Euthanasia doctor ordered to not kill Alberta woman at her euthanasia clinic.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition launched a petition demanding a review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practice (Article Link) (Petition Link).

An article by Mike Hager that was published in the Globe and Mail on January 16 states that Dr Wiebe has been ordered by the clinic, that she founded, to not kill the woman from Alberta that is believed to not qualify for MAiD in Canada. She has also been told that employees of the clinic will no longer act as witnesses for Dr Wiebe's euthanasia approvals. Hager reports:

The board chair of the non-profit society that runs the Willow Reproductive Health Centre also committed in an affidavit to ensuring that Dr. Ellen Wiebe would not use clinic facilities to end the life of an Alberta woman who had sought Dr. Wiebe’s help. The woman was denied the procedure hours before it was supposed to occur in October after her common-law husband secured a court injunction.

“The society will no longer permit its employees to act as a witness in respect for MAID being considered by Dr. Wiebe,” says the affidavit filed by Lisa Redekop earlier this week.

The Willow Clinic took action after a court injunction was granted to preventing Dr Wiebe from killing a woman from Alberta who allegedly did not have an "irremediable medical condition". Hager reported:

In granting the injunction last fall, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Simon Coval said the case raised serious questions about whether people are being properly assessed as eligible for MAID and whether the process is properly followed. Dr. Wiebe has established an international reputation for her advocacy and work with patients who want a medically assisted death.

The injunction was one of at least three lawsuits last year involving how MAID applications are approved and what rights family members have to intervene. Last month, Canada’s oldest civil-liberties organization, which led the push for MAID to be legalized a decade ago, called on Ottawa and the provinces to review and enforce appropriate safeguards.

The injunction application alleged that the Alberta woman, who reportedly has bipolar disorder and a condition known as akathisia – an intense uneasiness coupled with an inability to sit still that is linked to certain types of medication – could not get her own doctors to support her assisted death, so she searched online and found Dr. Wiebe.

The application alleged that Dr. Wiebe breached her statutory duty by approving MAID for a condition that does not qualify, while failing to review the patient’s medical history or conduct a full health assessment. The woman’s husband alleged that his wife couldn’t find a volunteer to witness her application, so a volunteer at the Willow clinic did so. The application also alleged that when the Alberta woman couldn’t find another doctor to provide the required approval, Dr. Wiebe found her one, connecting the two together for a second video-call assessment.

More information about the case:

On October 29, Lisa Steacy reported for CTV news Vancouver that Justice Simon R. Coval signed an injunction on Saturday October 26 which prevented Dr Ellen Wiebe from killing an Alberta woman on Sunday 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.

 The claim states that the woman is being actively treated by a physician and yet was approved for euthanasia by Dr Wiebe. Steacy continues:

“This case raises serious questions about whether (the woman) in fact qualifies for MAID Track 2. Particularly concerning is that akathisia appears to be a cluster of symptoms connected to the changes in usage of drugs used to treat a psychiatric condition. It is treatable but (the woman) has not followed treatment recommendations.”

The case alleges that Dr Wiebe did not fulfill the requirements of the law. Steacy explains: 

In addition to arguing that the woman was seeking MAID based on a condition that disqualifies her from receiving it, the lawsuit raises a number of concerns about the process by which MAID was approved in this case.

According to the court documents, the woman’s partner allegedly questioned whether akathisia is “irremediable” and questioned Wiebe’s willingness to sign off on the procedure during a Zoom call.

“(The partner) asked Dr. Wiebe if she had ever carried out MAID on someone with akathisia. Dr. Wiebe said that she had not. During the same Zoom session, (the partner) also attempted to describe (the woman) as a person with unresolved mental health problems which were probably not considered during the MAID assessment,” the notice of application says.

“Dr. Wiebe responded by stating that diagnosis does not matter, and that only quality of life mattered, and that this was (the woman’s) right.”

The lawsuit alleges that Wiebe did not directly speak to any of the woman’s doctors, did not request her medical records, and only reviewed partial records provided by the patient via email.

Further to that the case alleges that Wiebe did not consult or have a second independent physician sign off on the euthanasia application. The case alleges that Wiebe arranged for a second doctor to speak to the woman and approve her death by Zoom. The case also claims that there was not an independent witness who signed the euthanasia. Steacy explains:

“The litigation seeks to address potentially serious failings in the application of the MAID regime,” the court documents say, summarizing the arguments.

This case will potentially set precedent related to the approval system for euthanasia in Canada, how a determination is made when the applicant is not terminally ill and establish some possible oversight of the law, which is currently lacking.

Sign and share petition demanding a review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practice (Article Link) (Petition Link).

More articles related to this story:

• Vancouver man dies by euthanasia while on a psychiatric day pass (Link).
• Has Dr Wiebe killed people who did not qualify for euthanasia? (Link)
• BC Judge halts euthanasia death scheduled by Dr Wiebe (Link).
• Canadian doctor considers euthanasia the best work that she has done (Link).
• Does Canada's euthanasia law enable healthcare serial killing? (Link).

Thousands of Canadians are dying on a wait list for healthcare.

When the number of Canadians who die while on a waiting list for treatment is combined with the number of euthanasia deaths, the number of deaths is overwhelming.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dan died by euthanasia while waiting for treatment

Jane Stevenson was published in the Toronto Sun on January 15, 2025 reporting that at least 15,500 Canadians died between April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024 while on a waiting list for healthcare according to data collected by SecondStreet.org through the Freedom to Information Act. Stevenson reported that:

However, SecondStreet.org says the exact number of 15,474 is incomplete as Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador don’t track the problem and Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia only provided data on patients who died while waiting for surgeries – not diagnostic scans.

SecondStreet.org says if it extrapolates the unknown data, then an estimated 28,077 patients died last year on health care waiting lists covering everything from cancer treatment and heart operations to cataract surgery and MRI scans.

On December 11, 2024, Canada's Ministry of Health released the Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying which indicated that there were 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths representing 4.7% of all deaths in 2023.

Since euthanasia was legalized in June 2016 until December 31, 2023 there have been at least 60,301 euthanasia deaths in Canada since legalization.

Stevenson reported that SecondStreet.org identified at least 74,677 Canadians who died while waiting for care between April 2018 and March 31, 2024.

Statistics Canada states that there were 326,571 Canadian deaths in 2023.

When the number of Canadians who die while on a waiting list for treatment is combined with the number of euthanasia deaths, the number of deaths is overwhelming. This data does not include deaths from medical error.

Some euthanasia deaths are connected to Canadians who "choose" to die by euthanasia because they have waited in a queue for treatment and give up.

For instance, a National Post story reported on December 5, 2023 that Dan Quayle died by euthanasia in Victoria BC while awaiting treatment:

Dan Quayle marked his 52nd birthday on Oct. 7 in Victoria General Hospital waiting to find out when chemotherapy would start for an aggressive form of esophageal cancer. He would die waiting.

After 10 weeks in hospital, Quayle, a gregarious grandfather who put on his best silly act for his two grandkids, was in so much pain, unable to eat or walk, he opted for a medically assisted death on Nov. 24. This was despite assurances from doctors that chemotherapy had the potential to prolong his life by a year.

There was also the story of Allison Ducluzeau reported by Amy Judd and Kylie Stanton for Global News on November 27.

Ducluzeau was diagnosed with abdominal cancer and was offered euthanasia rather than treatment, instead she was successfully treated in the US

New York assisted suicide bill is a bait and switch.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tom Joyce recently reported for The Lion on January 15, 2025 that State Rep. Amy Paulin, D-New York, filed Assembly Bill A136, to legalize assisted suicide in New York. Paulin has continuously sponsored New York state assisted suicide bills since 2016.

In 2023 I referred to New York York state assisted suicide Bill A0995 as a trojan horse bill since Paulin "tightened" the bill to get it passed with the stated intention of expanding the assisted suicide law later. 

While listening to a video of a conference promoting the New York state assisted suicide bill, Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, stated (starting at 18:40) that:

No person can administer the medication to the patient. It has to be self-administered. 

We've been criticised by some organizations that actually want an expansion to that but we've held firm because... we want to get this passed first.

And then perhaps if other states who have had more experience feel that there needs to be an expansion, and I don't think they will because Oregon has been doing this for a long time, then they can come back to us, but at this point and time we have no interest in expanding beyond a self-administered dose.

In other words, Paulin was saying that her goal was to legalize assisted suicide in New York and then expand the bill later. The bill uses "bait and switch" tactics.

A similar statement was made by J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts assisted suicide groups Death with Dignity, who stated on a similar bill that, 

“Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.” 

The language of assisted suicide bills are part of a deliberate bait and switch tactic by assisted suicide advocates. They know that it is harder to pass an assisted suicide bill than to later expand a bill once it has been passed.

More articles on this topic:

• Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide has later expanded it's law (Link). 
• Retired doctor plead guilty to  manslaughter in New York assisted suicide death (Link).
• New York assisted suicide lobby members arrested for civil disobedience (Link).
  

British doctors want to raise the issue of assisted suicide with their patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jessica Elgot who is the Deputy Political Editor with the Guardian has reported on January 15 that the British Medical Association will urge the government committee that is studying the British assisted suicide bill, to permit doctors to introduce assisted suicide with their patients.

This is important because pro-death doctors will readily bring up the option of assisted suicide. Jurisdictions where only the patient can bring up assisted suicide and doctors cannot introduce it, have lower assisted suicide death rates.

Elgot reported:

The British Medical Association, which will give evidence to a committee of MPs scrutinising Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill, has said doctors must be allowed to raise assisted dying sensitively with patients if it becomes law.

The BMA said it would be “an unacceptable intrusion of legislation into the privacy of the consulting room”

The BMA’s official position is neutral on whether assisted dying should pass – but the union has agreed a collective position that doctors should not be put in the position where they are barred from raising it with patients.

Elgot also reported that at least 30 members of the British parliament who voted in support of assisted suicide at second reading have stated that they may oppose assisted suicide in the final vote if the bill allows doctors to raise the issue with their patients.

More information on the UK assisted suicide bill.

• Care Not Killing Alliance seeks submissions concerning the UK assisted suicide bill (Link).
• Assisted suicide is not the answer to the NHS financial crisis (Link).
• The British assisted suicide bill can be defeated (Link).
• The British parliament passes assisted suicide bill at second reading (Link).

Join our EPC zoom event: Australia's experience with euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Australian Care Alliance for a live Zoom presentation on Tuesday January 21 at 3 pm (Eastern Time).

Register for the Zoom presentation. (Registration Link).

Canada legalized euthanasia by amending the federal criminal code to create a national exception to homicide (murder).

Australia is similar to the United States whereby states that legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide do so by amending state laws. Therefore every Australian state has a different law.

Richard Egan with the Australian Care Alliance will join Alex Schadenberg to provide an update concerning what is happening with euthanasia and assisted suicide in Australia.

The Australian laws require scrutiny now that Britain is debating the legalization of assisted suicide. 

British politicians who support assisted suicide have become interested in Australia's experience since Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law has become toxic based on the many negative stories and reports.

Register for the Zoom presentation. (Registration Link). Once you register, a confirmation email will be sent to you.

Why is the UK Labour party putting assisted suicide ahead of social care?

This article was published by Spiked on January 14, 2025.

Elderly and disabled people need a national care service, not a national suicide service.

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

The British government has announced a new commission that it hopes will build a ‘national consensus’ on social-care reform. Yet despite Labour’s talk of the ‘critical issues’ that face the social-care sector, the commission won’t deliver its first report until 2028, which is around the time of the next election. In other words, despite decades of debates, commissions and reports about social care, Keir Starmer and Co are kicking the can even further down the road. Plus, given the government’s already deep unpopularity, it may well be leaving the urgent problem of social care to whoever is next in power.

This offers an illuminating insight into Labour’s attitude towards the ill, elderly and disabled – particularly when contrasted with the government’s haste in legislating for assisted suicide. PM Starmer boasts an enormous parliamentary majority, and as a result has little trouble navigating the passage of bills. So why is Labour prioritising assisted suicide over social care?

After all, social care poses far fewer ethical concerns than assisted suicide. While MP Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill has already proven deeply controversial, a national consensus has long existed on the issue of social care. We all agree that care for elderly, ill and disabled people needs to be provided as widely as possible. The only real points of contention concern the amount of resources and public funds that should be allocated to this end, and how those funds should be raised.

The Leadbeater bill is far less straightforward. If it becomes law, it will fundamentally alter the UK’s moral terrain. By legalising ‘assisted dying’, it will transform the relationship between doctor and patient forever.

And this is far from the only problem with Leadbeater’s bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Commons back in November. Unlike assisted-suicide legislation in most other countries, the bill contains no conscientious-objection clause for doctors. In jurisdictions that have already legalised assisted suicide, only Canada, where euthanasia is now the fifth-leading cause of death, requires doctors to participate regardless of their views.

These details, and many others, bear thinking about – not least by our elected law-makers. But the assisted-dying bill was rushed through after just five hours of debate. Leadbeater herself betrayed a limited understanding of her own bill, and its implications, when she was arguing for it in parliament. MPs were given only 16 days to digest one of the longest private members’ bills in parliamentary history. What’s more, a committee stacked with assisted-suicide supporters and inexperienced MPs is now responsible for combing through the bill at break-neck speed.

The skewed priorities are grotesque. A third reading of Leadbeater’s shoddy legislation is already scheduled for April. Assisted suicide could be law by 2027, bringing in what Tory MP Danny Kruger has branded a ‘national suicide service’. Yet, at the same time, more than 10 and a half years after it was first proposed, a national care service looks no closer to becoming a reality.

It seems that this is a government keener on helping people to die than on ensuring they are cared for while they are still here. 

Kevin Yuill teaches American studies at the University of Sunderland. His book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

True Compassion vs the Faux Compassion of Assisted Suicide

We need social policies based in genuine empathy, not the “MAiD” movement’s pseudo “empathy.” 

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

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

One of the things I love best about my job is that it connects me to a community of other disabled people. All of the students and many of the staff have disabilities, and our insight into one anothers struggles allows us to model interdependence-people with similar experiences helping each other live with dignity and make positive choices.

Our mutual experience of disability also helps us have empathy for each other. We understand how hard it can be to be disabled, especially in an ableist world, so we’re able to provide peer support if one of us is feeling overwhelmed and sad. 

For instance, a few months ago a student who is partially blind wept because she was struggling to read important information on a whiteboard, and she said, “It’s so hard to be disabled sometimes!” “I know, sweetie,” I said. “We at E4 want you to not be ashamed of your disability and maybe even take pride in it, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it all the time.” Another day a colleague with bipolar disorder asked, “Is there a bug on that wall? I hope I’m not hallucinating.” I responded: “I don’t see a bug, but maybe it was just a shadow.” That seemed to alleviate her anxiety. “Yeah, that makes sense,” she said. Another time a student with a chromosomal anomaly and severe anxiety was talking to me and this same colleague and said with tears in her eyes, “What am I going to do? How am I gonna live with my disability? How am I going to get a job?” We both assured her that we understood her fears, and pointed out that we both live on our own and have jobs, even though we are disabled, and that she has a solid vocational goal that she is working for. One night I arrived at work feeling overwhelmed and depressed about the long day I had had trying to cope with the deficits related to my learning disability, and feeling frustrated about that disability’s impact on my life in general. When there weren’t any students in the room tears trickled down my cheeks and I said to a different disabled colleague, “I love my job, but sometimes it’s so hard to live and work with my learning disability; I hate it sometimes; I really do!” “I understand, Meg,” he said gently. “Do you want me to get you a tissue?” I am deeply grateful for that mutual support among staff and students, which gives us all an opportunity to function at our highest potential.

What the assisted suicide movement does to the disabled community is like if instead of commiserating with one anothers suffering one of us had said to the other, “Yeah, you’re right; your life sucks and things will probably never get any better. Have you considered killing yourself?”

Why don’t proponents of assisted suicide, especially proponents of regimes like Canada’s, understand how cruel that is to do to someone? What is the point of reaching out for help in your lowest moments if the people you reach out to are just going to suggest that you die?

The interactions I’ve cited model true compassion; the assisted suicide movement does not. My colleagues, students and I lift each other up, the assisted suicide movement kicks disabled people when we are down. 

We need social policies based in genuine empathy, not the “MAiD” movement’s pseudo “empathy.”

Previous articles by Meghan Schrader - (Articles Link).

Why I changed my mind about euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Leah Lebresco Sargeant

In her article: An Idol of Autonomy, that was published by The Dispatch on January 13, 2025, Leah Lebresco Sargeant explains why she changed her mind about euthanasia.

Sargeant explains that she support "death with dignity" so people could avoid the hardest part of dying before reading the article - The Death Treatment - that was published in The New Yorker in June 2015. Sergeant writes"

But then I read Rachel Aviv’s “The Death Treatment,” her feature on Belgium’s euthanasia regime for The New Yorker. Aviv told the story of a Belgian mother who had struggled on and off with depression for many years. When she switched doctors, her treatment goal became completing suicide, not avoiding it. She died without her family knowing she had chosen a date or having the opportunity to intervene. That story changed my mind.

Sargeant explains that since The Death Treatment was published, euthanasia and/or assisted suicide has been legalized in more jurisdictions, including Canada, and is now being debated in Great Britain.

Sargeant challenges the concept that you can have little bit of euthanasia.

I had thought that “death with dignity” might be appropriate for a small range of patients, and that it would be restricted to only those patients for whom pain control was inadequate. I was wrong on both counts. What Aviv’s feature revealed in Belgium has become the pattern of MAiD in most nations that have allowed it. A narrow, sympathetic category of patients forms a beachhead, but then, often on nondiscrimination grounds, more and more patients are allowed or even urged to die. Belgium and the Netherlands have both expanded their euthanasia regimes to include children. One of the first to be killed was an 11-year-old with cystic fibrosis.

Sargeant provides an analysis of why people ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide and explains that the data shows that it is not just about pain but rather it is about autonomy.

Sargeant states that it is hard to limit euthanasia.

Once the state officially agrees that some lives are not worth living—that it might be unfair to others to continue to draw breath—there can be a contagious effect. Canada, which has a particularly permissive law, has seen MAiD death rate surge until 1 in 25 Canadian deaths in 2022 came by medically legitimated suicide. The country has not yet hit a suicide ceiling—advocates want to allow “mature minors” (defined as children 12 and up) to be allowed to elect to die. It remains on the cusp of allowing MAiD for purely mental health conditions (depression, autism, schizophrenia) with legalization currently delayed until 2027. And advocates are suing to allow the depressed to die immediately.

Legalizing euthanasia creates competing interests in suicide.

The simplest framing of what is wrong with MAiD is that it leads to the government operating two competing suicide hotlines, and being, at best, indifferent about which one you call. On one line, people will tell you that every life is worthwhile and that your loved ones do not despise you for your frailties. On the other, a kind doctor will solicitously schedule you for a lethal cocktail or injection.

Sargeant discusses the recent Dying in Dignity poster campaign in the tube (subway) in London UK. Dignity in Dying, a U.K. euthanasia advocacy group, placed pro-assisted dying ads in the London Tube. In one poster, a fit woman leaps in the air with the uncanny joy most often on display in period product ads. Next to her in block capitals: “MY DYING WISH IS THAT MY FAMILY WON’T HAVE TO SEE ME SUFFER, AND I WON’T HAVE TO.”

Clearly this message countered the suicide prevention campaigns that are displayed in the subway systems world-wide.

Christine Gauthier

Sargeant explains her concern with reference to Christine Gauthier's story:

...A Canadian Paralympian who contacted Veterans Affairs for help getting a wheelchair ramp for her house received an unsolicited offer to be given MAiD instead. In seminars for MAiD assessors in Canada, they receive training on how to be emotionally prepared to greenlight requests to die from Canadians with non-terminal conditions for whom “poverty [is] the driver of her MAID request.” It’s a grim idea of what the healing profession is for.

Some people argue that euthanasia is good in theory but not in practise. Sergeant explains how the "ideal" cases get mixed in with exploitative cases. She then states that the BC Civil Liberties Association, who carried the Carter case to the Supreme Court of Canada to legalize euthanasia, are now saying they are concerned with how the law works.

Sargeant concludes that euthanasia should be opposed by caring for people. She writes:

There is already copious evidence that we cannot sustain a modest euthanasia regime. Though advocacy for euthanasia began with the avoidance of pain, it has inevitably slipped into making an idol of autonomy. But no human person has ever fully possessed bodily autonomy, and the legal right to destroy the body cannot make this aspiration achievable. Opposing euthanasia begins with care for the weak, but it ultimately depends on simply telling this truth about the human person.

I think that Sargeant is mainly correct, but she avoids the point, that euthanasia kills people. You cannot have a modest euthanasia regime, and expansion is inevitable, but the only way to prevent euthanasia is to oppose killing people.
 

Queensland euthanasia report indicates another 26% increase in deaths.

This report was published by the Australian Care Alliance.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in Queensland on 1 January 2023 under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021.

Numbers

A report on the first six months of legalisation states that there were 245 deaths under the Act - 139 deaths (56.73%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 106 by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide.

245 deaths in six months represents about 1.31% of all deaths - higher than WA after one year and twice Victoria's rate after 4 years.

A second report, covering 1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024 states that there were 793 deaths under the Act - 532 deaths (67%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 261 (33%) by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide.

This represents about 1.9% of all deaths in 2023/24 – a 45% increase on the rate for the first six months of operation.

A quarterly report covering 1 July 2024 - 30 September 2024 states that there were 241 deaths under the Act – representing 2.4% of all deaths in Queensland in that period, a further 26% increase on the rate for 2023-24. 

One relevant factor in this higher rate compared to other Australian states could be that the eligibility criteria in Queensland include a prognosis that the condition is " expected to cause death within 12 months" whereas it is six months (except for neuro-degenerative conditions) in the other states.

Practitioners

Registered nurses are allowed to administer the prescribed lethal substance to cause a person’s death. 172 registered nurses have done the training (compared to 187 medical practitioners and 22 nurse practitioners).

Of the 120 practitioners involved in 2023-24 as coordinating or consulting practitioners 47 of them were involved in 21 or more cases (that is on average at least one case every 17 days).

20 nurses and nurse practitioners administered a lethal substance to a person in 2023-24, compared with 51 medical practitioners.

Of these 71 State trained professional killers, 28 are serial killers, having killed five or more people each in 2023-24.

Prognosis

Unlike other United States and Australian jurisdictions which limit assisted suicide (and, in Australian jurisdictions, euthanasia) to those with a prognosis of 6 months or less to expected death, the Queensland law allows access to those with a prognosis of expected death within 12 months.

This increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from errors in prognosis.

Refusing treatment and symptom management

The Queensland Government explicitly states that those seeking euthanasia or assistance to suicide may meet the eligibility criteria of a terminal illness that is causing suffering by refusing medical treatment and symptom management.

This makes it clear that this regime is about facilitating the intentional ending of life and not about relieving unavoidable suffering at the end of life. Under these provisions people with otherwise non-terminal conditions such as a young person with insulin dependent diabetes could be euthanased.

Timeframe

The law generally requires a nine-day period between a first and final request but this can be waived if two medical practitioners agree the person may die or lose decision-making capacity within that period.

In 2023-24, 275 people had the nine-day waiting period waived. This is 34.7 % of those who died under the Act.

Where a person is assessed as likely to imminently losing decision-making capacity there must be a real doubt as to the person ‘s current decision-making capacity so this provision increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from lack of decision-making capacity.

Government facilitation of suicide and euthanasia

The Queensland Government has established Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Support Service which will only provide information and assistance on suicide and euthanasia and will not provide any assistance or information on “any other health concerns, including your underlying conditions”.

The QVAD-Support service will directly link a person seeking to end their life with a medical practitioner willing to help them do so.

Any registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to facilitating the suicide of or euthanasing his or her patients must if asked by any person for such assistance or information give the person either the details of QVAD-Support Service or of a registered health practitioner willing to facilitate the person’s death.

The Queensland voluntary assisted dying pharmacy is funded to supply the lethal poisons for suicide to individuals and for euthanasia to administering medical practitioners or nurses.

Reporting

Clause 8 of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Regulations 2022 requires the Voluntary Assisted dying Board to collect some minimal information that is then required to be published in an annual report to be provided by 30 September each year.

This includes basic demographic data (age, sex and region) of applicants and data on the underlying condition as well as the number of deaths from self-administration or practitioner administration of lethal poisons prescribed under the Act.

The time between first and final request is to be reported.

No data on referrals for additional assessments of eligibility or decision-making capacity is to be collected. Nor is there any provision for reporting on complications, the time between administration of the poison and loss of consciousness, or the time between administration of the poison and death.

Given the general complication rate of 7% or higher reported from other jurisdictions this is a concerning lack of transparency that undermines any future claim that there are no problems with the practice of assistance to suicide and euthanasia in Queensland. We will never know.

No safe space

The Act imposes on all hospitals, nursing homes and residential aged care facilities in Queensland the obligation to allow suicide and euthanasia by lethal poison on their premises for any permanent resident of the facility and for any other resident where a “deciding medical practitioner” determines transferring the person for this purpose is not “reasonable”.

This is a violation of the human rights of freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

The sick and elderly should be able to choose to be treated or to live in a place where no-one is intentionally killed or helped to commit suicide.

Lethal substances at large

One of the obvious risks of prescribing and supplying lethal substances to be kept in the community is that the lethal substance may be ingested by a person other than the person for whom it is prescribed.

The Queensland coroner investigated an incident, in which after a woman was prescribed lethal drugs under the Act but died in hospital before ingesting the drugs, her husband subsequently used the drugs to kill himself.

More articles about the Queensland experience with euthanasia.

• Coroner's report after man dies by taking his wife's assisted suicide drugs (Link). 
• Coroner examines case of Australian man who died after taking her assisted suicide drugs (Link).
• Man dies after taking wife's assisted suicide drugs (Link).

Care Not Killing Alliance UK seeks submissions concerning UK assisted suicide bill.

The Care Not Killing Alliance UK sent out an alert urging more people to send a submission to the UK parliament concerning their assisted suicide bill.

Care Not Killing Alliance

Five-and-a-half weeks after the second reading debate on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill and barely two weeks until Committee stage is due to commence, the call for evidence that was authorised in November has finally been issued. To quote a former director of legislative affairs at 10 Downing Street:

“We shouldn’t have to fight for the process to be taken seriously.”

No formal deadline has been declared which could lead people to think there's no hurry, but realistically, evidence should be submitted in the next two weeks (before committee stage begins in earnest) to stand a real chance of being seen and considered.

Please consider making a submission in the coming days, especially where you are able to speak from particular experience: as a doctor or nurse, as a lawyer, as a social worker, as a pharmacist, as a carer or loved one, as a disabled person, or simply as someone who doesn’t wish to ever have to justify saying ‘no’ to assisted suicide.

The committee's members were chosen by Ms Leadbeater having voted 13-9 for the Bill. Yet this remains an important opportunity to pose difficult questions, to air challenging evidence, and to highlight deficiencies that were neglected in the rush to second reading. Remember, many who are sympathetic to the principle of a change in the law voted no because they see that this is a bad bill, while dozens of MPs who voted for the Bill at second reading “could withdraw support at the next parliamentary vote.”

What do you need to know about the call for evidence?

The Committee exists to consider “the existing clauses of the Bill and of any amendments tabled to the Bill,” so submissions “should address matters contained within the Bill and concentrate on issues where you have expertise and on factual information of which you would like the Committee to be aware.”

Your submission should be a Word document, should not exceed 2,000 words (guideline), and should consist of numbered paragraphs topped (ideally) by a brief introduction to you (or your organisation) and a summary of your evidence. Essential statistics or further details can be added as annexes, which should also be numbered.

You should be careful not to comment on matters currently (or soon to be) before a court of law.

Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to (clearly referenced, preferably with a hyperlink.) Evidence which is accepted and published by the Committee becomes subject to parliamentary copyright, and you shouldn’t publish your evidence until the Committee has done so.

Most submissions are, at the Committee’s discretion, published online.

Your submission must be sent to tiabill@parliament.uk 

The covering email should include your name, address, telephone number and email address; if you don’t wish your submission to be published, you should also include your reasons.

Once the Committee is underway, amendments may be proposed and you may wish to submit further evidence on those, but you should not hold off on submitting other evidence now.

What should your evidence say?

This is not a consultation on the overarching principles of the debate – the Committee’s task is to scrutinise the Bill’s make-up, cause by clause. No-one expects you to be an expert on this bill or in the surrounding policy areas; with no set questions, we advise focusing on a select number of key areas.

Your personal or professional experience may make you well placed to explain why particular provisions in the Bill are inadequate, unworkable, or not properly thought through – for example, healthcare professionals could speak to the difficulty of predicting a six-month life expectancy, while social workers (who are overlooked by the Bill) could talk about difficulties in assessing capacity and coercion.

Non-specialists could highlight the aspect(s) of the Bill they find most startling – for example, the heavy reliance on the role of the High Court despite this being ill-defined and the courts having nowhere near the capacity needed to handle the anticipated workload.

Our briefing may give you a steer, but must not be reproduced verbatim: your submission must be an expression of your own concerns about the work ability of the Bill.

• Read the UK assisted suicide bill (Bill Link). 
• Read the Care Not Killing UK assisted suicide bill briefing (Briefing Link).

Your submission must be sent to tiabill@parliament.uk 

Links to previous articles about the UK assisted suicide bill.

• Assisted suicide is not the answer to the NHS financial crisis (Link).
• The British assisted suicide bill can be defeated (Link).
• The British parliament passes assisted suicide bill at second reading (Link).