Colorado assisted suicide expansion court lacks standing.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 22, 2025 the assisted suicide lobby filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jeff McComas and two Colorado physicians challenging the state assisted suicide law residency requirement.

The complaint argued that the Colorado assisted suicide law residency requirement violates the U.S. Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause which “prohibits State officials from restricting non-resident visitors’ access to medical care within its borders absent a substantial State interest and restrictions narrowly tailored to those interests.”

Michael Karlik reported for Coloradopolitics on September 22 that:

A federal judge on Friday asked those challenging a provision of Colorado’s aid-in-dying law to reconsider whether they want to continue litigating, after a key plaintiff died earlier this month.

Jeff McComas from Minnesota, died on September 8 and the other two plaintiffs are doctors who are willing to participate in assisted suicide but they lack standing in the case that is based on out-of-state residents seeking to die by assisted suicide in Colorado.

Karlik reported U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson as writing:

“the Court wonders if this is the best case to challenge the Colorado statute. Please give this more thought and conferral, as the Court does not wish for the parties to waste their time and resources, or the Court’s, if there is no standing.”

This is not a victory but rather a set-back for the assisted suicide lobby who want to expand assisted suicide nationally by eliminating state assisted suicide residency requirements.

The assisted suicide lobby made the same arguments in Oregon, Vermont and New Jersey. Oregon and Vermont subsequently removed their state assisted suicide law residency requirement whereas New Jersey successfully defended their state assisted suicide law residency requirement in court.

Assisted suicide is not medical treatment or care therefore the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to assisted suicide.

Colorado legalized assisted suicide by passing Proposition 106 during the November 2016 election. In 2024, Colorado passed Senate Bill 24-068 expanding their 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 allowed non-residents to die by assisted suicide in Colorado but this amendment was rejected by legislators. 

The 2024 Colorado assisted suicide report indicated that there were 510 lethal poison prescriptions written in 2024 which was up by 28% from 398 in 2023. 18 of the lethal poison prescriptions were based on the person having an eating disorder.

The Evolution of Euthanasia in Canada.

By: Amy Hasbrouck 

Amy Hasbrouck

Amy is a long-time disability rights activist, a leader with Not Dead Yet and a past president of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

That was then. This is now. (Link to the substack).

From September, 2013 to June, 2020, Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet hosted a weekly webcast on issues related to assisted suicide, euthanasia and other life-ending practices that disproportionately affect disabled people. During that time, we (predicted and) chronicled the legal, legislative, and regulatory milestones that have led to the broad and expanding euthanasia program that Canada calls medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

The series “That was then, this is now” revisits podcast texts marking important milestones on the road to legalization and expansion of euthanasia in Canada, and reflects on the outcomes of those social and policy choices.

Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work. (Link to the substack)

THAT WAS THEN:

Duelling expert panels

• On July 17, 2015, the Harper government named an External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada.

• The panel included experts in palliative care, disability and law:

  • Harvey Chochinov, Distinguished professor of psychiatry and palliative care at the University of Manitoba;

  • Catherine Frazee, professor emeritus in Disability Studies at Ryerson University; and

  • Benoit Pelletier, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

• The panel was charged with conducting a consultation with medical experts and interveners in the Carter case to gather opinions and perspectives on the issues raised by the decision to help the government develop a legislative response to the Court’s decision. Topics included:

  • Different forms of physician-assisted dying (assisted suicide and/or euthanasia);

  • Eligibility criteria and definition of key concepts;

  • Risks to individuals and society associated with physician-assisted dying; and

  • Safeguards to address risks and procedures for assessing requests for assistance in dying and the protection of physicians’ freedom of conscience.

• However, with the announcement in August of the federal election for October 19, 2015, the panel suspended its activity as of August 4.

• The federal panel’s final report was released in December of 2015 and can be found at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/pad-amm/pad.pdf

• The Province of Ontario launched a similar group in August of 2015 the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying representing all provinces and territories except Québec, with the same mandate as the federal panel.

• Several members of the provincial panel are activists for assisted suicide, including:

  • Jennifer Gibson (Co-Chair) – Director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics

  • Maureen Taylor (Co-Chair) – Physician Assistant in Infectious Diseases and Medical Journalist

  • Jocelyn Downie – Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine at Dalhousie University

  • Arthur Schafer – Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.

• The panel did not include anyone with expertise in palliative care or disability rights.

• The only panel member who had said she opposes assisted suicide was Dr. Nuala Kenny. Her status as a Catholic nun probably reduced her credibility on a committee and in a society that prefers non-religious values.

• The Provincial-territorial panel was surely created to try to supplant the federal panel. It continued its consultation until the election and submitted a report to parliament before the Carter ruling came into effect on February 6, 2016.

• If parliament hadn’t received any input when it came back after the October election, it’s possible that the Supreme Court may have granted an extension to draft legislation. But since the Provincial panel had provided recommendations, the Supreme Court was less likely to push back the deadline.

• Though the federal panel is not holding meetings, people could still submit testimony and comments via their web site.

• Ontario’s information about MAiD is at https://www.ontario.ca/page/doctor-assisted-dying-and-end-life-decisions-consultation

• The panel’s final report can be found at https://novascotia.ca/dhw/publications/Provincial-Territorial-Expert-Advisory-Group-on-Physician-Assisted-Dying.pdf.

Proposed regulations to implement Québec’s euthanasia law

• The Act Respecting End-of-life Care was adopted in Québec on June 5, 2014, and came into effect in December of 2015.

• The Government of Québec published its regulations to implement the euthanasia program on July 15, 2015.

• If you think of a legislative Act as stating what must be done, the regulations explain how to do it.

• The law allowed people to choose medical aid in dying – euthanasia – among the options for “care” at the end of life.

• These regulations relate to the information doctors have to provide to the Commission on End-of-life Care (which oversees the euthanasia program), and the activities of the commission itself.

• The proposed regulations don’t give enough detail, they cause confusion, and they don’t fill in the gaps in the law.

  • The regulations require doctors to provide information about screening and evaluations for eligibility, but there’s no explanation of how these evaluations will be done nor how eligibility will be determined.

    • What is the procedure and standard for deciding if a person is capable of giving “free and informed” consent?

    • What factors are counted in deciding if the request is the result of external pressure?

  • The regulations don’t explain how a doctor would make a referral if s/he doesn’t want to kill a person, nor what to do if the person isn’t eligible for euthanasia.

  • There is no explanation of how euthanasia is to be carried out.

  • The “safeguard” of oversight by the Commission is retroactive. That doesn’t help the person who is already dead.

  • The doctor must report “the reasons why the suffering cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable” but doesn’t have to say what services or treatments (if any) were provided to alleviate suffering.

• The overall impression of the law and regulations is a program that is badly designed, with problems and legal loopholes that won’t protect vulnerable people.

• The Commission has no responsibility to verify that medical killing and euthanasia are not happening aside from those counted in the doctors’ reports.

THIS IS NOW: September, 2025

Duelling consultation panels

• When this webcast was written, Stephen Harper had been Canada’s Prime Minister for nearly a decade. Despite having ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the Harper government had done nothing to implement the Convention, nor to address the inequality faced by disabled people, as well as barriers to employment, housing, and a liveable income.

• The Conservatives’ choice of panelists for the federal body tasked with identifying options for a legislative response to Carter were well received, while the over-representation of assisted dying proponents on the Provincial-Territorial panel was worrisome. So while on a policy level, the election of the Liberals on October 19 might initially have seemed like good news, Trudeau soon showed he favoured the Provincial-Territorial panel’s perspective and approach; thus the tradition of disregarding the needs and views of disabled people continued apace.

• The Federal panel opened its consultations to all Canadians, while the Provincial-Territorial group provided policy advice based on submissions from invited stakeholders, which did not include groups opposed to assisted dying (such as the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition or Not Dead Yet) while the group Dying with Dignity was invited to provide both written and in-person submissions.

Québec proposed regulations

• Despite vigorous advocacy by disabled people, Québec lags behind other provinces in funding self-directed personal assistance services; preferring institutional long-term care for elders and younger disabled people who need help with personal care and activities of daily living. Thus, euthanasia has become the go-to option for people facing loss of autonomy in Québec. Nor has access to palliative care improved to meet the needs of people at the end of life seeking relief from unremitting suffering.

  • Access has become:

    • Easier – Prompted by high rates of non-compliance, Québec’s health minister eliminated the requirement that the second doctor must be independent as of February of 2017. Since then, numerous other safeguards have been eliminated.

    • faster – Same-day euthanasia was documented as early as 2017.

    • Broader – Euthanasia is available to more people, under a wider variety of circumstances.

  • See also “In Contrast to Carter” describing the expansion of euthanasia on a national scale.

• The problems noted in the draft regulations have not been addressed.
  

Disability Justice Lesson 3 - Brian Kilmeade comment

Meghan Schrader

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

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has made a principled statement responding to Brian Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia for mentally ill homeless people that calls for Kilmeade to resign. I support that statement, but I’ve observed reactions to Kilmeade’s comment from across the ideological spectrum that I think reflect the need for people of all political persuasions to reflect on how they or their ideologies have failed people with disabilities.

For example, a writer for MSNBC asserted that Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia represented “right wing narratives about the poor.” Well, yes and no.

In my experience people from all over the political spectrum have contempt for mentally ill, disabled and/or homeless people. It depends on the person.

I have spent a lot of time hanging out in environments dominated by political ideologies of all kinds, and I have experienced the same behaviors from ableist people, whether they like to watch Fox News or MSNBC.

For instance, one of my most traumatic experiences of bullying happened at a legalistic, Calvinist summer camp, and I would be very surprised if the bullies’ parents weren’t conservative Republicans. But, I grew up in Massachusetts’ progressive school system, where guidance and Special Education personnel thought that my learning disability gave them the right to try to force me to drop out of high school. Moreover, eugenics ideology is premised on hatred for people with disabilities, and progressives living between the 1910s and the 1950s generally embraced eugenics as the new cool thing. Eugenics was framed as something that put off the old trappings of Christianity that validated the births and care of people with disabilities and used science to prevent disability from happening in the first place. I think that these ideas are echoed in today’s “MAiD” discussions when progressive-identifying proponents conflate disability justice objections to “MAiD” with religious ones and dismiss the disability justice movement’s opposition to “MAiD” as “moral panic.”

Another example of progressive hypocrisy and ableism can be observed in California governor and “MAiD” proponent Gavin Newsom response to Kilmeade’s comment; Newsom responded by posting Proverbs 21:13 on social media: “Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Newsom’s post made me feel used, because his response to homelessness isn’t really better than Kilmeade’s. For instance, Newsom responded to homelessness in California by spearheading Proposition 1, which made it easier to incarcerate mentally ill people in institutions indefinitely, directing billions of dollars to that effort. Pretty much every disability rights organization in the country pleaded with Newsom to eschew such “Modern Ugly Laws” and spend that money on community support instead, but he didn’t care.

This apathy helps create conditions for the involuntary euthanasia Kilmeade proposes. For example, around the same time that Newsom spearheaded Proposition 1, his Democratic colleague Catherine Blakespear, who I doubt has spent much time thinking about disability justice, introduced legislation to expand California’s “MAiD” law to disabled people with "grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who weren’t terminally ill. Given that people with “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who also have severe mental illnesses would kill themselves with “MAiD” to avoid being institutionalized, and staff in institutions would coerce such people into dying by “MAiD,” Newsom’s disability policies would result in the coerced euthanasia that Kilmeade suggested.

Moreover, I do not know what vocal “MAiD” movement leader Thaddeus Mason Pope’s political beliefs are, but I doubt that he is a member of the Religious Right, and he has blithely admitted that there will be involuntary euthanasia in the future.

In contrast, examples of conservative ableism, even from some assisted suicide opponents, can be observed in the some of the pieces published by the conservative Christian satire publication the Babylon Bee. Regardless of what I think about the Babylon’s political orientation or its stories in general, I thought the story "Disaster As Canada Switches Suicide Prevention Hotline With Suicide Assistance Hotline” that a conservative friend posted on their Facebook timeline was an incisive commentary about “MAiD” undermining suicide prevention.

But, then the Babylon Bee undermines the benefit of that piece by featuring stories that its editors think are trenchant commentaries on diversity and equity initiatives, like “Secret Service Beefs Up Trump’s Security With Squad of Blind Midgets,” “Meet The LAFD’s First Paraplegic Fireman,” “Powerful: This Broadway Production Called A Little Retarded Girl Up On Stage,” “Mark Cuban Inspires Thousands By Proving Even The Very Retarded Can Become Wealthy,” and “Delta Introduces New Short Plane For Special Needs Pilots.” 

These articles use slurs and mockery that have been linked to ableist policies and behavior for decades. Assisted suicide opponents cannot do such things, unless you want disabled people to hate you very, very much. And no matter what disabled people think of you or your ideology, such poisonous rhetoric is not OK.

Moreover, the Republican Party is generally understood to fall on the more “conservative” end of the political spectrum, and this Republican administration has championed several policies that weaken the disability rights infrastructure in the United States. As a former Special Education student who has published research in the field of disability studies and spent a lot of time following disability advocacy efforts, I can tell you that these policies will have a much worse impact on disabled people’s lives than anything published by the Babylon Bee. This is not a partisan position; if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election and her administration were attempting to implement these policies, everyone I know in the disability justice movement would take a position of “Screw Kamala Harris.”

I urge euthanasia opponents to respond to Kilmeade’s comment by understanding that if “MAiD” were ever legalized for disabled people in the United States, the combination of the aforementioned policies would push disabled people towards “MAiD.” Doing everything you can to advance the full participation of disabled people in society is one of the most important things that euthanasia opponents can do to fight both “MAiD” and the high suicide rate among people with disabilities.

I understand that ableism isn’t always the individual’s “fault.” We live in a culture that has made disability history and rights invisible for decades, so a lot of the people doing or saying the ableist things don’t have the knowledge to know any better.

Nevertheless, ableism from across the ideological spectrum is causing fourth-class citizenship for disabled people all over the world. The broader “MAiD” movement falls on a spectrum of ableist violence and oppression; it is a consequence of people from all over the ideological landscape ignoring disability rights. If a society marginalizes and dehumanizes members of a minority group enough, then it becomes easier for the average person to accept killing members of that group. So, in order to fight “MAiD,” it is necessary to correct the pattern of dehumanization and ableism that “MAiD” takes to a lethal extreme.

Therefore, I think that responding to violent, ableist comments from people like Kilmeade requires humble reflection by everyone. Perhaps an example of soul-searching that people from all over the religious spectrum would be wise to emulate is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14. In the parable a Pharisee brags to God about what a great guy he is and says, “Thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there!” This is the behavior that I feel I have observed from people all over the political spectrum with regard to their treatment of disabled persons: people are sure that whatever political agenda they have in mind is righteous and helpful to marginalized people, including disabled people, even as all political “tribes” rarely pursue disability rights for their own sake.

In contrast, I think the Tax Collector’s behavior provides a model for discussions about our culture’s ineffectual and prejudiced approach to disability rights. Addressing the ableism that makes people feel comfortable suggesting involuntary euthanasia requires people from across the political spectrum to “beat their breasts” and “repent” for their complicity in ableism.

Then we can collaborate on creating a world that is diametrically opposed to the world suggested by Kilmeade and Thaddeus Mason Pope. We can work together to make ethical and policy decisions that put disabled people’s interests first, not just with regard to preventing the medicalization of disabled people’s suicides via “MAiD,” but through the creation of social policies that allow disabled people to flourish.

The Ethical Dilemma: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?

Watch the following youtube video with Kelsi Sheren and Alex Schadenberg titled: The Ethical Dilemma: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides? (Youtube Link).

In this episode of The Ethical Dilemma, we dive deep into the controversial world of organ donation and presumed consent — a policy where your organs could be taken unless you explicitly opt out.

Kelsi Sheren is joined by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, we unpack:

• How presumed consent laws are reshaping global healthcare systems.
• The ethical challenges and moral grey zones policymakers face.
• The potential benefits for patients — and the risks to personal freedom.
• The erosion of the dead donor organ donation rule.
• Why this debate touches every single one of us.
• This isn’t just about medicine — it’s about life, death, autonomy, and choice.

Learn more from Alex Schadenberg at: www.epcc.ca or the EPC blog at: www.epcblog.org

Stories supporting Bill C-218:

• I want to live. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• Patti's Story. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• My Story. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• I got Better. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).

Prevent MAiD for Mental Illness – Support Bill C-218

On June 20, 2025 Tamara Jansen (MP) introduced Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to reverse the law permitting euthanasia for mental illness that is scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027 in Canada. (Article Link). 

Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Why Bill C-218 Matters (Link to Bill C-218)

• On March 17, 2027, MAiD will become available for mental illness alone as the sole medical condition for requesting death.
• This expansion was rushed through, in 2021, despite widespread concern from doctors, provinces, and the public.
• Bill C-218 will stop this dangerous expansion and protect vulnerable Canadians.
  

Key Reasons to Support Bill C-218

1. Safety and Recovery, Medical Evidence: (Evidence Link)

• No doctor can predict with certainty who will never recover from mental illness.
• Most people who once felt suicidal recover and are grateful to be alive.
• Suicide prevention and treatment—not assisted death—must be the response. 
  

2. Human Rights

• In March 2025, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities condemned Canada’s MAiD expansion as inherently discriminatory and called for its repeal of Track 2, including this planned expansion. 

3. Public Opinion

• Only 31% of Canadians support extending MAiD to those with mental illness alone (Angus Reid Institute). 

4. Medical and Provincial Consensus

• 17 Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada had agreed: we are not ready.
• Most provinces have asked Ottawa for an indefinite pause on this expansion.
• Quebec legislated against MAiD for mental illness (Bill 11). 
  

5. Compassion and Care

• People with serious mental illness deserve treatment, housing, and supports—not premature death.
• Real stories show recovery is possible with the right care. (Article Link). 
  

Action Needed

• Support Bill C-218 to stop MAiD for mental illness.
• Speak out in Parliament, media, and community forums.
• Stand with Canadians who believe in care, dignity, and hope—not assisted death for mental illness.

Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to info@epcc.ca

Sign the petition supporting Bill C-218 (Petition Link).

Canadian Physician sends Open Letter to the House of Lords (UK) Opposing Assisted Suicide.

Dr Paul Saba

As the United Kingdom’s House of Lords debates the legalization of medically assisted dying—commonly called MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) in Canada—I want to warn the people of the United Kingdom not to go down this wrong and dangerous road that Canada has embarked on since 2016. 

The first reason not to legalize assisted suicide is that the eligibility for ending patients’ lives expands dramatically over time. This leads to unnecessary deaths for people who may have many years, if not decades, left to live. 

When Canada first legalized MAID in 2016, it was supposed to be for only a handful of terminally ill patients with just days to live. In 2016, there were 1,018 assisted deaths. By 2023, the number had increased to 15,343. From the inception of the law to the end of 2023, 60,301 Canadians had their lives ended by physician-assisted death. The numbers continue to rise each year. (Link) 

Québec, the province where I practise medicine, has the highest rate of euthanasia in both Canada and the world, at 7.6% of all deaths in the province. In 2024, the Commission sur les Soins de Fin de Vie—a government body that oversees end-of-life care—reported 6,058 euthanasia deaths between April 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024. (Link) 

The law was extended from those with terminal illnesses to those with chronic conditions and disabilities in 2021, following the passage of Bill C-7. Those with fragile health are also considered candidates for assisted dying. 

Starting in March 2027, those with mental illness will be eligible for physician-assisted death. I am strongly opposed to this expansion, as are many in the medical and psychiatric communities, who have raised concerns about the dangers of offering assisted suicide to vulnerable individuals with mental health challenges. This move has been highly controversial in Canada, with many experts warning about the risks of premature death among those who could otherwise recover or improve with treatment. 

As a physician, I sit on a review committee at one of Canada’s medical centres that assesses assisted deaths. The majority of the cases I have reviewed include people with medical conditions or disabilities, most with associated psychological and social factors that greatly influence their decision to request physician-assisted death. These factors include social isolation, feeling that they are a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Based on my observations, physical pain was the least common reason. My experience is confirmed by Canada’s recent report on physician-assisted death. (Link) 

The State of Oregon was the first US state to legalise assisted suicide. In that state, the reasons for assisted suicide shows a similar pattern to Canada with loss of independence, wanting to control the time and manner of death, the fear of worsening pain or quality of life and the inability to care for themselves heading the list. (Link) 

Another reason not to go down this dangerous road is because of diagnostic errors. Physicians are human. When doctors give a patient a diagnosis, they can be wrong. In fact, errors in diagnosis for severe, life-threatening conditions may be as high as twenty percent in hospitalized patients. (Link) 

Several years ago, one of my patients, Jim (a pseudonym to protect his identity), came to me with a cough, thinking he had a cold. I ordered a chest x-ray. According to the radiologist’s report of the chest film, Jim appeared to have lung cancer. 

I sat down with Jim and said: 

“We need to do a scan right away. We need to get you to see a specialist. We need to do a bronchoscopy….” 

Jim responded: 

“Dr. Saba, I know you’re against assisted suicide, but you know what? I don’t necessarily agree with you. If I’m going to die, if my time is up….” 

I replied, 

“No, no. You have to go through the process because this is only a preliminary diagnosis. Even if it is lung cancer, it is treatable today. There are new treatments. It may not even be lung cancer.” 

I spoke to the radiologist who performed the lung scan, who said, 

“We’re not sure what it is. It appears to be lung cancer but it may be a lymphoma, which would be highly treatable.” 

Jim is an intelligent, well-informed man, an engineer, who thought he had a cold, then was told he might have cancer. He could have resigned himself to a medically assisted death before he even knew what we were dealing with, since Canadian law does not require that all diagnostic avenues be exhausted before a person is deemed eligible for MAID. Under current policy, a person can be eligible without undergoing every investigation necessary to confirm the diagnosis or rule out effective treatment. He could have given up hope while the situation was still filled with hope. The power to move people to give up is one of the dangerous and misleading aspects of medically assisted dying. 

However, I was able to get his attention and persuade him that the situation was hopeful and that he should get more tests and undergo treatment. The result? He called me in the summer of 2019 to thank me because there was no further evidence of disease, which is still the case today. He had finally been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a condition that is highly curable with proper medical treatment. 

A Canadian study found that 13% of patients with a diagnosis of “lung cancer” who died by MAiD did not have a biopsy-proven diagnosis of lung cancer. Moreover, only a third of those diagnosed with advanced lung cancer underwent systemic treatments despite the availability of known effective treatments. (Link) 

This is what happens when the door is opened to assisted dying. Jim could have been another assisted dying fatality. I am a doctor who believes medicine must be grounded in solid science, in what research and experience teach us about how the body works and heals. 

Another reason not to go down the deadly road of assisted suicide is because it becomes an excuse for a faulty healthcare system lacking resources. Canada‘s publicly funded healthcare system lacks access to care for family physicians, specialists, investigative studies and has long waiting times for surgeries. In fact, Canada is considered one of the worst healthcare systems among OECD countries. (Link) 

Inversely, Canada has one of the fastest growing assisted dying programmes in the world. (Link) In contrast, palliative care for people seeking end-of-life care is not available for 70% of the population. The resources used for assisted dying should be rerouted to treat these patients. (Link) 

Canada like the United Kingdom has a publicly funded healthcare system. In Canada, assisted dying has become the default procedure for a healthcare system that has seriously failed to adequately care for its population. Similarly, Australia, which is given as an example for the British assisted suicide Bill, also has failed at providing quality palliative care. (Link) 

The conclusion—hope is one of the most powerful forces for good medical care. When I say hope is a powerful force for health, I mean that hope counsels us to patience, to seeing processes through, and to regarding every step as part of the great gift of being made for life. Assisted dying destroys that hope and leads people to giving up on life before their time. 

Dr. Paul Saba is a physician practicing family medicine in Lachine, Québec. He is a co-founder of the Physicians Alliance Against Assisted Suicide (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and is the author of the book Made to Live (madetolive.com) 1 514-886-3447 pauljsaba@gmail.com

A Fifty State Assisted Suicide Legislative Strategy

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

It is possible to defeat medical homicide bills. Our predecessors and allies have done so many times.

To do this requires the use of every possible argument, from common morality, from medical ethics, and from the particular lived experience of persons with disabilities. Above all, we must always remember --and clearly articulate-- that we are not only resisting death by choice, but much more importantly: we are resisting medical homicide.

We also know that these battles may be lost.

And yet, even then, lost battles do not always equate to lost wars. Many ultimately victorious armies have been forced to retreat, only to mount a successful defense in some other place.

But to prevail in such a strategy will generally require the forethought to prepare that new position before the retreat arrives. For otherwise there will be nothing --earthworks, supplies, reinforcements-- of that which is required to break the momentum of their pursuing foes.

In terms of our war against medical homicide: if we are unfortunately unable to stop legalization in some particular State, then our next immediate goal must be to prevent further expansion of the harms caused. But if we wish to do that effectively, much will depend upon the prudence with which we have prepared for that task in the course of the original battle.

Our adversaries have but one powerful argument in their arsenal. And that is the argument of autonomous choice. It should be our goal to make sure that the force of this weapon is fully expended in the first encounter, so that in the event that we are defeated there, our opponents will have nothing left, or as little as possible, with which to renew the struggle at a later time.

To that end, we must use all of our knowledge and all of our experience, gained from other States and from other countries, in different phases of the medical homicide debate, to demonstrate that the projected ideal of choice is a fraud; that the inevitable endgame of medical homicide is not personal freedom, but an impersonal utilitarian regime of managed death.

We must force the sponsors of assisted suicide legislation to spontaneously yield on those points which might most effectively enable that medical logic. They must be forced to piously claim that they have no such ambitions, and must be held to a statute implementation which can be justified by choice alone.

For example, recourse to doctor administered death must be explicitly renounced, in any text of law, not only because it is easier to obtain consent and carries a stronger weight of professional validation, but because doctor administration opens up --to the possible euthanasia of patients incapable of choice-- a path which is already well beaten elsewhere.

Not only must we demand a requirement of terminal condition, but we must also demand a written explanation, that such a requirement is necessary to prevent the assisted death of persons suffering from mental illness alone, or other chronic conditions.

All of this must be spelled out at length in any such law, as written proof of solemn engagement.

For the same purpose of protecting free choices equally, we should ideally peel away any privilege or mandate of "information", any mandated access in any institution, and any restriction on the formation of care teams which are literally sworn to renounce the practice of medical homicide. (And, once again: to do this explicitly in the text of law)

For our adversaries must be forced to acknowledge the choices of those patients who wish to live.

The more of these concessions we are able to gain (even if we lose the final vote) the better will be the end result: not only in the same State (when medical homicide advocates are forced --in the course of future proposed expansions-- to explain why they are now repudiating earlier promises); but also in other States, which may --in observing such cynical hypocrisy-- find the wisdom, themselves, to reject the seductive deception of choice, at the first step on this infernal medical staircase. 

At the same time, we must never renounce our rejection of medical homicide.

Generally speaking, the public have only supped on the logic and promise of choice. They have no suspicion of the medical possibilities that await. It will be our job to forcefully and perseverantly correct that ignorance.

For make no mistake: we are combating medical homicide (not mere assistance to suicide). We must not, under any circumstances, debate these questions only within the limits of our adversaries' narrative of choice.

We have a battle of fifty States where each will influence every other. And we must effectively use even the battles we lose.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal, Québec Canada