Last September, long-time euthanasia activist, Philip Nitschke, carried out the first assisted suicide death using his Sarco Pod in Switzerland.

The Sarco Suicide Pod is sold to the public as an easy and pain free death. The Sarco is designed in a sleek manner to make it seem like a fashionable way to die. The Sarco pod causes death by releasing Nitrogen gas resulting in death within several minutes.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , who support assisted suicide, described the death of Kenneth Smith, who died by Nitrogen gas, as a:

method that constitutes torture, violating international human rights treaties ratified by the U.S.

The ACLU then stated:

Veterinary scientists, who have carried out laboratory studies on animals, have even largely ruled nitrogen gas out as a euthanasia method due to ethical concerns. Authorities in the U.S. and Europe have issued guidelines discouraging its use for most mammals, citing potential distress, panic, and seizure-like behavior.

Death by Nitrogen gas is not acceptable for animals and is defined as a method that constitutes torture and yet Nitschke described the death as looking exactly as expected.

Nevada's dangerous assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nevada state legislature.

In May 2023, EPC sent out an alert urging Americans to contact Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo to veto assisted suicide Bill SB 239 after it passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 to 10 and in the Nevada House by a vote of 23 to 19. 

In June 2023, EPC sent out a Thank You email after Governor Lombardo vetoed assisted suicide Bill SB 239. Lombardo stated in his veto that legalizing assisted suicide was not necessary based on modern improvements in pain management.

Recently three Nevada legislators introduced assisted suicide Bill AB 346. Most assisted suicide legalization bills are more moderate. The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to get the bill passed and then expand it later. But AB 346 has several dangerous elements to it. For instance AB 346:

• Allows the "practitioner" to be either a physician or an advanced practise registered nurse to approve and prescribe the lethal poison drug cocktail.
• Requires a 15-day reflection period, but it allows the practitioner to waive the 15 day reflection period.
  
• Defines assisted suicide as a form of palliative care. The assisted suicide lobby is trying to change the definition of palliative care to include killing people. If assisted suicide is a form of palliative care, then assisted suicide is also a form of medical treatment.
• Requires the death certificate to name the cause of death as the disease or the sequence of causes resulting in death, but must not list lethal poison drug cocktail (assisted suicide) as the cause of death.
• Requires the "practitioner" to self-report the assisted suicide death but only requires the report to include the name and date of birth of the patient (person who died), the date on which the patient died and a statement of whether the patient was receiving hospice care at the time of death. This level of reporting is incredibly minimal.
• States that deaths by assisted suicide do not constitute mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide or homicide. Therefore, if the person who died but did not self-administer (it was done to them, as in euthanasia) it would not be considered a euthanasia or a homicide. In other words, this bill allows for euthanasia/homicide through the back door.
• The bill defines assisted suicide as medical treatment by including in the definition of medical treatment: Dispensing a medication that is designed to end the life of a patient pursuant to the provisions of sections 5 to 33, inclusive, of this act. Once assisted suicide is defined as a medical treatment then it becomes the right of a person to be informed of the "option".
  
• The bill not only deems advance requests for assisted suicide as unenforceable and void, but it also deems advance requests prohibiting assisted suicide to be unenforceable and void.

So why are these concerns important? Nevada assisted suicide proponents claim that Bill AB 346 has effective safeguards. But when one reads the language of the bill you notice that AB 346 is a dangerous assisted suicide bill.

In fact, AB 346 is the perfect cover for homicide.

British Medical Association: assisted dying is not health care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article published in the UK Spectator on March 10 reports that the British Medical Association consultants voted that assisted dying is not a health activity and, if legalized, they demand an opt-in model for providers. The Spectator reported:

Motion 46 was proposed by the South Regional consultants committee and argued that Kim Leadbeater’s bill raises ‘serious potential moral hazards for consultants, and serious potential adverse impacts on health services.’ The two-part motion argues that, when discussing assisted dying with the government, the BMA must be clear that if the bill were to become law:

An opt-in model is adopted for providers, and no consultant shall be expected to be involved in any part of the assisted dying process, including having no obligation to either suggest assisted dying to patients, nor refer patients for it.

The second part of the motion contends too that:

Assisted dying is not a health activity and it must not take place in NHS or other health facilities, and assisted dying providers must be employed under separate contractual arrangements.

Both parts of the motion were passed by the BMA consultants conference. So, there we have it: senior NHS Consultants believe the Leadbeater Bill presents both ‘serious moral hazards to consultants’ and could have ‘serious potential adverse impacts’ on health services in the UK.

The government panel that is deciding on amendments to Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill have so far rejected every proposed amendment that would tighten up the language of the bill.

A large number of MP's who supported Leadbeater's assisted dying bill at Second Reading indicated that the final version of the bill would determine how they vote at Third and final reading on the bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition ia urging British Members of Parliament to defeat the Leadbeater Assisted Dying bill at third reading.

Canadian Human Rights Commission concerned about euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has brought their concerns about Canada's euthanasia law to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

Meagan Gilmore reported on March 10, 2025 in an article that was published by Canadian Affairs that:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and dozens of other organizations have brought concerns about Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) laws to the United Nations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission “remains deeply concerned by ongoing reports that people with disabilities are turning to MAID because they cannot access the basic supports and services they need to live with dignity,” the commission wrote in a January submission to the UN. The submission was delivered to a UN committee studying Canada’s compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Gilmore explained the position of the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

In its submission to the UN, the commission said it “remains concerned about Canada’s lack of progress in implementing the recommendations that have come from the international human rights system.”

Many people with disabilities struggle to find adequate housing or medical care, or move to long-term care facilities to access needed supports, the submission says.

These factors may cause some people with disabilities to pursue MAID, the commission says.

“Accessing MAID should not be the result of this inequality, nor should it be the end result of the State’s failure to fulfill its human rights obligations,” the committee said, repeating concerns it has raised twice already in Canada.

Gilmore reported that:

A coalition of 49 organizations wrote one large submission criticizing Canada’s progress. Another 20 organizations — including the Canadian Human Rights Commission — wrote individual submissions.

A committee of disability experts reviews each country’s report and recommends how they can improve. Canada is scheduled to appear before this committee on March 10 and 11.

Several Canadian disability organizations believe that the Canadian government should abolish Track 2 euthanasia approvals, that being approvals for people who are not terminally ill. Gilmore reported:

Track 2 MAID violates several convention rights, including the right to life, these organizations say.

“Track 2 MAID is positioned as health care serving to end suffering; it is therefore promoted with great conviction,” the coalition wrote. “In practice, people with disabilities in Canada are being denied their right to life.” 

Track 2 MAID “normaliz[es] suicide,” the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action wrote in its submission. It is based on the belief that it is better for some people with disabilities to be dead, the alliance said, calling it  “a modern form of eugenics.” 

These organizations also argued that euthanasia should not be extended to people with mental illness in March 2027.

Gilmore reported that the UN Commission on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have conducted two reports on Canada's euthanasia law. 

In 2017 the UN Commission recommended that people requesting MAID have access to a “dignified life” through palliative care, home care, disability support and “other measures that support human flourishing.” while in 2021 three UN UN human rights experts warned Ottawa that: 

Track 2 MAID would violate Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by creating a “social assumption … that it is better to be dead than live with a disability.” 

Gilmore reported that The Canadian Human Rights Commission says it wants Canada's federal government to:

“conduct a thorough and critical review” of MAID in Canada before eligibility criteria is expanded. This review should include listening to and addressing concerns from people who are marginalized.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that Track 2 euthanasia approvals (approvals based on an irremediable medical condition with no terminal condition) are particularly discriminatory towards people with disabilities but we also recognize that Track 1 euthanasia approvals (people with a terminal condition) are also discriminatory towards people with disabilities as these decisions are most often made based on disabling conditions that occur as a person approaches death.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canada's federal and provincial governments to also "conduct a thorough and critical review of euthanasia in Canada to assess the reality of Canada's euthanasia law rather than expand the eligibility of MAiD to people living with mental illness, to people who have made an advance request and to "mature minors."

The UK assisted-dying bill gets more dangerous by the day

This article was published by Spiked on March 1, 2025.

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

Kim Leadbeater’s promise to create the ‘safest’ assisted-dying legislation in the world unravelled even further this past week, as MPs rejected yet another proposed safeguard to her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell tabled [introduced] an amendment that would have required a patient to meet ‘with a palliative-care specialist for the purposes of being informed about the medical and care support options’ before an assisted suicide could proceed. In other words, they would have to consider options for alleviating their pain. Yet this most innocuous amendment was defeated by 15 MPs to eight on Tuesday.

This was hardly a surprise. Having been voted through in the House of Commons last November, the bill is now in the committee stage. Yet Leadbeater stacked the committee of MPs in her favour. Although the committee is supposed to ‘improve’ the bill, it has repeatedly thrown out sensible amendments.

Maskell’s amendment would have done nothing more than reassure terminally ill patients that there are alternatives to killing themselves. Given the severity of the decision, you would hope that the assisted-dying process would leave as many opportunities for patients to reconsider as possible.

As one observer noted on X, you currently have to undergo far more rigorous checks to be able to donate a kidney than Leadbeater envisages for an assisted suicide.

Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who leads a minority of cross-party MPs on the committee fighting Leadbeater’s bill, noted how important it is that ‘a patient has clearly understood their palliative-care options’ before choosing to end their own life. The assisted-suicide advocates on the committee took a very different view. Tory MP and supporter of the bill Neil Shastri-Hurst worried that requiring a consultation with a palliative-care specialist would ‘bog down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy’.

As far as the likes of Shastri-Hurst are concerned, the fewer obstacles in front of the proverbial man on the ledge, the better.

In order to try to keep up the pretence that assisted dying is a ‘compassionate’ cause, Leadbeater resorted to relaying emotional anecdotes. ‘There are cases where palliative care cannot meet a patient’s needs’, she said. ‘We have a lady in the public gallery this morning whose mother had a horrible death, having had ovarian cancer and mouth cancer; she had to have her tongue removed, so she could not eat and drink, and she essentially starved to death.’

This is certainly tragic, but it hardly makes sense as an argument. There will also be plenty of cases where palliative care can meet a patient’s needs.

Fellow Labour MP Stephen Kinnock was clearly less concerned with the optics when he complained that ‘the amendment would increase demand on palliative-care specialists’. He is right that the existence of patients demands doctors. But there is an undeniably sinister undertone whenever questions of money and resources raise their head in the assisted-suicide debate. Death, all too often, appears as the ‘cheaper’ option than healthcare or to assistance to carry on living.

The rejection of Maskell’s amendment is merely the latest in a long line of attempts to ensure the Leadbeater bill has as few meaningful safeguards as possible. So far, the committee has also voted down amendments to prohibit ‘encouraging’ someone towards assisted suicide, exerting ‘undue influence’ prompting someone to choose assisted suicide or ‘manipulating’ someone to choose assisted suicide. It has also rejected the requirement that a six-month diagnosis of a terminal illness must have ‘reasonable certainty’ before an assisted suicide approved. It has even rejected a request, backed by eating-disorder charities, for illnesses to not be regarded as terminal for the purposes of this law if they can be caused by stopping eating and drinking.

All these failed by 15 votes against and eight in favour, reflecting the bias of the committee, except for one, which lost 14 votes to nine.

This won’t be the end of it, either. Leadbeater’s ‘judge plus’ amendment, which has yet to be considered by the committee, will try to remove a safeguard originally included in the bill that would have required each assisted death to be signed off by a High Court judge. This was initially a big selling point for her bill, with more than 61 MPs citing it as a reason to vote in favour. Now, Leadbeater plans to replace the judge with ‘death panels’ of social workers, lawyers and psychiatrists.

Clearly, Leadbeater and her pro-assisted suicide colleagues are hell-bent on ramming this legislation through parliament, whether or not it is fit for purpose. Let us hope that enough MPs are paying attention to these insidious developments – and that they vote this disastrous bill down at the earliest opportunity.

Kevin Yuill, emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE).

Previous articles by Kevin Yuill:

• Why is the Labour Party putting assisted suicide ahead of social care? (Link)
• Why we need to kill the UK assisted dying bill (Link).
• No safe way to legalize euthanasia (Link).

Terminal Illness: What does it mean?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Kenneth Stevens

I recently spoke at the British parliament about the experience with assisted suicide in America. The British parliament is currently debating the legalization of assisted suicide. The British assisted suicide bill, that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater, is similar to an American style assisted suicide bill.

While in England, I had the opportunity to visit with a physician who practises palliative medicine. She told me about a meeting with a patient and her family to explain that the patient has a terminal condition but she is not terminally ill.

In 2011, Dr Kenneth Stevens, a long time radiation oncologist in Oregon, wrote an excellent article titled: Terminal Illness: What does it mean? In his article Dr Stevens writes about several of his patients who were diagnosed with a terminal illness.

The first story was a patient, Mr Jones, who was diagnosed with lung cancer that had spread to his brain. Dr Stevens explains:

He was not having any breathing problems and, except for headaches, the tumors in his brain were not causing any neurological or mental problems. Yet, his doctor had told him and his wife that he was "terminal."

Dr Stevens asks, what is the meaning terminal? Does it mean "terminal" (nearing death) or a terminal condition? Dr Stevens continues:

A patient's terminal status can be dependent on treatment. A person with severe insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus could be considered terminal if they did not take insulin appropriately. However, with proper insulin treatment and diet, they can live a long time, even many decades. Patients with kidney failure requiring dialysis would die in a few days without dialysis; in that sense they may be considered terminal, but with dialysis they can live many years.

Dr Stevens tells the story of a family member who was diagnosed as terminal from pulmonary fibrosis. He writes:

four years after she received the "terminal" diagnosis, she still has terminal pulmonary fibrosis that requires constant supplemental oxygen and still lives in her home with her husband, who has his own significant medical problems.

Dr Stevens emphasized that his family member continued living and enjoying the companionship of her family.

He then told another story of a patient who was diagnosed as terminally ill. The man and his wife responded to the diagnosis by selling off their worldly items. They even planned to sell their house, but he didn't really feel sick. After more biopsies were done it was determined that he actually had a non-terminal condition. Stevens writes:

In the past seven years he has had CT scans of his chest and abdomen every six months. The abnormalities in his liver and lungs are still present but have not changed in number or in size. He has continued to work for a computer company and misses the tools that he sold at a great discount In the past seven years he has had CT scans of his chest and abdomen every six months. The abnormalities in his liver and lungs are still present but have not changed in number or in size. He has continued to work for a computer company and misses the tools that he sold at a great discount or gave away in garage sales when he was told he was terminal.

Dr Stevens tells the story of a patient who was diagnosed with liver cancer that had spread to her chest. She was told that she didn't have long to live but she was still alive 20 years later.

Dr Stevens tells us the story of an 18-year old college student who was diagnosed with the most malignant type of brain cancer. Dr Stevens write that many doctors did not expect him to live long. Dr Stevens writes:

However, he surprised them when he graduated from college, then attended and graduated from law school, passed the state bar exam, married, had two children, and was elected to his city's council. He lived a very successful and productive life for over 20 years from the time of his terminal diagnosis.

Dr Stevens brings the article together by telling us what happened to Mr Jones. He writes:

After evaluating the extent of Mr. Jones' tumors, I offered radiation and chemotherapy to shrink the tumors. He accepted that recommendation and successfully completed the treatments with his tumors markedly decreased in size. He lived to spend two very productive years with his wife and children. They traveled together, and he lived to see the arrival of two additional grandchildren. Both he and his wife were very grateful for his prolonged and very functional life.

Dr Stevens concludes by writing:

My 44-year experience as a doctor for many thousands of patients with cancer has made me realize that it is very difficult to predict the life expectancy of a particular individual. Doctors can make generalized predictions regarding probability of death for a group of patients in a particular period of time, but that is a probability based on the group as a whole and not on specific individuals within the group. There is great variability in the course of an illness, particularly in those who are predicted to die many months from now.

My palliative care doctor friend in Britain, who I first referred to, explained to her patient and family that she might have another two or more years to live and that she was graduating from palliative care.

This is important to the assisted suicide debate because people who have a terminal condition may qualify for assisted suicide.

The doctor asked me, with concern, what if assisted suicide was already legal in Britain? Would this woman be dead?

Illinois assisted suicide bill is dangerous for people with disabilities.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jules Good

Sela Estille reported for 25newsnow.com on March 5, 2025 that  Illinois assisted suicide Bill SB 9 received strong push-back from the disability community. Estille reported:

In a press conference on Wednesday morning, disability advocates such as the nonprofit Access Living called this idea “dangerous” to people living with chronic illness.

“I cannot overstate how dangerous this is,” said Jules Good, a spokesperson with the Stop Assisted Suicide Coalition.

“When I was at my lowest, if a doctor told me I could end this all, I would have. It’s only through years, compassionate support, and therapy and support that I’m able to stand here today and say I’m in recovery,” Good continued.

Senate Bill 9, that is sponsored by Senator Linda Holmes of Aurora was pulled from Committee debate on March 5 to enable amendments to the bill.

Oregon assisted suicide expansion bill permits euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Aimee Green that was published in the Oregonian on March 4, 2025 states that Oregon Senate Bill 1003 that would expand the Oregon assisted suicide law appears to lack the necessary support to pass.

On February 12 I published an article explaining that the Oregon assisted suicide Bill SB 1003 would expand the Oregon assisted suicide law by:

• allows non physicians, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to participate in assisted suicide and,
• reduces the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours while enabling the "providing prescriber" to waive the waiting period to essentially allow a same day death and,
• requires hospices and hospitals to publicly disclose their assisted suicide policy.

SB 1003, if passed, would be the third time that Oregon would have expanded its assisted suicide law.

According to Green, SB 1003 appears to lack support. Green reported:

No individual lawmakers have signed on as sponsors of Senate Bill 1003, which was filed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Only two people spoke in favor of the bill Monday. Eight people spoke in opposition, along with 150 Oregonians who submitted written testimony objecting to the bill.

Jake Thomas reported on March 4 for the Lund Report that Dr Sharon Quick, President of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation opposes SB 1003. Thomas stated:

“This bill devalues patients suffering from disabilities, such as mental health problems, lack of capacity, psychological distress over loss of function that will not be uncovered due to inadequate time for assessment,” she said. “Nor is there time for patients to change their minds, which they often do.”

Quick, told the committee the bill would allow non physicians without relevant expertise “to make some of the most difficult medical assessments without a second opinion.”

Quick called on lawmakers to increase access to palliative care, which she said can ease the suffering of terminally ill patients who consider medically assisted dying. Such care would focus on the quality of the patient’s life, including minimizing suffering.

The Oregon Medical Association came out against Bill SB 1003. Among other comments, the OMA stated in their intervention that: 

Changing the Responsible Clinician from “Attending Physician” to “Provider” 

The bill proposes replacing “attending physician” with “provider,” a term that is overly broad and includes institutions and facilities, not just individual clinicians. Physicians undergo the most extensive and supervised medical training to diagnose, assess patient capacity, and evaluate mental health conditions before prescribing life-ending medication. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act and MAiD must use the highest levels of training for those making these critical determinations. 

Confusing and Potentially Dangerous Language

Certain provisions in SB 1003 suggest that medications intended to shorten the dying process could be administered to the patient rather than by the patient, creating ambiguity and raising concerns about unintended movement toward euthanasia. For example, Section 1(2)(a) states: “A hospice program shall publicly disclose its current policy regarding the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, including whether a patient receiving services from the hospice program may elect to end the patient’s life…” This language implies that the hospice program, rather than the patient, plays a role in making the decision, which is inconsistent with the original intent of the law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has stated that the language of the legislation appears to permit euthanasia. We are thankful that the Oregon Medical Association commented on the same concerns with the loose language of the bill. 

Euthanasia is an act of homicide whereby the medical professional actively kills the patient, whereby assisted suicide is an act of assisting a suicide whereby the medical professional prescribes the patient a poison cocktail for the purpose of suicide.