2024 was a great year for preventing assisted suicide in America. 2025 will begin with a challenge.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex speaking in West Virginia

On September 20, Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed Assisted Suicide Bill HB 140 (Link to the Statement by Governor Carney).

When Governor Carney vetoed HB 140 he continued the success with no new state having legalized assisted suicide in the past three years.

On November 5, West Virginia votes passed Amendment 1, preventing the legalization of assisted suicide. Amendment 1 passed with a narrow victory with 50.5% voting YES. West Virginia is the first US State to create a constitutional protection from assisted suicide.

Even though 2024 represented one of the most successful years in defeating at least 20 state assisted suicide bills. We will not rest.

2025 is expected to be as busy a year as 2024.

The assisted suicide lobby has already announced the introduction of a 2025 Delaware assisted suicide bill. The new bill will need to be defeated in the House or Senate since Delaware Governor-elect Matt Meyer has expressed support for legalizing assisted suicide.

The New York assisted suicide lobby announced the introduction of their 2025 assisted suicide bill with a planned campaign kick off and lobby day with other scheduled events. New York has faced assisted suicide bills nearly every year since 2016.

The assisted suicide lobby has also prepared a bill for Missouri, which is not likely to pass. In fact we expect to see at least 20 states debate assisted suicide bills in 2025.

Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide has expanded the law.

Colorado, which legalized assisted suicide in 2016, in 2024 passed Senate Bill 24-068 expanding the Colorado assisted suicide law by: allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 7 days, and allowing doctors or advanced practise registered nurse to waive the waiting period if the person is near to death.

The original version of SB 24-068 would have removed the residency requirement for assisted suicide in Colorado. 

We expect that other states will attempt to further expand their laws in 2025.

In 2023 Washington State expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, by reducing the waiting period to 7 days and to force healthcare institutions and hospices to post their assisted suicide policies. 

Washington State has already announced another expansion bill. This bill defines assisted suicide as a "protected healthcare service" and will force healthcare providers to be complicit in promoting assisted suicide. The Washington State bill is part of the assisted suicide lobby's strategy of defining assisted suicide as healthcare and forcing healthcare institutions to provide it as a "service."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicts that assisted suicide will be debated in at least 20 US states, but since Oregon and Vermont removed their residency requirement assisted suicide has also become a national issue.

There is currently a legal challenge by the assisted suicide lobby to force New Jersey to remove it's state assisted suicide residency requirement.

It is possible that the battle to protect people from assisted suicide might move into the federal realm in 2025 since the assisted suicide lobby has removed state barriers to killing.

The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to legalize assisted suicide in more states and to expand the scope of the assisted suicide laws in the states that have legalized it.

The goal of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is to prevent the legalization of assisted suicide in states where it is currently illegal while rolling back the legalization of assisted suicide in states where it is legal.

Canadian woman does not qualify for care but qualifies for euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Marcia Doherty

Marcia Doherty is a Canadian woman who has been approved for euthanasia, but wants to live.

Hannah Sharland reported for the Canary on December 20, 2024 that:

After decades battling severe ME/CFS and systemic lack of support, Marcia Doherty – known online as “Madeline” – is going fully public in a desperate bid to secure her survival and fight for change. It comes amid her being approved for assisted suicide in Canada – something she doesn’t actually want at all.

Sharland explains:

Marcia lives with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS), a debilitating condition often triggered by viruses, which can rival cancer and late-stage AIDS in severity.

It’s a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease which affects nearly every system in the body. As a result, it causes a range of symptoms that hugely impact patients’ daily lives. These typically include influenza-like symptoms, cognitive impairment, multiple forms of pain, and heart, lung, blood pressure, and digestive dysfunctions, among other significantly debilitating symptoms.

In particular, post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark feature of ME. This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion.

At least 25% of people with ME live with severe ME. In these cases, people living with severe ME are mostly, if not entirely permanently bed-bound or hospitalised. On top of this, they are often unable to digest food, communicate, or process information and are fully dependent on others for their care.

Sharland explains that the British Columbia Ministry of Health does not fully recognize ME and therefore leaves people with ME, such as Marcia, without the care and treatment that they need.

Sharland explains that since Canada's euthanasia law was expanded in 2021 to include non-terminal conditions that:

It has led to harrowing stories of chronically ill and disabled people turning to MAiD due to poverty, homelessness, and a lack of quality available healthcare. So naturally, it’s extremely concerning Marcia has been approved for this, while the Canadian healthcare system continues to utterly fail her.

Marcia doesn't qualify for care that she needs but she qualifies to be killed. Marcia has tried to change British Columbia Ministry of Health policies. Sharland reports:

For years, I’ve fought to stay alive and advocate for my community.

Yet over and over I’ve been told there’s no route to adequately help people like me – no human rights recourse, no legal pathway to address the systemic neglect of my illness.

I’ve worked with the medical community, government ministries and legal experts, and been told that coverage for ME is a political decision. Well, political change only happens when there’s public awareness – which is why I’m sharing my story.

The problem with ME not qualifying for care is not limited to British Columbia. Sharland states:

In the past year alone, the Canary has covered the stories of multiple ME patients. In the UK, the NHS has abused, neglected, and sectioned patients like 18-year-old Millie McAinsh and 24-year-old Carla Naoum. From Australia, we spoke to severe ME patient Anna. She is still without support or care to leave an abusive household.

There’s 29-year-old Nevra in Pakistan too. Like Marcia, she has had to fundraise for care – and is currently doing so for urgent endometriosis surgery. Meanwhile, a hospital in New Zealand forced 34-year-old severe ME patient Rhiannon into an ‘aged care facility’ as the government has no provision in place to support her elsewhere.

It’s a disgraceful state of affairs that governments globally are denying ME patients like Marcia the support they need. Moreover, the British Columbian state’s authorisation of an assisted death for Marcia, before funding adequate care, should send alarm bells ringing.

Marcia has been approved for euthanasia but is not approved for the care that she needs.

Marcia has launched a petition calling for better recognition, care, and support for ME.

People can support Marcia’s petition, both in Canada and internationally, and learn about her fight here.

They can also learn more about her story via her video announcement, podcast and YouTube channel, and support her crowdfunding campaign.

Vancouver man dies by euthanasia while on a psychiatric day pass.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brieanna Charlebois reported for the Canadian Press on December 19 that a Vancouver man who was on a psychiatric day pass died by euthanasia at Ellen Wiebe's clinic:

The family of a 52-year-old man who received medical assistance in dying while on a day pass from a Vancouver hospital’s psychiatric ward has launched a constitutional challenge to the procedure’s legal framework.

The case filed in the B.C. Supreme Court says the businessman and father of three, who had chronic back pain and long-term mental illness, suffered wrongful death in December 2022.

This is not the first court case involving Ellen Wiebe, a Vancouver euthanasia doctor who is known for killing more Canadians by euthanasia, than any other doctor.

A British Columbia judge halted the euthanasia death of a woman from Alberta who was scheduled to be euthanized by Dr Ellen Wiebe on Sunday October 27, 2024. (Link to the injunction decision).

Article: Has Dr Wiebe killed people who do not qualify for euthanasia? (Link).

Ellen Wiebe

Charlebois reported that the case:

...accuses Dr. Ellen Wiebe and her clinic of malpractice. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The latest case, which only identifies the man by initials, says that while MAID’s framework excludes people solely suffering from mental illnesses, it does not supply similar safeguards for those with “concurrent mental and physical illnesses,” heightening risks of premature death.

The family is seeking damages for alleged wrongful death as well as a declaration that the man’s Charter rights were breached and that the MAID framework is invalid and unconstitutional.

Applicants whose sole medical condition is mental illness will remain ineligible under MAID until at least March 2027.

Charlebois further reports that:

The lawsuit says the man was formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2013. It said he was also suffering chronic back pain, but this injury was neither grievous nor incurable enough to make him eligible for MAID.

The notice says he sought and received approval for MAID — though it did not include a date. But then, the notice, he decided to pursue treatment and rehabilitation instead.

The man’s family obtained a court order under the Mental Health Act to commit him to a psychiatric ward at St. Paul’s Hospital, the lawsuit says. It alleges the hospital and his doctors “negligently or recklessly” allowed him to leave the hospital, upon which underwent MAID.

It argues the man was not capable of making decisions about his health at the time and allege his choice was influenced by concerns about his finances. It alleges he did not give informed consent “as he lacked capacity to do so.”

The family only learned of his death later.

More articles about Dr Ellen Wiebe:

• Has Dr Wiebe killed people who do not qualify for euthanasia? (Link).
• BC Judge halts euthanasia death scheduled by Dr Ellen Wiebe (Link).
• Canadian doctor considers euthanasia the best work that she has done (Link).
• Canadian euthanasia doctor giggles about killing (Link).
• Vancouver doctor euthanizes a man who was unable to consent (Link).
• Vancouver doctor who has killed more than 400 people by euthanasia also supports euthanasia for mental illness (Link)

EPC Guide to answering the online "consultation" on euthanasia by advance request.

Before completing the online euthanasia by advance request "consulation" please read our EPC guide to the consultation.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Health Canada has opened an online "consultation" on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) by advance request. When completing the online "consultation" we felt that some of the questions were a sham because the questions imply that you support euthanasia by advance request. This is why EPC created a Guide to completing the online consultation

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

Before completing the online consultation, please read our EPC guide to answering the online consultation.

Some people suggested that we boycott the "consultation." This is not the first Canadian government consultation that is a sham. EPC has produced a guide for our supporters to answer the online consultation questions.

Euthanasia was originally legalized in Canada under the guise of being limited to mentally competent aduls, who are capable of consenting and who freely "choose." Euthanasia by advanced request undermines these principles.

The first principle for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is that we oppose killing people.

Background to the "consultation."

The "consultation" was announced on October 28, 2024 by Health Minister, Mark Holland who was responding to the Québec government instituting euthanasia by advance request starting on October 30, 2024.

The Québec government announced on September 7 that they informed the provincial Crown prosecutor’s office to not prosecute medical practitioners who carry out euthanasia by advance request, so long as the medical practitioner complies with Québec law. The federal law does not permit euthanasia by advance request.

Euthanasia by advance request means that a person, while competent, legally declares their "wish" to be killed and if the person becomes incompetent, the person would then be killed, even though the person is not capable, at that time, of consenting. 

It must be noted that every Canadian province has advanced directive laws. Therefore the federal government is considering an issue that is outside of their jurisdiction.

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

EPC Guide to answering the online "consultation" questions.

Question 1: To what extent do you support or oppose Canada's current MAiD law pursuant to the above criteria and safeguards?

Response: Strongly oppose.

Question 2: To what extent would you support or oppose adults having the option of making an advanced request for MAiD, in the following situations:

(A) After a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition that will lead to the loss of capacity to make decisions (for example: Alzheimer's Disease, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease)?

Response: Strongly oppose.

(B) While living with a medical condition that could lead to a sudden or unexpected loss of capacity to make medical decisions (for example: high blood pressure which could lead to a severe stroke)?

Response: Strongly oppose.

Question 3. What values guide you when thinking about advanced requests for MAiD? Check all that apply.

Response: Sanctity of life and/or Protection of vulnerable people.

Question 4. If the advanced requests for MAiD were permitted, how important would it be as an option for your formal personal health planning needs?

Response: Not at all important.

Question 5. The following considerations have been raised about advance requests. Check any of the considerations below that are a concern to you.

Response: A person could feel pressured by family or others to make an advance request and/or 

A person could make an advance request before knowing how well they might adapt to (or tolerate) their medical condition with appropriate support in the future.

Question 6. Please specify other considerations about advance requests you have without providing personal identifying information (250 word limit). You can state what you want within a 250 word limit.

Response: Alex Schadenberg suggests using some of the following: 

When euthanasia (MAiD) was legalized, Canadians were told that the law would be limited to: competent adults who are capable to consent and freely choose. 

Euthanasia by advance request undermines these principles. Even though a person makes an advance request, the person when killed by euthanasia is not a competent adult, is not capable of consenting and cannot freely choose. Therefore, euthanasia by advance request is technically euthanasia without consent.

Once a person becomes incompetent, they are not legally able to change their mind, meaning that some other person will have the right to decide when the person dies, even when that person is happy with life.

If euthanasia by advance request is approved, the law will discriminate against incompetent people who did not make an advanced request. The law will be challenged and it will be argued that the person didn't make an advance request based on timing (the option didn't exist yet) or lack of knowledge that it was possible to make an advance request. 

Once killing incompetent people is viewed as "compassionate" it will be considered cruel to not kill an incompetent person who is deemed to be suffering, because the person didn't make an advance request.

Advanced directives are also provincial not federal jurisdiction.

The next questions are problematic since they infer that you support euthanasia by advance request.

Question 7. Please rate the importance for you of the following potential conditions as safeguards when a person is developing their advance request.

A person must wait for a minimum period of time following their diagnosis of a capacity limiting illness before they can make an advanced request?

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person who makes the request must validate it periodically (such as every five years) and can withdraw and modify it at any time while they still have decision making capacity.

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 8. Please rate the importance for you of the following potential conditions of safeguards when the individual is assessed for MAiD and MAiD is provided based on advanced request.

There must be a minimum assessment period during which the health care providers must evaluate and confirm the patient is demonstrating the conditions described in their advance request on a recurring basis and that they otherwise meet the eligibility requirement for MAiD.

Response: Prefer not to say.

Any provision of MAiD based on an advanced request must be provided in accordance with standards developed for health care professionals. (Ridiculous question)

Response: Prefer not to say.

Health care providers must be trained on the assessment and provision of MAiD based on an advance request. 

(This is not helpful since the euthanasia doctors group - CAMAP - provides the training).

Response: Prefer not to say.

The advance request must be made using a government designated form, must be notorized or witnessed, and recorded in a person's medical record or a registry.

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person must be provided personal care planning by a healthcare professional or their team, including information on living with a capacity-limiting disease as well as available care and supports, as part of preparing an advanced request.

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person making the advance request must do so voluntarily and with the assistance of a health care professional who has received training related to the appropriate development of advance requests. (This is not helpful considering CAMAP will provide the training).

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 9: Do you have any comments about other potential conditions and safeguards you think are needed for advanced request? To protect your confidentiality, please do not provide information that could be used to identify yourself or others (250 word limit).

Response: Alex Schadenberg responded in this manner.

Euthanasia by advance request should never be considered an option. The very premise of allowing euthanasia is that the person be a competent adult who is capable of consenting and freely "choosing." Euthanasia by advance request undermines any and all potential "safeguards" and opens the door to euthanasia of people who are incompetent and have not consented.

It is impossible to separate an act of killing an incompetent person for reasons of compassion, because the person indicated, out of fear or other situational reasons, that the person wanted to be killed under these circumstances. Euthanasia by advance request requires another person to decide when this person should be killed, knowing that the person is not competent to make the decision for themselves.

We shouldn't even be discussing this issue.

Advanced directives are also under provincial not federal jurisdiction.

Question 10: In addition to no longer having capacity to make decisions, do you think a person should be demonstrating another serious physical or psychological limitation (such as loss of ability to communicate or loss of ability to perform activities of daily living, like eating or dressing) in order to be eligible to receive MAiD based on their advance request?

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 11: After a person has lost capacity to make decisions, should a person other than the person who made the advance request (such as a member of the family) have the authority to withdraw or modify the person's advance request. (Precendent would require an advanced directive, if specific, to be followed).

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 12: Consider a person who no longer has the capacity to make decisions and meets all of the conditions outlined in their advance request that describe enduring and intolerable suffering and advance decline in capability, and yet they appear to be content. Select the statement that best describes what you think should happen next:

(You may think that the second answer is best except that the second answer requires the person to be reassessed at a later time for the purpose of killing.)

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 13: How important would it be to have the same minimum eligibility criteria and safeguards permitting advance requests for MAiD apply across every province and territory in Canada? (This is a provincial jurisdiction)

Response: Not at all important.

The consultation ends with a series of demographic questions.

Euthanasia is a national tragedy — and it's only getting worse

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brian Bird

Brian Bird, who is a lecturer at the Peter A. Allard School of Law, UBC, and a contributor to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute wrote a Special to the National Post that was published on December 19, 2024 examining Canada's experience with euthanasia. Bird looks at Canada's recent national euthanasia report and states:

A new report from Health Canada confirms that more than 60,000 lives have been lost to “medical assistance in dying” in Canada between 2016 and 2023. Euthanasia was supposed be the exception to the rule, but Canada has become a case study in how euthanasia is virtually impossible to confine once legalized.

Euthanasia in Canada was initially envisioned as an option only for competent adults nearing death who ask for their lives to be ended. A few years later, the requirement that death must be reasonably foreseeable disappeared from the law.

Parliament also enacted legislation that, if not for subsequent amendments, would have already decriminalized euthanasia for people suffering exclusively from mental illness (an expansion now scheduled for 2027).

Bird then comments on Québec's euthanasia experience:

In 2022, Quebec’s college of physicians proposed that infants with severe disabilities should be candidates for euthanasia. Last year, a parliamentary committee recommended that euthanasia be granted to certain minors.

Doctors in Quebec can now end the lives of people with illnesses that have rendered them unable to consent to euthanasia, as long they asked for it in advance. That province recently amended its legislation to allow euthanasia for people who “suffer from a serious and incurable illness leading to incapacity to give consent.”

This change allows people living with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, for example, to make an “advance request” for euthanasia long before they are suffering severely and in a state of irreversible decline. Doctors need not obtain fresh consent from them before they are euthanized.

Yet the federal Criminal Code says that euthanasia cannot be granted based on this sort of advance request. Anyone who euthanizes a person in such a scenario could be prosecuted for the crime of assisted suicide or culpable homicide, depending on the circumstances.

Between the Government of Quebec directing the province’s prosecution service to not enforce the Criminal Code in these cases and the federal government saying that it will not litigate the matter, we are left with medical professionals in Quebec being overtly authorized — if not encouraged — to commit serious criminal offences. The federal government has hinted that this practice could soon be decriminalized across the country.

Bird continues by explaining what euthanasia by advance request actually is:

As for what advance requests for euthanasia in Quebec might look like, picture a person who is diagnosed with dementia and makes an advance request for euthanasia. Years later, this person meets the remaining legal criteria for euthanasia but no longer has the mental capacity to express a desire either to be euthanized or to cancel the advance request.

The person has, in the preceding weeks, resisted care and reacts negatively as the euthanasia process begins. The doctor in charge determines that the resistance is a symptom of the dementia, not a refusal to be euthanized. After members of the medical team restrain the person, the doctor injects a lethal substance.

Bird then says that he is not fear mongering since the fears by critics of euthanasia have so far been accurate. For instance:

...a judge in British Columbia recently halted a scheduled euthanasia due to allegations that the person to be euthanized was not legally eligible for it. In Ontario, recently uncovered documents reveal that 428 euthanasia-related cases in that province featured potential violations of the Criminal Code.

Bird then comments that Canada's short experience with euthanasia should act as a cautionary tale to other jurisdictions and yet Britain just voted, at second reading, in support of a bill that would legalize assisted suicide. Bird concludes by stating:

When I think about the troubling road Canada has travelled with respect to euthanasia, I am often reminded of the words of our national anthem: “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.” Part of standing on guard for Canada is the duty to stand on guard for each other.

With euthanasia, we are failing in our duty. With every expansion of euthanasia, we confer a form of second-class citizenship on more Canadians, sending the message that they are less valuable than others.

This lie at the root of euthanasia must be undone. Every person, no matter their circumstances, has dignity and worth that never disappears. This truth — and the hope it promises — never dies.

Previous articles by Brian Bird:

• Canada is euthanizing persons and personhood (Link). 
• Hospitals should not ask people to consider euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia is a runaway train. It's time to hit the brakes (Link).

The group that legalized euthanasia in Canada admits that it's being abused.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The National Post published a Special Report by Miranda Schreiber on December 19, 2024 explaining that the group that was behind Canada's euthanasia law is now saying that the euthanasia law is being abused.

A similar article was written by Cameron Henderson and published by The Telegraph on October 26, 2024.

Schreiber explains that the BC Civil Liberties Association, which is the group that carried the Carter case through the British Columbia trial court and then up to the Supreme Court of Canada is warning that euthanasia has become too easy to obtain and the government must enact safeguards. Schreiber reported that:

Liz Hughes, who has served as BCCLA executive director since June 2023, said in a statement to the National Post that the group is “aware of concerning reports of people being offered MAID in circumstances that may not legally qualify, as well as people accessing MAID as a result of intolerable social circumstances.”

Hughes called for government action: “Governments must put in place, actively review, and enforce appropriate safeguards to ensure that people are making this decision freely.”

The BCCLA’s work around MAID has evolved, Hughes said, and the organization “will continue to hold the government accountable.”

Schreiber points out that the BCCLA already agreed in September 2023 that the law was being abused.

In a video shared with the National Post by disability activists, a BCCLA litigation staff lawyer told a Zoom town hall on Sept. 27, 2023, that her work with the association “may very well involve adopting either a modified or a new policy around our position on MAID in light of the fact of, you know, that it’s being abused.”

She said she is “very uncomfortable with our previous work around MAID,” and said staff want to be “making sure people have adequate supports and access to health care and other financial resources.”

Another BCCLA staff member told the town hall “we’ve done an environmental scan, so that was a kind of review of what’s currently happening with MAID in Canada, and it’s very concerning … the whole coercive dynamic that’s inherent with, you know, disabled people and their health-care providers.”

The BCCLA were particularly concerned about euthanasia for prisoners and people with disabilities.

Of particular alarm to the staff members were reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated people were shackled to their beds, the program’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and health-care practitioners offering assisted suicide when patients asked for support for living.

Disability activist, Roger Foley, told Schreiber:

In an interview, disability activist Roger Foley said it is significant that these comments come from the civil liberties group that spearheaded the inception of Canada’s MAID program: “BCCLA was the driving force and creator of the legal challenge that decriminalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada,” Foley said.

Schreiber continues by outlining concerns with Canada's euthanasia data:

Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada last week revealed that over 15,300 Canadians died by MAID in 2023, representing a 15.8 per cent increase in deaths from the previous year. In 2023, MAID accounted for 4.7 per cent of deaths in Canada.

Quebec accounted for 36.5 per cent of all Canadian MAID deaths in 2023. Quebec’s 5,601 MAID deaths represented 7.2 per cent of the province’s total deaths — about one in every 14. B.C. is not far behind; MAID now represents 6.1 per cent of all deaths in that province.

Health Canada’s report reveals that 47.1 per cent of non-terminally ill Canadians who applied for MAID reported “isolation or loneliness” as one of the causes of their suffering. Just under half of all Canadian MAID cases (terminal and non-terminal) indicate that they want an early death in part lest they become a “perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers.”

Health Canada's Fifth Annual Report released last week revealed that MAiD was responsible for about one in 20 deaths in Canada in 2023, including 622 people who received MAID for a non-terminal illness.

Previous article on this topic:

• The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law admit abuse of the law (Link).

398 people killed by euthanasia and assisted suicide in New South Wales Australia.

The Australian Care Alliance published a report on the First Annual Euthanasia Report in New South Wales Australia which indicated that 398 people died by euthanasia and assisted suicide (November 28, 2023 to June 30, 2024). It is concerning, in the last four months of the report (March 1, 2024 - June 30, 2024) 267 people were reported to have died by euthanasia and assisted suicide representing 1.33% of all deaths in that period.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in New South Wales on November 28, 2023, when the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 came into operation.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide

The Act provides for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board, which it established as an “agent of the Crown”, to issue a “a voluntary assisted dying substance authority” to a medical practitioner to prescribe a lethal poison either for the purpose of the patient named in the authority ingesting the poison in order to cause the person’s own death (suicide) or for the lethal poison to be administered to the person by a medical or nurse practitioner (euthanasia).

The number of deaths

An Interim Report covering November 28, 2023 - February 29, 2024 reports that 131 people had their lives ended under the Act. – 91 (69.5%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 40 (30.5%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner. This represented 0.95% of all deaths in NSW in the three months December 2023-February 2024 – almost 50% higher (46.1%) than the rate in Victoria after four years of legalization. In 3 months, NSW ended the lives of the same number of people (131) as Victoria did in the first year of legalisation.

The first annual report covering 28 November 2023-30 June 2024 reports that 398 people had their lives ended under the Act - 315 (79.1%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 83 (20.9%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner.

An Interim Report covering 28 November 2023-29 February 2024 reports that 131 people had their lives ended under the Act. – 91 (69.5%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 40 (30.5%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner. This represented 0.95% of all deaths in NSW in the three months December 2023-February 2024 – almost 50% higher (46.1%) than the rate in Victoria after four years of legalization. In 3 months, NSW ended the lives of the same number of people (131) as Victoria did in the first year of legalisation.

The first annual report covering 28 November 2023-30 June 2024 reports that 398 people had their lives ended under the Act - 315 (79.1%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 83 (20.9%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner.

The differences between Victoria and New South Wales euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths.

Firstly, in Victoria medical practitioners cannot suggest assisted suicide or euthanasia to a patient – the request has to come from the person whereas in NSW the option of euthanasia can be offered by a medical practitioner with no initial suggestion from the person that are considering this

Secondly, in Victoria administration of a lethal injection by the practitioner is only available if there is an identified issue with self-administration. In NSW death by practitioner administration can be freely chosen. Only 15% of Victorian cases involve practitioner administration – compared to 79.1% so far in NSW. International evidence indicates that overall rates are higher when euthanasia is freely on offer compared to jurisdictions where assisted suicide is the only or default option.

Underlying condition

The First Annual Report gives no details of the conditions involved in the 78 cases described as “other” conditions (that is, not cancer, neurodegenerative or respiratory conditions).

Prognosis

The eligibility criteria include a prognosis - determined by two medical practitioners neither of which need to have any specific qualification or experience in the relevant condition – on “the balance of probabilities” that death will occur within 6 months (or within 12 months for neuro-degenerative conditions).

The handbook prepared by NSW Health acknowledges that “predicting when a person is entering the final months of their life can be difficult”.

This means that there will inevitably be wrongful deaths of people who may have had years to live from errors in prognosis.

Curiously the NSW Health handbook states that a Board authority to prescribe will remain valid for six months (or 12 months in the case of a neurodegenerative disorder) but that the patient can wait a further six months from when the prescription is written to have it filled. So NSW Health is envisioning patients given a prognosis of six months to live still being alive 12 months after this prognosis has been given.

In the case of authority to suicide by prescribed poison there is not time limit on how long the supplied poison may be kept before it is ingested.

Decision-making capacity

The NSW Health handbook states: 

“In the event that a coordinating practitioner becomes aware that a patient has permanently lost decision-making capacity after supply of the voluntary assisted dying substance for self-administration, the substance must be returned and disposed of as the patient is no longer eligible for voluntary assisted dying.”

This admission points to a serious risk in the scheme set up under the Act. Once the final review is completed before the coordinating practitioner applies for an authority to prescribe the lethal poison for self-administration there are no further checks on a person’s decision-making capacity and no requirement for any further contact between the coordinating practitioner and the patient.

The person may well lose decision-making capacity before ingesting the lethal poison. In this case there is simply no protection and no way of ever knowing if the person was subsequently cajoled, bullied, tricked or even physically forced to ingest the lethal poison.

Agents

The Act provides for the collection of the lethal poison for self-administration from the pharmacy by an “agent” of the patient, without imposing any restrictions or qualifications – not even an age restriction – on who can be designated by the patient. The agent is authorised by the Act to collect and store the poison, and also to prepare it and supply it to the patient to ingest – but not to actually administer it to the patient. As there is no witness required to be present at the time the lethal poison is ingested, we will never know if agents (or others) breach this provision.

Homeless, prisoners and forensic mental health detainees

NSW Health is keen that no one miss out on access to euthanasia or assistance to suicide.

Its handbook suggests that “as a particularly vulnerable group” what the homeless need is a “respectful approach that honours their autonomy and treats them with genuine kindness at the end of life” by providing support if they request “assisted dying”. No hint is given in the handbook that the vulnerability of a homeless person may mean that any request for euthanasia or assistance to suicide is a desperate cry for real help.

NSW Health’s Policy Directive charges the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network with the task of making sure prisoners and those in forensic mental health detention don’t miss out on euthanasia or assistance to suicide by linking them with “authorised practitioners, and assist[ing] those services and practitioners with accessing the patient in appropriate settings and circumstances.”

Euthanasiasts everywhere

NSW Health’s Policy Directive mandates every Local Health District to “endeavour to have a sufficient number of authorised coordinating, consulting and administering practitioners within their services to support timely access to each step of the voluntary assisted dying process for patients”. It has been advertising full time jobs for medical practitioners to be employed solely to facilitate assistance to suicide and perform euthanasia.

No safe spaces

NSW Health has also issued “guidance” for private residential aged care and health facilities which reflects the Act’s ultimate refusal to allow any private facility to remain truly euthanasia and suicide free.

Even health facilities which are operated on the basis of an ethic which rejects euthanasia, must allow the State’s “care navigators” on to their premises to link up patients with doctors willing to kill them. In making a decision about whether transferring a patient out of the facility for euthanasia or assistance to suicide, the patient’s treating physician must consult with the patient’s “coordinating, consulting or administering practitioner”.

Family sues after British Columbia man dies by euthanasia while on a psychiatric day pass.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The family of a British Columbia man with bipolar disorder and chronic back pain is suing the federal and British Columbia governments and Dr Ellen Wiebe after the man died by euthanasia under questionable circumstances.

Jason Proctor reported for CBC News on December 18 that:

In a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the man's family claims the 52-year-old — known as JMM — fell into a group of people whose concurrent physical and mental illnesses leave them "vulnerable" under Canada's medical assistance in dying (MAiD) framework.

"JMM received approval for medical assistance in dying, but he subsequently expressed that he did not wish to proceed with the procedure and instead, he wished to pursue other treatments, including rehabilitation," the claim reads.

"Regrettably, while receiving treatment at St. Paul's Hospital for his incapacitating illness, JMM left the hospital on a day pass, visited a clinic in the afternoon, and died through the improper administration of MAiD."

Proctor reported that "JMM's children, his former spouse and his father will be in court Friday seeking to keep their names anonymous and to seal any documents filed in the case beyond the notice of claim."

The case is challenging the blanket protections in law for medical practitioners who participate in euthanasia.

Even though Canada's euthanasia law provides an exception in the criminal code to homicide, one would think that breaking the law could result in homicide charges. The problem is that the law states that the medical practitioner only has to be "of the opinion" that the person they killed fit the criteria of the law. 

When Canada's parliament was debating the euthanasia (Bill C-14 in 2016) the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition lobbied members of parliament to remove the phrase "of the opinion" and change it to "must fulfill."

The family is claiming damages for wrongful death and they claim that the man was not eligible for MAiD. Proctor reports:

In addition to damages for wrongful death, JMM's family wants a judge to declare a breach of his right to life, security of the person and equal protection under the law guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to the notice of claim, JMM "had a long-standing history of mental illness and was formally diagnosed with mental illnesses including bipolar disorder in or around 2013."

"He also experienced chronic back pain," the claim reads.

"However his pain was neither grievous nor irremediable and therefore did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria for MAiD."

The lawsuit claims JMM was "wrongfully approved for MAiD" despite factors that should have disqualified him — including influence from external financial pressures and the lack of capacity to give informed consent.

JMM had a long history with mental health concerns. Proctor reports.

JMM's family claim they voiced their concerns but received no response from the parties they are now suing. In late 2022, they allegedly got a court order under the Mental Health Act, committing JMM to the psychiatric ward at St. Paul's.

According to the court documents, JMM's treating physicians were aware of the fact he'd been approved for MAiD but "opined that JMM should not receive MAiD due to his mental illness, which impaired his capacity to consent."

"Nonetheless, the defendants negligently or recklessly allowed JMM to leave St. Paul's hospital and undergo MAiD, thereby causing JMM's death," the lawsuit reads.

The family claims they "were not informed of JMM's departure from St. Paul's hospital until after JMM had undergone MAiD."

This is not the first British Columbia court case challenging Canada's euthanasia law. On October 29, Lisa Steacy reported for CTV news Vancouver that Justice Simon R. Coval signed an injunction on October 26 preventing Dr Ellen Wiebe from killing an Alberta woman on October 27. Wiebe is known to be Canada's most active euthanasia doctor. Steacy wrote:

The injunction, signed by Justice Simon R. Coval, is the first of its kind issued in the province and was issued on Saturday, the day before the woman was scheduled to die.

It prevents Dr. Ellen Wiebe or any other doctor from “causing the death” of the 53-year-old woman “by MAID or any other means.” It followed a notice of civil claim alleging Wiebe negligently approved the procedure for a patient who does not legally qualify.

The injunction prevented Wiebe from killing the woman. Steacy explained:

“If the defendants proceed with MAID, the death will constitute a battery of (the patient), wrongful death and, potentially a criminal offence,”

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide a mechanism for challenging a negligent approval but the judge establishes the role of the court by stating:

“It is within the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court to enjoin allegedly criminal conduct, in this case the termination of a patient's life where it appears that legislative criteria has not been met, and/or the protection of a patient from injury,”

The woman who was approved for euthanasia by Dr. Wiebe remains anonymous. The woman was refused approval in Alberta but went to British Columbia because Wiebe approved her death. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the attempt by this family to gain some level of justice in the death of this man. The courts need to recognize uphold the wrongful death complaint and recognize how the law does not protect the Section 7 rights in Canada's constitution. 

Section 7 states that: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Why is euthanasia (MAiD) by advance request more egregious?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Health Canada has opened an online "consultation" on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) by advance request. When completing the online "consultation" we felt that some of the questions were a sham because they imply that you support euthanasia by advance request. This is why EPC created a Guide to completing the online consultation (Link to the EPC Guide).

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

Before completing the online consultation, please read the EPC guide to answering the online consultation (Link to the EPC guide).

The first principle for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is that we oppose killing people. So why is euthanasia by advance request more egregious?

Euthanasia was originally legalized in Canada under the guise of being limited to mentally competent adults, who are capable of consenting and who freely "choose." Euthanasia by advanced request undermines these principles.

Euthanasia by advance request means that a person, while competent, legally declares their "wish" to be killed, and if the person becomes incompetent, the person would then be killed, even though the person is not capable, at that time, of consenting. Therefore euthanasia by advance request is technically euthanasia without consent.

Once a person becomes incompetent, they are not legally able to change their mind, meaning that some other person will have the right to decide when the person dies, even if that person is happy with life.

If euthanasia by advance request is approved, the law will discriminate against incompetent people who did not make an advance request. The law will be challenged and it will be argued that the person didn't make the advance request based on timing (the option didn't exist yet) or lack of knowledge that it was possible to make an advance request.

Once killing incompetent people is viewed as "compassionate" it will be considered cruel not to kill an incompetent person who is deemed to be suffering, because the person didn't make an advance request.

Every Canadian province has advanced directive laws. Therefore the federal government is debating an issue that is outside of their jurisdiction.

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

Before completing the online consultation, please read our EPC guide to answering the online consultation (Link to the EPC guide).