Law professor urges Delaware Governor to veto the assisted sucide bill.

Letter from law professor, Stephen Mikochik urging Delaware Governor Meyer to veto assisted suicide bill HB 140, “The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law.”

Stephen Mikochik

Dear Gov. Meyer:

I am a professor emeritus of Constitutional Law at Temple Law School in Philadelphia and a senior lecturer in Jurisprudence at Ave Maria Law School in Naples, Florida. I have reviewed numerous state proposals to legalize physician-assisted suicide. House Bill 140 would authorize that practice in Delaware.

I urge you not to sign H.B. 140. The bill threatens vulnerable patients, is not needed to mitigate pain at the end of life and creates a right that all competent persons who wish to end their lives for whatever reason will demand.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution;[1] and nowhere has the Supreme Court of Delaware held it protected under the State Constitution. Therefore, the question of whether to legalize assisted suicide is one of policy in Delaware; and the balance clearly weighs in favor of rejecting it.

On the one hand, a chief reason for rejecting assisted suicide is the protection of vulnerable patients from abuse. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

We have recognized … the real risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life situations. … The risk of harm is greatest for the many individuals in our society whose autonomy and well-being are already compromised by poverty, lack of access to good medical care, advanced age, or membership in a stigmatized social group. … The State’s interest here goes beyond protecting the vulnerable from coercion; it extends to protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and societal indifference. The State’s assisted-suicide ban reflects and reinforces its policy that the lives of terminally ill, disabled, and elderly people must be no less valued than the lives of the young and healthy and that a seriously disabled person’s suicidal impulses should be interpreted and treated the same way as anyone else’s.[2]

As shown in the attached letter to Sen. Sokola, H.B. 140 provides only phantom safeguards for vulnerable patients.

It is argued on the other hand that assisted suicide is needed to mitigate physical pain at the end of life. Most terminal patients, however, die peacefully; palliative care can control the pain of those who do not; and sedation is available if that care proves ineffective. Irremediable pain is not a major concern terminal patients express for seeking assisted suicide and is not a qualifying condition in H.B. 140 or nearly all other assisted suicide measures. Thus, it is not a factor that should tip the balance in favor of legalization.

It is further argued that H.B. 140 is needed to mitigate distress at the end of life. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed, however, many patients who request assistance in suicide withdraw that request when their depression is treated.[3] Depression, of course, affects others who have no terminal condition; but that only strengthens their claim for access to assistance in suicide since they may face distress, not  for months, but for a life-time.

Finally, it is argued that assisted suicide protects the dignity of terminal patients by respecting their choice. Yet, the threat to dignity is death itself; choosing death by poison over death by cancer is a feeble capitulation to that threat. To recast that choice as the right to act on one’s deepest beliefs on the meaning of life would make “the right to suicide and the right to assistance in suicide … the prerogative of at least every sane adult[:]”[4]

The depressed twenty-one year old, the romantically-devastated twenty-eight year old, the alcoholic forty- year old who choose suicide are also expressing their views … [on] existence, meaning, the universe, and life; they are also asserting their personal liberty.[5]

The State may act gradually to avoid the free-fall that Canada has faced; it may make exceptions for those whose family obligations would fall upon it if they died; but, once suicide is legalized for terminal patients, expansion is inevitable: How could the State distinguish among persons’ beliefs about the meaning of their lives?

You alone can sign H.B. 140 into law. You thus have the awful power to choose between life and death. I urge you not to sign it, and choose life.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen L. Mikochik

---

[1] See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

[2] Id. at 731-732 (citations & internal quotation marks omitted).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 49 F. 3d 586, 591 (9^th Cir. 1995), reversed en banc by 79 F.3d 790 (9^th Cir. 1996), reversed by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 721.

[5] Id. at 590-591.

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).