New Jersey Suicide Prevention Program — Just Not All Suicides.

This article was published by National Review Online on April 22, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

New Jersey has started an admirable program to prevent suicide. From the NJ.com story:

A new state program will send trained mental health professionals and people with lived experience to respond to adults who contact the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

The Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams, which consist of one peer and one professional, will be dispatched through the state’s 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline centers to help adults struggling with mental illness and substance use disorder, without the need for police.

“Today’s announcement underscores that — in New Jersey — help is truly only a phone call or text message away,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement announcing the program’s launch.

That’s great. Too bad the effort won’t apply to all suicides.

You see, assisted suicide is legal in New Jersey. The self-terminations of people with a prognosis of six months or less ceases to be “suicide” when facilitated by a doctor. Indeed, the terminology of the law has been engineered to create a false narrative: The request for suicide facilitation is redefined as a desire to “end my life in a humane and dignified manner.” The drugs used in prescribed intentional lethal overdoses are renamed “medications.” Even the cause of death in such cases will be mendaciously reported as “natural” on death certificates when the real reason is the ingestion of barbiturates.

Suicide is suicide — it is a what, not a why. The state can claim it wants to prevent suicides, but people who ask for assisted suicide rarely (if ever) receive these important interventions — even though suicide prevention is supposed to be an essential hospice service.

This is so wrong. Statistics demonstrate that suicidal terminally ill patients opt for assisted suicide generally because of existential issues, such as fears of burdening family, losing dignity, about how one will be remembered, and so on. It isn’t about untreatable pain (nor do laws so require). These are important matters that should and can be ameliorated through intensive social interventions like those that will be offered to other suicidal people under the New Jersey plan. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that legalization may increase other suicides, which would seem to undermine suicide prevention efforts generally.

Because New Jersey has legalized assisted suicide, its prevention program will not be universally applied. That is akin to saying to smokers, “Don’t smoke,” but then adding, “However, if you do, use a filter cigarette.” The anti-suicide message is utterly inconsistent and, therefore, likely to be less effective.

Three states, three challenges. Delaware, Illinois, Nevada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The states of Delaware, Illinois and Nevada require your immediate attention.

Delaware passed assisted suicide bill HB 140 in the House and the Senate.

Governor Matt Meyer

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer must veto assisted suicide bill HB 140. Last year Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed the assisted suicide bill after it passed. 

Contact Governor Meyer and urge him to prevent killing with a veto of assisted suicide Bill HB 140. Contact Delaware Governor Matt Meyer (Contact Link).

llinois assisted suicide bill SB9 passed in the Senate Executive Committee and will soon be debated in the full Senate. We need everyone to contact Illinois Senators and urge them to prevent the killing of Illinois citizens by defeating Bill SB9. Some talking points are below.

Contact the members of the Illinois Senate (Senate Contact List)

Governor Lombardo

In 2023, the Nevada House and Senate passed an assisted suicide bill. Thankfully Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed the bill.

In 2025, the Nevada House and Senate passed assisted suicide Bill AB 246. Recently Governor Lombardo stated that he would veto the bill (Link).

Send a message to Governor Lombardo reminding him to veto assisted suicide bill AB 246 at (this link) or send your message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo or call him at: (775) 684-5670.

When contacting Delaware Governor Matt Meyer or the Illinois State Senators use some of these talking points:

• Legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the right in law to be involved with causing the death of their patients at the most vulnerable time of their lives.
• Assisted suicide is not about freedom or choice but it is a form of cultural and medical abandonment.
• A caring culture supports good end of life care and opposes assisting suicides. 

If you have a personal story, please share it. It is important to remind elected representatives that the disability community opposes assisted suicide because legalizing assisted suicide devalues their lives.

The assisted suicide lobby has expanded existing assisted suicide legislation in nearly every state, once legal. Oregon eliminated their reflection period and has eliminated their residency requirement. Vermont is permitting assisted suicide by telehealth, they are forcing medical practitioners who oppose assisted suicide to refer patients to death and they have eliminated their residency requirement. Washington state, California, Colorado and Hawaii have also expanded their assisted suicide laws.

Once assisted suicide is legal, the assisted suicide lobby will lobby or launch court cases to expand the law. The original assisted suicide bill is designed to pass in the legislature, once passed incremental extentions will follow.

Ramona Coelho: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

The following speech was written by Dr Ramona Coelho for the April 15 launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

EPC has copies of the book available for purchase. 

Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

By Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho speaking on April 15.

Thank you so much for being here. I’m deeply grateful to share this moment with all of you, and especially honoured to stand alongside Dr Harvey Schipper and my co-editors, Dr. Sonu Gaind and Professor Trudo Lemmens. The book we’re launching tonight is the result of years of lived experience, medical care, research, and a common concern — concern for Canadians, and for the future of medical care and societal culture in this country.

We release this book at a critical time. As Trudo has mentioned, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has recommended the repeal of Track 2 MAiD. Likewise, the Ontario Coroner’s MAiD Death Review Committee — of which both Trudo and I are members — has begun publishing reports that document serious public safety concerns in MAiD cases. What we see confirms what many of us in healthcare have long feared and have tried to bring to the attention of politicians: people are accessing MAiD through lax application of the law, often without a thorough or humane exploration of their suffering. In some cases, death is being offered more readily than medical care and supports.

As a family physician, I work every day with people who face enormous barriers: refugees, individuals living in poverty, those with disabilities, mental illness, or incarceration histories. Earlier in my career, I provided home care in Montreal for people with dementia, addiction, or severe physical disabilities. These patients — like all of us — need to know their lives are valued, but sadly often don’t. Canadians need support, not an easy exit when life becomes unbearable. They need care, not assisted death as a substitute for our societal collective failures.

MAiD was introduced to Canadians as an “exceptional measure for exceptional cases,” intended to relieve suffering at the end of life when nothing else could. It has rapidly shifted. Private MAiD provider forums leaked by AP journalists- like Maria Cheng – have revealed cases where people qualified because of loneliness, lack of housing, or feelings of being a burden. When death is given because systems failed to offer support — that is not autonomy. That is abandonment.

Our book aims to expose these troubling patterns with clarity, evidence, and compassion. We highlight not only the stories and legal pathways, but also the ethical crossroads we now face as a society.

This is not an abstract debate. These are real people — people whose deaths were approved despite untreated mental illness, poverty, social isolation, or perhaps even the pressure of caregiver burnout.

We must ask ourselves, as the human rights commissioner of Canada also asked last year: Are we building a society where everyone’s life is seen as equally worth living? Or are we creating a system that quietly accepts some lives as more expendable?

We hope this book serves as a resource for those asking these hard questions — and a call to action for those in healthcare, law, policy, and beyond. Because at the end of the day, our task is not just to offer choices — it is to ensure those choices are grounded in dignity, support, and the belief that every person deserves to live a life of meaning, regardless of their challenges.

Thank you.

Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Kelsi Sheren: I'm done staying quiet.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kelsi Sheren

Kelsi Sheren has published excellent articles on euthanasia. Her current article is excellent but long. I am republishing key points from her current article. 

Kelsi begins her article by pointing out how the euthanasia lobby has challenged her:

Recently, a Substack article "attempted" to frame me as callous and indifferent towards individuals suffering from mental illness, selectively quoting me to serve their narrative from my episode on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster. I was bored with some time, so I figured take some time months after the pro death cult made a run at my character for the millionth time. Which I guess I should be thanking them for the views. More people now have had their minds changed and eyes opened to what MAiD really is. Eugenics.

Sheren comments on the misrepresentation of her statement: "OK, go kill yourself. If that’s what you want."

This quote, taken from a much longer conversation, was an expression of frustration toward a system that encourages DEATH AND SUICIDE rather than PREVENTS suicide. You've always had the right to go take your life, but my issue is more around the fact that there are people promoting death and telling us that dying is somehow healthcare. I've never uttered any endorsement or encouragement of suicide itself. The purpose of my advocacy has never been to diminish or disregard genuine suffering—it's specifically targeted against government-sanctioned pathways that normalize suicide instead of prioritizing robust and comprehensive mental health support. What I find so fascinating, is that pro death, pro killing organizations have the audacity to say I'm promoting suicide... have they looked in the mirror lately?

Sheren explains why she is standing against the death movement:

My entire platform is built upon genuine compassion, empathy, and the imperative to protect the most vulnerable among us from a system that increasingly promotes death as an easy solution and frankly the only solution to the world's stressors since expanding to Track 2 in 2021. I have been working to stop suicide in my community since 2015 when I started Brass & Unity.

As a 100% disabled combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI), my intimate understanding of REAL pain, suffering, trauma, and suicidal ideation is profoundly personal, so much so that my career was ended from what I had seen and done in war. Taking a life is nothing small and yet we are turning our healthcare providers into serial killers.

Sheren continues:

To suggest I would intentionally dismiss anyone's suffering or pain is fundamentally dishonest and deeply disrespectful to my lived experiences and struggles, but this is not a shock to see, knowing where it's coming from. The depth of my personal experience underscores my very serious commitment to advocating for life-affirming care that addresses the root causes of despair rather than treating individuals as expendable or as inconveniences to society. Personally all I see as of late is "healthcare practitioners" pushing death in numbers that deserve attention, question and scrutiny.

Sheren is committed to suicide prevention not assisted death:

My advocacy in suicide prevention has always been and will always prioritize compassionate, effective treatment and healing over expedient and cold bureaucratic approaches, especially because there are so many solutions that the pro death cult's refuse to acknowledge that exist. Death to them is always the answer, and that's just not true. But I will also be dead honest about the real feelings and depths. I will never sugarcoat any of what MAiD is to make other people feel better, Canadian's need a reality check.

Sheren then deals with the assertion that she is not willing to debate the issue:

None of this is compassion, none of this is acceptable and if you want to have the option to die, you can do that but in no way should it EVER be a form of "healthcare" the way its being slow dripped by the Canadian Government. Contrary to claims made by same critics that I avoid scrutiny or challenging discussions, my public record clearly demonstrates my consistent engagement with a wide range of perspectives and challenging forums, so to suggest I am unwilling to discuss the subject against people who don't agree is just not true, I just won't give any of the pro death cults a platform to convince more people they should die.

A few good examples of this is my detailed discussions with thought leaders like Jordan Peterson and appearances on a ton of other public platforms that pretty clearly show a willingness to confront and thoughtfully debate issues head-on. I enthusiastically welcome rigorous, good-faith debates that encourage constructive dialogue. However, I refuse to participate in orchestrated attempts to smear my character or discredit my legitimate concerns simply to silence meaningful dissent or avoid facing uncomfortable truths about MAiD policies. I've stood in front of real malevolence and I know what darkness looks like, I have no issue facing hard conversations or truths.

Sheren then explains how the euthanasia lobby acts in a predatory manner as they "target the vulnerable and then do everything they can to convince people that death is the solution for all of their problems." She then states how her involvement is leading to change.

These groups portrayal intentionally misrepresents my position entirely and of course they will continue to. We have made too much noise, we have caused people to change their minds and we have saved people from ending their lives prematurely. People are not a burden, people in all their forms are humans who deserve compassion and SUPPORT!

Sheren commits to being an even louder voice.

My advocacy remains the same and will only continue to get bigger and LOUDER. People are waking up to what these groups of humans do, manipulate and coerce others into death. We choose life, and light. We choose supporting genuinely vulnerable Canadians requires prioritizing compassionate, effective mental health care and genuine treatment options over bureaucratic expediency and the disturbing normalization of death as a solution. My mission is unequivocally focused on ensuring REAL dignity, safety, and compassion through affirming life—not facilitating death.

My dedication to exposing these people is just the beginning and I will take this on until we show everyone what this is really about. Despite any attempts to distort or undermine my message.

Sheren expects the death lobby to continue attacking her. She then writes:

It's just showing people who you (they) really are.

Some previous articles by Kelsi Sheren:

• Offered assisted death instead of surgery (Link)
• Dying with Deception. Exposing Dying With Dignity Canada's Dangerous Lies and teh United Nations call for Truth (Link).
• Debunking the ethical argument for assisted dying for minors (Link).
• Franchising Death (Link).
• Let's call MAiD what it is (Homicide) (Link)
• The Death Cult of the Euthanasia Lobby (Link).

Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK). Have the vulnerable become expendable?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sonia Sodha

Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist who wrote a challenging article that was published by the Guardian on April 13, 2025. Sodha asks if the rush to legalize assisted suicide has made the vulnerable expendable?

Sodha, explains how dangerous the proposed UK assisted suicide bill, that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP) is. The article begins by telling two stories of people who died by assisted suicide at a clinic in Switzerland:

Last month, ITV News reported on the case of 51-year-old Anne, who travelled to a Swiss assisted suicide clinic to end her own life after her only son died. The first her family knew of it was when they received the goodbye letters Anne had posted them from Switzerland. It follows another case from 2023, when 47-year-old Alastair Hamilton went to the same Swiss clinic after telling his mother he was going on holiday. He had been suffering from stomach problems but had no diagnosed illness.

Sodha explains that similar stories have been reported in Canada.  She then comments on the reality of what a six month terminal diagnosis means:

...That’s more subjective than it might sound: in Oregon, for example, doctors have interpreted terminal illness to include malnutrition from eating disorders, and the assisted dying bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, rejected amendments backed by eating disorder charities to prevent this happening here. Having learning difficulties or a mental illness, feeling depressed or suicidal, or alcohol misuse that might impair judgment would not preclude someone from seeking a medically assisted death. There would be no obligation on assisted suicide providers to notify families their relative is about to die, and no route for relatives to raise concerns about coercion.

Sodha explains what the Leadbeater bill will permit:

Do we really want to live in a society in which a depressed 19-year-old diagnosed with terminal cancer can kill himself with medical assistance, and his parents only find out afterwards? Or in which an older woman who is terminally ill can get an assisted death to avoid being a burden on her adult children, with no opportunity for them to tell her that caring for her would be an act of love rather than obligation? These circumstances would be entirely permissible under Leadbeater’s bill. They are the logical extension of treating medical assistance to kill oneself as healthcare, and as facilitating an adult’s right to make autonomous and private choices. 

Sodha is concerned with the speed in which the assisted suicide bill is being pushed. Leadbeater did delay the next debate on the bill by three weeks. Sodha outlines some of the dangerous flaws with the bill:

The judicial safeguard has been eliminated. Instead of judges signing off assisted deaths, this will fall to panels with no investigatory powers, no ability to summon witnesses or to hear evidence under oath, and no obligation to make inquiries beyond hearing from one doctor. External oversight of the system by the chief medical officer has been removed. The NHS can outsource assisted dying to for-profit companies. There is no proper regulatory regime nor any protection for hospices from being financially penalised for not providing assisted dying on their premises. Doctors can proactively suggest assisted dying to under-18s, who can qualify for it from their 18th birthday. These are just some of the problems with the bill. Little wonder that six Labour MPs have written to colleagues calling it “flawed and dangerous”.

Sodha asks how did the UK get here? She points out that some supporters of assisted suicide acknowledge that wrongful deaths will occur. She writes:

There are some intellectually honest proponents of assisted dying who acknowledge that people would suffer wrongful deaths if it were legalised. The brain surgeon Henry Marsh even said in 2017 “if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn’t that a price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?”. Grim, though upfront.

Sodha then points out that most of the assisted suicide supporters ignore the real concerns:

But I have watched open-mouthed as some MPs arguing for assisted dying have chosen to ignore what we know about safeguarding to pretend it’s possible to eliminate the risk of people being coerced into killing themselves, through something as cursory as a bit of training for doctors signing it off. Have they not read the same safeguarding reviews that I have, which make clear that even experienced social workers routinely miss cases of domestic abuse? Have they not digested the implications of NHS scandals, such as mid-Staffs, the maternity scandals, and the Tavistock’s clinic for gender-questioning children? Is it arrogance or ineptitude that makes them think they know better than the country’s leading experts on domestic abuse?

Sodha explains that assisted suicide supporters are not only ignoring concerns with the bill but they accuse opponents of the bill as "acting in bad faith". She writes:

They are perceived as bad folk using words like “risk” and “safeguarding” as a foil for some other irrational opposition to something that’s innately good.

Sodha suggests that many of the supporters of assisted suicide do so with a quasi-religious fervour.

Sodha challenges the British Labour government by stating:

It is an unserious, irresponsible way to make law that could lead to vulnerable or suicidal people being prescribed lethal drugs by the state. Labour seems yet to twig what a serious political problem this could be. Does it really want to be known as the party that failed to fix the NHS so that a parent with probably-terminal cancer could access decent end-of-life care, but instead made it possible for them to kill themselves with medical assistance when they were feeling suicidal?

Sodha completes her article by stating the fundamental point:

I don’t want to live in a society that sees people with complications and vulnerabilities as expendable in reducing the suffering of others. It really is as simple as that. And it distresses me immeasurably that there are MPs who cannot see this is precisely what this bill would achieve.

Previous articles about the UK assisted suicide bill:

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).

Book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was pleased to attend the launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada in Toronto on April 15. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the hopes of the editors of the book - that this book will change the Canadian debate.

Unravelling MAiD in Canada is a thorough 530 page book that features chapters by: Ramona Coelho, K. Sonu Gaind, Trudo Lemmens, Mary Shariff, Leonie Herx, Alexander Simpson, Roland Jones, Gabrielle Peters, Hon Graydon Nicholas, Isabel Grant, Derek Ross, Mark Sinyor, Ayal Schaffer, Catherine Ferrier.

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Unravelling MAiD in Canada was edited by:

• Dr. Ramona Coelho, family physician and Senior Fellow of domestic and health policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
• Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Professor, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and Chief of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook
• Dr. Trudo Lemmens, Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Unravelling MAiD in Canada has chapters that focus on: general medicine, psychiatry, palliative care, Canadian law, health policy, disability rights and ethics.

With the number of (MAiD) euthanasia deaths in Canada and how the law expanded in 2021 (Bill C-7), Unravelling MAiD in Canada is an important book for Canadians and other people in countries that are debating the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. 

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Netherlands D66 political party want euthanasia for dementia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands D66 political party that currently has 9 seats in the Dutch parliament are proposing to remove euthanasia from the criminal code in order to enable euthanasia of people with dementia. The Dutchnews.nl reported on April 16 that:

Opposition party D66 has drawn up draft legislation to remove euthanasia from the criminal code in a move to make it less difficult for doctors to help people with dementia to die at their request.

The Dutchnews.nl article reported that the:

D66 leader Rob Jetten said doctors are “afraid of the consequences” and that a new law would “provide more cover for doctors if they agree to perform euthanasia on people with dementia.”

The D66 want the Netherlands to completely decriminalizes euthanasia, so that  doctors who are willing to kill people who are incompetent and living with dementia could do so. The NL Times reported on April 16 that:

Doctors are allowed to grant the requests of people suffering from dementia, but if the illness is advanced, then the thinking ability and capacity to make decisions are limited. This leads to doctors struggling with the requests as the suffering cannot be exactly determined, and an earlier request for euthanasia cannot be re-confirmed.

The Dutchnews.nl reported that ChristenUnie MP Mirjam Bikker responded to the D66 proposal by stating:

“D66 keeps moving the goalposts for euthanasia. What used to be an exception is becoming the norm. Vulnerable life deserves care and protection. Let’s put more effort into that instead of a new push towards death,”

On March 26, 2025 I published an article concerning the 2024 Dutch euthanasia report. I based my article on the report by Bruno Waterfield that was published in The Times on March 24 which stated that there were 9958 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024 in the Netherlands which was up by 10% from 9068 in 2023.

Waterfield also reported that in 2024 there were 219 psychiatric euthanasia deaths which was up from 138 in 2023 and 115 in 2022. 

When euthanasia was first legalized it was based on providing euthanasia for competent adults who were freely capable of consenting. 

People with dementia are not competent adults who are capable of consenting. 

If euthanasia for dementia is accepted, then euthanasia for people with cognitive disabilities will be next.

German doctor charged with 15 murders between 2021 and 2024.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A palliative care doctor in Berlin has been charged with 15 murders of patients who died between September 2021 and July 2024. The doctor was originally charged with 4 murders in August 2024 but investigators have uncovered other deaths. More exhumations on potential victims have been planned.

According to the article by Emily Atkinson that was published by the BBC on April 16, 2025:

A German palliative care doctor has been charged with murdering 15 of his patients using a cocktail of lethal drugs.

Prosecutors in Berlin have accused the 40-year-old of setting fire to the homes of some of his suspected victims to cover his tracks.

He allegedly killed 12 women and three men between September 2021 and July 2024, though prosecutors have said they believe that total could rise.

The doctor, who has not been named due to strict privacy laws in Germany, has not admitted to the charges, prosecutors said.

The article by Atkinson continued:

He is accused of administering an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant to his patients without their knowledge or consent.

The relaxant "paralysed the respiratory muscles, leading to respiratory arrest and death within minutes", the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

He worked in several German states, and the ages of those whose deaths are being treated as suspicious range from 25 to 94.

Notice how the deaths are described as:

administering an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant, relaxant "paralysed the respiratory muscles, leading to respiratory arrest

Based on the way he killed, the physician likely received training from a euthanasia group.

The euthanasia lobby will claim that legalizing euthanasia prevents medical murders because euthanasia is an option and it is regulated.

In 2019, Niels Högel, a nurse in Oldenburg, Germany, was convicted of murdering 85 patients from 2000 to 2005, and investigators suspect the true number of victims is far higher. Mr. Högel was found to have administered drug overdoses that caused cardiac arrest so that he could revive the patients and be celebrated as a hero.

Cases of medical practitioners intentionally killing patients is not uncommon. Medical practitioners who have been convicted of murdering patients, include: Dr. Harold Shipman, Charles Cullen, Dr Virginia Soares de Souza, Aino Nykopp-Koski and Dr. Michael Swango.

Professor Christopher Lyon, who teaches at the University of York (UK) published a research paper on August 2, 2024 stating that Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law enables healthcare serial killers (HSK).

It is not safe to give doctors, or others, the right in law to cause the death of others.

When a nation legalizes euthanasia, it gives medical professionals, who were already killing their patients, the legal right to proceed.

Euthanasia becomes the perfect cover-up for medical murder.

Study: Suicide risk increases with loneliness and depression.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on March 26, 2025 looked at 3,764,279 Korean adults who are living alone. The study found that depression or anxiety was associated with a significantly higher risk of suicide, particularly among middle-aged individuals (aged 40 to 64 years) and men.

This is significant since people who live alone with depression or anxiety are also more likely to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Canada's Fifth Annual MAiD Report found that there were 15,343 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2023 with 4.1% of these deaths being (Track 2) people who did not have a terminal condition. For those who had a terminal condition (Track 1) 21.1% listed isolation and loneliness as a reason for their suffering and for those who did not have a terminal condition (Track 2) 47.1% listed isolation and loneliness as a reason for their suffering. (Figure 3.6a)

The Korean study found:

In this national cohort study of 3 764 279 individuals, we examined the association between living arrangements, depression, anxiety, and suicide risk. Our study yielded 3 primary findings: (1) individuals with depression or anxiety living alone were associated with an increased risk of suicide, (2) the highest risk was observed in individuals living alone with both depression and anxiety, and (3) males and individuals aged 40 to 64 years living alone with depression or anxiety faced the highest suicide risk. These findings remained consistent after adjustments for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors, as well as across different follow-up periods, highlighting the combined association of living arrangements and mental health conditions with suicide risk.

In Canada, The National Institute on Aging (NIR) released a report on December 5, 2023 titled: Understanding the Factors Driving the Epidemic of Social Isolation and Loneliness among Older Canadians.

Based on the Canadian data almost 3,400 Canadians who died by euthanasia in 2023 listed loneliness and isolation as a reason for their suffering. I have stated in the past that the data on loneliness and isolation, in the euthanasia report, is low, since many people who are living with difficult health conditions will list other concerns, even when loneliness and isolation are prime reasons for their request.

When comparing the Canadian data to Canada's euthanasia data, at that time, I stated:

Loneliness and isolation are key issues for people who are considering death by euthanasia. When I have discussed the reasons with someone who is considering euthanasia or has already been approved for euthanasia, the discussion most often is about feelings of loneliness, isolation, depression or feelings of hopelessness.

More articles concerning loneliness:

• 41% of older Canadians experience loneliness (Link).
• Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life (Link). 
• Loneliness as a root cause for symptom distress among older adults (Link). 
• A wish to die is most often linked to loneliness and depression (Link). 
• Study uncovers euthanasia deaths based on loneliness in the Netherlands (Link).
  

Peter Singer endorses elder suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on April 14, 2025

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

Peter Singer, the internationally influential emeritus bioethics professor from Princeton, is known as a moral philosopher — which in his case is an oxymoron. Not only has he repeatedly endorsed the moral propriety of infanticide, but he has also yawned at bestiality and suggested experimenting on cognitively disabled people rather than animals if they are not “persons,” among other ethically depraved opinions.

Singer and another philosophy professor — Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek — just took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to endorse geriatric suicide. It seems a noted 90-year-old psychologist named Daniel Kahneman committed assisted suicide last year at one of Switzerland’s death clinics. Kahneman wasn’t seriously ill or debilitated but feared the infirmities that he believed were coming, so off to Switzerland he flew. Singer and Lazari0-Radek heartily approve.

Peter Singer

Before Kahneman killed himself — and knowing what he planned — Singer and Lazari-Radek interviewed him on their podcast. At his request, the interview did not discuss the looming suicide — Kahneman died just a few days later. But Singer and Lazari-Radek noticed he wasn’t seriously ill or debilitated. From “There’s a Lesson to Learn from Daniel Kahneman’s Death:”

Despite his advanced age, he was still capable of research and writing and could still enlighten audiences on how to make better decisions. Apart from his intellectual gifts, he was healthy enough to participate in friendship and family life. Why did none of this give him sufficient reason to continue to live?

Do you see the problem with that attitude? Do the philosophers not understand how bigoted and anti-intrinsic dignity of life their relativistic assumptions are about when a life is worth continuing? It is as if one must earn the privilege of remaining alive and is very close in substance to the geriatric disdain expressed by the bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel when he wrote in The Atlantic that he wanted to die at age 75 because “living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining.”

No matter. Singer and Lazari-Radek think that being made dead when one wants to die is “dignity:”

Professor Kahneman signaled concern that if he did not end his life when he was clearly mentally competent, he could lose control over the remainder of it and live and die with needless “miseries and indignities.” One lesson to learn from his death is that if we are to live well to the end, we need to be able to freely discuss when a life is complete, without shame or taboo. Such a discussion may help people to know what they really want. We may regret their decisions, but we should respect their choices and allow them to end their lives with dignity.

Of course, it is important to talk freely about wanting to commit suicide. Indeed, anyone in that situation should — so they can be helped with unequivocal suicide prevention and other interventions. Besides, sometimes “shame,” “taboo,” and worry about stigma can save lives if they prevent people from doing the deadly deed.

And get this. At the bottom of the column, the Times added this addendum:

If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.

What a sick joke. One way to help suicidal people continue living is to not publish pro-suicide opinion pieces!

Sometimes really loving someone means unequivocally supporting them in living — not in suicide — even when they can’t see a way forward themselves. But that is not the “lesson” taught by Singer and Lazari-Radek’s column. Rather, their opinions — and its publishing by one of the world’s most influential newspapers — promote the West’s devolution into a pro-suicide culture. The victims of such a nihilistic mindset will be the elderly, people with disabilities, the mentally ill, and the seriously sick in an ever-widening swath of premature deaths.

Conservatives pledge to not expand Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

At a Ottawa campaign event on April 12, Pierre Poilievre, stated that, if elected, a Conservative government would not expand eligibility for (MAiD) euthanasia, but pledged that Canadians would continue to have access to MAiD.

The Globe and Mail report on April 12 emphasized that Poilievre will not expand euthanasia, in March 2027, to include people with mental illness alone.

Krista Carr

An article by Stephanie Taylor that was published in the National Post on April 12, interviewed Krista Carr, the CEO of Inclusion Canada. Taylor wrote:

Krista Carr ... welcomes Poilievre’s commitment not to expand assisted dying any further, she hopes he means that Canadians who are terminally ill would continue to have access, not those whose deaths are not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.”

She wants all federal parties, including the Conservatives, which Carr noted fought against widening access when the bill was before Parliament, to change the law to return the eligibility criteria to require that someone be determined to be close to death to qualify for an assisted death.

The current law is “very discriminatory” towards the disabilities community, she said.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes all euthanasia deaths, but we recognize that stopping the expansion of euthanasia is necessary.

On April 1, 2025 I published an article titled: Elections have consequences. Vote for candidates that will oppose further expansions to euthanasia.

This is an important election for Canadians who oppose killing people.

Canada's euthanasia law has continually expanded. Canada's 2023 euthanasia report stated that there were 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths representing 4.7% of all deaths.

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario released a report from the Ontario MAiD Death review Committee indicating that there were at least 428 non-compliant Ontario euthanasia deaths from 2018 to 2023.

Canada's federal government has scheduled to allow euthanasia for mental illness (alone) beginning on March 17, 2027. A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) that was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 called for an expansion of euthanasia to include children "mature minors" and patients with mental illnesses and that patients with dementia be permitted to make advance requests for euthanasia.

On March 21, 2025 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee report urged Canada's federal government to:

• Repeal Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including the 2027 commencement of Track 2 MAiD for persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness”;
•  Not support proposals for the expansion of MAiD to include “mature minors” and through advance requests;

Before you vote remember that elections have consequences.

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide are about killing people.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I received a message asking me:

Do you oppose a peaceful end to life?

The message assumed that I lack compassion by stating:

You'd rather see your loved one suffer in unimaginable pain and agony, by blocking their decision for a peaceful exit?

The message ended by expressing his pain:

I just hope that you never have to experience a loved one suffering as I have.

Yes, I oppose killing people and I don't want people to suffer. 

The death lobby creates a false dichotomy. They want you to believe that there are two choices, to suffer to death or be killed.

Medicine has the ability to relieve pain and symptoms without killing people. We urge the medical system to make the relief of suffering a priority. (Article Link).

It is easier to attack me for being opposed to killing people than it is to challenge the medical system for not providing effective pain and symptom relief. Nonetheless:

• Yes, the improvement of good end-of-life care is a necessity, but
• Yes, euthanasia is discriminatory towards people with disabilities,
• Yes, euthanasia is the abandonment of people in need, and more.

There is need for better end-of-life care but there are also people, who die by euthanasia, while on a waiting list to receive treatment. (Link). Improving medical care is significant.

Legalizing euthanasia has greater societal effects.

Legalizing euthanasia effects attitudes towards people with disabilities, elderly frail people and people living with chronic conditions. (Links to Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4)

As much as I oppose killing people, it is also not safe to give medical practitioner the right in law to kill their patients.

When a person asks a medical practitioner to end their life, that person may or may not be living with a terminal condition. But if the medical practitioner agrees to euthanasia, the doctor is actually saying that he/she agrees that your life is not worth living.

The doctor is also saying you are not worth treating, you are not worth providing excellent pain and symptom management for, you are not worth the time and effort to care for you.

They say it is about choice, but really it is about abandonment.

Why are people asking to be killed?

Most people who ask to be killed are living with a difficult physical and/or psychological condition. They often: 

• feel alone and are lonely,
• fear possible future pain and symptoms, 
• fear being a burden on others,
• feel that their life has lost meaning or value,
• feel that they are better off dead.

Legalizing euthanasia has given medical practitioners the right in law to kill people rather than care for people, in their time of need. Euthanasia is not about freedom, choice or autonomy rather it is about abandoning people in their time of need.

There are a lot of valid reasons to oppose euthanasia that are not included in this article, but it primarily comes down to opposing the killing of people.

Britain and Scotland will vote on assisted suicide bills in May

The Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK sent an update urging supporters to contact elected representatives in (London UK) and in Scotland, to oppose the assisted suicide bills. The message stated:

Dear Friends:

We learned this week that the Leadbeater Bill’s Report Stage will now commence on Friday 16 May, a delay of several weeks, while the Scottish Daily Express reported today that ‘a vote on the private member's Bill from Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur is expected in the first two weeks of next month, and it must take place before May 23.’

In these next few weeks, we all have an opportunity to influence politicians as they weigh up the risks posed by these bills, and while it’s easy to be cynical, a great many are giving this serious and sincere thought. As SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said today:

‘I started looking at it and instinctively, I was in favour of it. I saw my mother die of cancer and all that she went through… But I’m not making decisions just for my mother, I’m not making it just for me, I’m making decisions for huge sectors of society and that’s why I hope that everybody will look into the matter really carefully and consider all these constituent groups too.’

Care NOT Killing urges their supporters to contact elected representatives. The letter continues:

It was reassuring to hear that Health Secretary Wes Streeting will once again vote against the Leadbeater Bill. Remember, he voted FOR a similar bill in 2015 — parliamentarians can and do change position in light of the evidence.

If the law did change, how would legalised assisted suicide sit alongside existing healthcare concerns? It was reported this week that:

‘Hospitals will receive an “incentive payment” for each patient they remove [from their waiting lists], and a payment cap of 5% of a trust’s waiting list is being scrapped, according to documents seen by the Guardian. It means there is no limit to the payments NHS trusts could receive for taking patients off their lists… The strategy is likely to raise concerns among patient charities that some people may be wrongly removed.’

The letter continues with Professor Kevin Yuill of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia commented:

‘Nothing bad could possibly come of [the Leadbeater Bill’s] provisions that doctors can bring the topic [of assisted suicide] up and that it will be outsourced to for-profit companies. Everything is fine!’

The letter then looks at what is happening in Canada:

Ultimately, what could healthcare look like a few years after legalisation, when the law has already been extended and people have become desensitised? Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of Ontario (Canada)’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC), pointed this week to this story:

‘Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, [who had] initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.’

‘If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.’

They conclude their letter with a statement from former Peterborough MP Lord Jackson has written this week:

‘Vulnerable people across the UK require MPs to survey the horizon, assess the risks and legislate for the weakest. The Bill process so far has proven us to be inept in this. We must do better. Kim Leadbeater must do better. Objectively, this Bill deserves to fail.’

More articles on the topic: 

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).