Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a form of 'medical homicide' not medical assistance in dying.

Gordon Friesen

Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Why euthanasia and assisted suicide are properly spoken of as ‘medical homicide’ , not ‘medical assistance in dying’

It is a great advantage to use the plain language of common speech. For simple words, themselves, enable us to clarify our thoughts, and to communicate those thoughts effectively to others.

One obstacle, for example, to building a unified worldwide campaign in opposition to medical homicide, springs from a misunderstanding of the essential unity between ‘euthanasia’ and ‘physician assisted suicide’. In the US, in particular, medical homicide promoters routinely claim that foreign experience with ‘euthanasia’ does not matter, because they are only trying to install ‘assisted suicide’.

Indeed, this distinction makes intuitive sense to us, because we see a real difference between ordinary ‘suicide’ (where people kill themselves), and ‘homicide’ (where they are killed by others). However, to think in this way is to misunderstand what it means for suicide and homicide to be treated as truly ‘medical’ acts. For when coherently observed from a medical perspective, there is actually no fundamental difference between them.

Medicine is an art, which is practiced according to well established rules. First the doctor makes a diagnosis. Then he (or she) will propose clinically indicated treatment. And so it is --that although all patients are free to make whatever demands or suggestions they may desire-- real choices are always limited to those measures which are actually endorsed by their physicians.

Beyond any ambiguity, therefore: physicians (not patients) bear full responsibility for any treatment proposed, prescribed or provided.

Furthermore (and again from a strictly medical perspective) it is irrelevant whether physician prescribed, pharmaceutical remedies are administered orally, or by injection. The doctor is equally responsible for both.

Hence, although administration methods may differ, the poisons necessary for medical homicide are always administered under doctor authority. And thus, when American promoters of medical homicide make a great show of limiting their legislative proposals to ‘self-ingestion’ only, the implied assertion --that patients are autonomously killing themselves (as opposed to being killed by their doctors)-- is simply unjustified. From a medical viewpoint: it is definitely doctors killing their patients, in all cases.

But these facts can only be easily conveyed when we use proper vocabulary.

To speak rationally about our subject, at all, we must always have the courage to plainly speak of ‘killing’ (not ‘assistance in dying’). However, even the term ‘killing’ is not specific enough.

‘Homicide’ is the only word in the English language which uniquely denotes the taking of human life (whether that homicide be considered culpable or non-culpable). Building from that base, the phrase 'medical homicide’, precisely denotes the killing of any person, in any fashion, for medical purposes. It is not pejorative. It is accurate. And as we have seen, it may correctly be used to denote both medically assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Unfortunately, however, just as clear thinking is enabled by clear language: vague language breeds confusion. The clarity achieved above is only possible when we honestly look at the meaning of those plain words ‘suicide’ and ‘homicide’ and then see how they are modified by adding the crucial term ‘medical’.

Most mischievously, this crucial question (of who is killing who) can never be elucidated using the artificial vocabulary of conventional debate, because politically imposed euphemisms like ‘medical aid in dying’ are designed to avoid any reference to ‘killing’ at all; and with a simple wave of that magic linguistic wand, both ‘suicide’ and ‘homicide’ are deemed to disappear.

It is under the banner of this misleading vocabulary that death friendly physicians are now busily normalizing their macabre practice --one way or another-- through the standard professional sequence of diagnosis, proposal and prescription. And in the meantime (with a complete, and oblivious contempt for truth), the promoters of new legislation continue to propose both euthanasia and assisted suicide as ‘medical aid in dying’ , but they still rely upon public gullibility to pretend that the two are completely different.

‘Medical homicide’, I believe, is the term perfectly adapted to dispel these myths, and thus, the perfect term to sustain a meaningful, unified and stable conversation, across borders, and over time.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal, August 21, 2026

British Medical Association Requires Doctors to Help Patients Commit Suicide by Dehyrdration.

This article was published by National Review online on August 19, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

The subtitle of the revised and updated version of my book criticizing utilitarian bioethics, Culture of Death, is, “The Age of ‘Do Harm’ Medicine.” Helping patients kill themselves by self-starvation and dehydration — known in euthanasia parlance as VSED (for voluntary stopping eating and drinking) — certainly fits that designation.

Two major medical associations now have endorsed doctors assisting in such suicides by palliating the painful symptoms to help patients go all the way to death. The first was the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) in 2023. This is especially notable because the organization shamefully went “neutral” on the legalization of assisted suicide, despite that action being the antithesis of the hospice philosophy enunciated by the great medical humanitarian Dame Cecily Saunders. The AAHPM’s journal also published a piece recently endorsing intentionally undernourishing dementia patients under certain conditions (MCF, or “minimal comfort feeding”) — VSED in slow motion, if you will.

Now, another “do harm” shoe has dropped. The British Medical Association has issued an ethical guidance that requires practitioners to participate in VSED when asked to do so by a patient. While the AAHPM guidance assumes that the act will only be done by terminally ill or seriously ill or disabled patients, the BMA guidance notably acknowledges that even those not in ill health can kill themselves in this slow manner — and that doctors must further the suicide palliatively. From the guidance (my emphasis):

We start from a position of understanding that: – patients with capacity are entitled to make decisions about treatment refusals and about their nutrition and hydration, including to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten their death;– there is no requirement in the law that a patient needs to be ill or at the end of life to decide to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten their death.

All doctors so requested are expected by the BMA to participate in VSED by assessing patients and easing symptoms; indeed, the guidance asserts that it is an ethical duty for doctors to be complicit in such suicides:

When an adult patient has made the decision to elect to VSED, the doctor’s initial responsibility is to assess the patient to check that: (1) the patient has the capacity to make the decision; (2) the patient’s decision is not a symptom of a mental disorder; and (3) the patient’s decision is being made free from coercion.

If the three criteria above are fulfilled, doctors have a professional duty to provide palliative care and symptom relief to their patient. The doctor’s role is not to consider whether the patient’s decision is rational, reasonable, or sensible. It is not for doctors to decide whether the patient should be permitted to end their life in this way. [Emphasis added.]

It’s one thing to say doctors can’t stop a suicidal patient from self-starvation — although one would think that suicide prevention would be on the table of which there is no mention in the guidance. But it is quite another to require doctors’ participation in such suicides.

A stunted conscientious objection clause is endorsed, but it is an essentially meaningless protection, with complicity in the preparation process still required.

Doctors cannot exercise a conscientious objection to seeing or having an initial consultation with their patient. However, some doctors may wish to exercise a conscientious objection to carrying out the detailed assessments (see section 3) and/or providing symptom relief, such as analgesics or palliative sedation (see section 4). Doctors exercising a conscientious objection must follow professional guidance and ensure that there is someone else available to take over the detailed assessments and the patient’s care without delay or detriment to the patient. This means that, with the patient’s consent, doctors must pass on their assessment and care to another doctor who is willing to provide that support. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, forced procurement of another doctor who is willing to help the patient commit suicide. And if the patient says no or another doctor can’t be found? It would seem that the original physician would have no choice but to provide whatever support is required to get the patient dead.

Suicide nihilism is exerting an ever-stronger gravitational pull in the West, with doctors increasingly expected to wield their expertise as so many death order-takers. The AAHPM’s and BMA’s blessing of physician participation in VSED deepens that darkness and strengthens the culture of death.

California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data.

Alex Schadenberg

The California assisted suicide report does not prove that all assisted suicide deaths are voluntary or self-administered.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2025 California assisted suicide report that was released in July 2026 indicates that there were 1235 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which was up by 11% from 1113 in 2024.

The assisted suicide death reporting problems are getting worse in California.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and stated that there were 1113 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. That is a increase of 81 deaths. 

 

Based on the reporting problems in the 2024 report, I predicted, last year, that there were likely 1100 assisted suicide deaths in 2024, but the real number is worse (1113) and in fact there were likely many more.

Let's look at the shoddy 2023 California assisted suicide data.

The 2023 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 884 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was bad enough, but the 2024 California assisted suicide report updated the 2023 data and reported 969 assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was a difference of 85 assisted suicide deaths representing an approxmate 9% difference.

But it doesn't stop there. The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that there were 983 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That means two years after publishing the 2023 report the California Department of Health found 14 more 2023 assisted suicide deaths or 99 more deaths since 2023.

Now let's look at the shoddy 2022 data.

The 2022 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 853 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2023 report updated the 2022 report and stated that there were 890 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 896 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. But even worse, the 2025 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 899 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022.

I think there are reasons why the California assisted suicide reports are so flawed.

The data indicates that there are a huge number of people who received the lethal poison prescriptions that were unaccounted for in the previous reports.

The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that 1839 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1710 in 2024 and 1418 in 2023.

But the 2024 report indicates that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1409 in 2023 and 1332 in 2022.

That means that the 2024 report did not account for 119 poison prescriptions that the 2025 report uncovered from 2024, even though the assisted suicide report is published more than 6 months after the year end. 

What is even worse is that the 2025 report indicated that there were 1418 poison prescriptions in 2023 even though the 2024 report indicated that there were 1409.

How did the California Department of Health stumble on 9 more assisted suicide prescriptions and possible deaths two years after they happened?

But there is more.

 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1839 poison prescriptions written, 1159 people died from those poison prescriptions, 76 people died from poison prescriptions from previous years, 300 people died from natural causes and 380 people received the poison prescription but their ingestion status is unknown.

How many of the 380 people who received a poison prescription in 2025 and whose ingestion status is unknown actually died by assisted suicide?

The California Department of Health has no idea if these 380 people died, and if they died did they die by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.

This problem is not new. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that 388 people who received the poison prescription in 2024, their ingestion status was unknown. Many of the 388 show up as assisted suicide deaths in 2025 but the majority of them remain unknown. Did they also die by assisted suicide?

Here is what you need to know.

Based on the California Department of Health assisted suicide reporting problems, there were likely at least 1350 California assisted suicide deaths in 2025 and close to 2000 poison prescriptions written in 2025.

It is also likely that there are unreported assisted suicide deaths in California and further to that the problem with the assisted suicide reports continues.

 

Why are the reporting problems important?

 

The media will suggest that there was only an 11% increase in assisted suicide deaths in California with 1113 in 2024 and 1235 in 2025. 

 

But based on the reporting problems there were likely at least 1350 assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which is greater than a 21% increase.

 

Further to that, a large percentage of people who receive the poison prescription, the California Department of Health has no idea if they died by assisted suicide or died a natural death. There could be another large group of Californians who died by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.  

Further to that, there is no proof in the California assisted suicide reports that all of the assisted suicide deaths were voluntary or self-administered.

I would suggest that a doctoral student could earn a doctorate by doing a deep dive into the real assisted suicide data in California. 

 

In the next few days I will provide a deeper dive into the California 2025 report. 

Free online film screening of Prescription Poison on August 27.

Register for the free online screening of Prescription Poison: Averting Assisted Suicide in America 

Thursday, August 27 at: 2 pm (Eastern Time) / 11 am (Pacific Time).

The Prescription Poison film is produced by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films.  

Topic: Prescription Poison - Averting Assisted Suicide in America

Thursday Aug 27, 2026 2 PM Eastern Time/11 am Pacific 

Time. Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link). 

Prescription Poison is 43 minutes and will be followed by a discussion.

Prescription Poison is ground-breaking documentary exposing the expansion of assisted suicide in America.

Prescription Poison seeks to awaken America to the growth of assisted suicide and is a warning to Americans that, unless stopped, the Canadian system of killing will become a reality in America.

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US (download) or $15 DVD at: Prescriptionpoison.com

Watch the Prescription Poison Trailer:

Topic: Prescription Poison - Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

Thursday, Aug 27, 2026 2 pm Eastern Time/11 am Pacific Time.

Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link).

Support Alex's half-marathon fundraising run by donating to CCC and/or EPC

Alex Schadenberg and Marcel Lemmen are running a half-marathon on September 27, 2026 to raise money for the Compassionate Community Charity (CCC) and/or the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

This is the seventh consecutive year that Alex and Marcel are running the half-marathon fund-raiser for CCC and EPC.

The total money raised for CCC from the previous 6 half-marathon runs combined has been almost $90,000. 

Donations from the half-marathon (21.1 km) run are very much appreciated. 

 

The Compassionate Community Care (CCC) charity operates a help-line, a training program for visiting seniors, an advocacy training program and a calling service for lonely seniors.

Charitable donations can be made to Compassionate Community Care at: (Donation Link).

 

You may also consider donating to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

 
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition informs, educates, and supports opposition to killing by euthanasia and assisted suicide and endorses proper care for people in need.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, which is not a charity, at: (Donation Link).

Family files euthanasia (MAiD) complaint to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brigitte with her grand daughter.

On July 22, 2026 I contacted Brigitte Stegemann's family and received permission to republish the facebook posting concerning the death of Brigitte.

Kelsi Sheren has confirmed that Brigitte was killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on questionable competency and consent by Dr Catherine Louise Koester.

There were several issues that should be considered infractions of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Sheren reported on August 17 that family has filed a complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario in the death of their grand-mother.

Sheren outlined the complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario:

Brigitte — GG’s granddaughter, namesake, twelve-year caregiver, Power of Attorney for personal care — has formally requested an investigation by the MAiD Death Review Team into the death of July 10 at The Pearl in Cannifton, Ontario, licensed to Pearl Care Homes Inc. and formerly E.J. McQuigge Lodge.

These are their reasons, below, along with the original email.

Capacity. Documented cognitive disorientation during the assessment, in which GG could not recall basic facts about her own family. You read what that looked like: the second-youngest of fourteen children telling the assessing physician she had no siblings, then breaking down in confusion, while her family corrected the majority of her answers out loud.

The Power of Attorney, bypassed. Staff initiated private MAiD discussions and completed and witnessed the application paperwork in secret, while the advocate was out of the country for ten days.

No final express consent. The procedure went ahead on the morning of July 10 while GG stayed completely silent and never gave the verbal confirmation the family had been promised, strictly and repeatedly, would be required.

They are asking the Chief Coroner to examine the attending clinician’s compliance, and the conduct of the home’s staff, under the Coroners Act and the Criminal Code.

Kelsi Sheren further explains what the complaint concerns:

Now put the three allegations against that MAID narrative. A capacity finding on a woman who couldn’t name her siblings. Paperwork the home’s manager filled out herself. A death that proceeded through silence.

The death certificate and its stated cause. Both eligibility assessments the law requires, and the identity of whoever performed the second one. The signed request, its date, its witness. The full medication administration record and any waiver of final consent, which remains the whole case: either the procedure went ahead without the express consent the law demands, or a waiver exists that nobody mentioned to the family, including while assuring them of the safeguard it would have cancelled.

This case will determine if Ontario's death system has any oversight. Sheren states:

The granddaughter asked the home for the records. She was refused, repeatedly.

GG told the people offering her death that her faith said no. Nine weeks later she had an appointment. When the last safeguard came she met it with silence, and the family who’d been promised silence would stop it watched it not stop.

Her granddaughter has now done every single thing this system asks of a family that believes something went wrong. Kept the records. Built the timeline. Filed with the coroner. Named the doctor.

What happens next isn’t a test of this family. It’s a test of whether Canadian oversight of assisted death can do anything at all when someone walks in with a timeline, a Power of Attorney, and a name.

Kelsi Sheren contacted Dr Catherine Louise Koester and The Pearl for their response and has received no response. 

If your family has experienced a MAiD death you believe was non-compliant or coerced, in Canada or elsewhere, contact me confidentially at coaching@kelsisheren.com. Anonymity is guaranteed unless you choose otherwise, and nothing you share is published without your consent.

Links to the articles on the death of Brigitte (GG) Stegemann

• The family filed. Here's the name. Dr. Kate Koester (Link).
• The last ten days of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann (Link).
• Our Families Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying (Link).

Disability groups: Open letter opposing assisted suicide

To Prime Minister Andy Burnham and MPs 
(Link to the Open Letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham)

We are writing to call for a halt to the legislative process around assisted dying until disabled and terminally ill people have as much support to live as this bill would provide for us to die.

We are a group of disabled and terminally ill people who agree that the status quo cannot continue. But we believe that the only safe way to reduce suffering at the end of life is to reform the social and palliative care systems before any move is made towards a programme of assisted suicide.

Throughout history, disabled people’s lives have been consistently devalued, and we still experience this in the present on a daily basis. We are constantly fed the narrative that we are burdens, benefit scroungers and that it’s better to be dead than disabled. Not only do some of us internalise these messages, so do many of the people we encounter or rely on for support. Many disabled people have been made to consider suicide — not by the impact of our conditions, but the social context we live in.

Before we can talk about choosing to die, we need real autonomy over how we live our lives. At the moment, sick and disabled people, including terminally ill people, are denied choice over the most basic of things: our ability to get out of bed, wash, eat, leave our houses or manage our pain. This creates a coercive environment where people will choose an earlier death simply because they are being failed by society. Put simply, introducing assisted dying in these circumstances will put sick and disabled people’s lives at risk.

The prime minister is right: we must reform the care system before this bill can be considered and disabled people must be included in the conversation.

We are calling for you to vote No on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and then work with disabled people and our organisations to: Fully fund palliative care to ensure comprehensive and compassionate care is available to everyone who needs it, ensuring no one feels pressured to end their lives simply because they are not receiving the medical help they deserve;

Abolish the social care savings threshold for working-age social care users, so we can save for essentials and major life milestones such as a vehicle or home downpayment without risking our support, and are at less risk of financial coercion. End financial penalties and benefit reductions for disabled people who live with a partner, protecting financial independence and making it easier for those in coercive or abusive relationships to leave safely.

Equalise pay between social care and the NHS, thereby reducing staffing shortages and ensuring sick and disabled people receive professional care from well-trained care workers, vastly reducing suffering during and at the end of life; and
⁠Form a taskforce on independent and supported living, led by disabled people, and set out a time scale for implementing its recommendations within six months of its first report, so that we can move towards a society where terminally ill and disabled people have choices in all areas and stages of life, as well as at the end of it.

We understand the flaws in the current system. No one wants any terminally ill person to suffer unnecessarily at death. But we must protect the lives and rights of disabled and terminally ill people in life. We urge you to hear our voices, understand our fears and work with us to create a system that is safe for all: one that assists us to live.

Sincerely

Lucy Webster, Anna Landre, Jamie Hale, Kyla Harris, and Rensa Gaunt on behalf of The Assist Us To Live campaign 

Lucy Webster, Journalist and Advocate / Assist Us To Live

Anna Landre, Marshall Scholar, University College London / Assist Us To Live

Jamie Hale, Artistic and Executive Director, CRIPtic Arts / Assist Us To Live

Kyla Harris, Filmmaker / Assist Us To Live

Rensa Gaunt, Campaigner / Assist Us To Live

Liz Carr, Actor and Member, Not Dead Yet

Ruth Madeley, Actor

Baroness Jane Campbell of Surbiton, Member, House of Lords and Convenor, Not Dead Yet UK

Rosie Jones, Comedian

Samantha Baines, Actress and Broadcaster

Mat Fraser, Actor and Writer

Sophie Morgan, TV Presenter

Andrew Miller MBE, Cultural consultant & Broadcaster

Samantha Renke, Broadcaster

Mik Scarlet Wallace, Broadcaster and Co-CEO, Phab

Kamran Mallick, CEO, Disability Rights UK

Tracey Lazard, CEO, Inclusion London

Adam Gabsi, Chair, Inclusion London

Ellen Jones, Author

Cherylee Houston, Actor

Victoria Jenkins, Designer

Dr. Nora Groce, Professor, University College London

Dr. Eben Kirksey, Professor of Anthropology, University of Oxford

Catherine Holloway, Professor, University College London and Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub

Dr. Victoria Austin, Professor, University College London

Dr. Maria Kett, Professor, University College London

Natalie Kane, Curator, V&A and Deputy Leader of Lambeth Council, Green Party

Arthur Hughes, Actor

Rick Burgess, Care in Crisis Coalition and DPO Forum Co-Chair

Sarabajaya Kumar, Associate Professor, University College London and Director, Impatience Ltd.

Tracey Jannaway, Director, Independent Living Alternatives

Colin Brummage, CEO, Camden Disability Action

Rachel Charlton-Dailey, Journalist and Author

Cathy Reay, Writer and Journalist

Damian Joseph Bridgeman, Disability Task Force, Welsh Government and Chief Executive, Bridgeman Community Foundation

Selina Mills, Writer and Broadcaster

Shani Dhanda, Accessibility Specialist

Hannah Barham-Brown, NHS GP

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, Care Not Killing

Rachel Gadsden, Artist and Director

Tamm Reynolds, Artist

Dr. David Turner, Professor, Swansea University

Dermot Devlin, DPAC Northern Ireland

David Jones, Professor of Bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham

Peter Gay, Director, Disability Advice Service Lambeth (dasl)

Dr. Kevin Yuill, Professor Emeritus, University of Sunderland

Doug Paulley, Reasonable Access

Natalya Dell, Trustee, Reasonable Access

Tanya Motie, Former TV Executive

Aisling O’Connor, Co-founder and CEO, The Rosie Jones Foundation

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Campaigner

Dr. Amy Kavanagh, Activist

Dr. Louise Hickman, University of Cambridge

Jess Thom, Artistic Director, Touretteshero

Iyiola Olafimihan, Non-Executive Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub and Justice and Campaigns Lead, Alliance for Inclusive Education

Dan Edge, Actor and Access Coordinator

James Moore, Journalist

Natalie Amber, Actor

Elle McNicoll, Writer

Dr. Rob George, Professor, King’s College London

Eleanor Lisney, Director, Sisters of Frida

Jillian Nystedt

Ella Glendining, Filmmaker

Andrew Clark, Chair of Trustees, BuDS Disability Service

Wednesday Holmes, Illustrator and Author

CJ DeBarra, Author and Journalist

Simon Ford, Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Penny Pepper, Writer and Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Carrie-Ann Lightley, Writer

Lou Chandler, Content creator

Isaac Harvey, Disability Advocate

Dr. Calum Miller

Angie Airlie, CEO, Stay Safe East

Clare-Louise English, Director

Dr. Ros Jones, Paediatrician

Tamara Jansen (MP) to speak in Ontario on Bill C-218.

Tamara Jansen will be speaking in London, Hamilton and St. Catharines Ontario

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons, a bill that would prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone in Canada

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of (MAiD) euthanasia. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Tamara Jansen, the sponsor of Bill C-218, has speaking events in London, Hamilton & St Catharines Ontario.

Tuesday, August 25 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Andrew Lawton
Byron-Springbank Legion Branch 533
1276 Commissioners Rd W, London, Ontario

RSVP FOR LONDON

Wednesday, August 26 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Dan Muys
Ancaster Fairgrounds, Room AB - 630 Trinity Rd. S., Jerseyville, Ontario.

RSVP FOR HAMILTON

Thursday, August 27 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With Conservative candidate of record Bas Sluijmers
Grantham Lions Club - 732 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario 

RSVP FOR ST. CATHARINES

Bill C-218 received it's first hour of debate on December 5, 2025. It's second hour of debate is scheduled for soon after parliament returns in September.

Currently, on March 17, 2027 doctors and nurse practitioners will be allowed to kill patients, by lethal poison, when their sole underlying condition is a mental illness. A recent parliamentary report released on June 17, 2026 recommended that euthanasia for mental illness alone be indefinitely paused.

If passed, Bill C-218 will prevent euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. 

There are several effective ways you help get Bill C-218 passed:

1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to  info@epcc.ca.
4. Contact your Member of Parliament and share your story or share your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
5. Often it is easier and more effective to call your Member of Parliament. The phone numbers are part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness. 

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC on October 30 with new polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:

At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.

To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:

• Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with this issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
• Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
• Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact their Member of Parliament.

More information on Bill C-218.

• Bill C-218 introduced to prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Support Bill C-218. No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Supporting Bill C-218 - I am so thankful to be alive (Link). 
• I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Patti's story. Support Bill C-218. (Link).
• The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD (euthanasia) for mental illness (Link).

Tasmania has massive increase in assisted suicide deaths.

Alex in Tasmania

Tasmania to review assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tasmania legalized assisted suicide in 2022, has now announced that it will conduct a review of their assisted suicide law based on concerns related to the massive increase in assisted suicide deaths.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to speak in Tasmania where I warned about how the assisted suicide deaths would quickly increase once legalized.

The Tasmania assisted suicide reports indicate that the number of assisted suicide approvals, prescriptions and deaths have increased substantially since legalization.  The Tasmania reports are based on October to October. Link to the Tasmania (2022/23 report). Link to the Tasmania (2023/24 report).

Tasmania assisted suicide poison supplied: 2022/23 - 32, 2023/24 - 78, 2024/25 - 142.

Tasmania assisted suicide reported deaths: 2022/23 - 27, 2023/24 - 62, 2024/25 - 109.

You will notice that the data indicates that 2 deaths in 2023-24 were reported late. 

The Tasmanian reports refer to reported assisted suicide deaths since not all of the participants are accounted for in the data.

The rate of reported deaths by assisted suicide was 2.1% of all deaths in 2024/25 which was up from 1.2% of all deaths in 2023/24.

Meg Whitfield reported for the ABC News Australia on August 15, 2026 that:

An independent review into Tasmania's VAD legislation is currently underway to assess if it is still working as intended, and what improvements are needed.

It is being led by three experts — lawyer and former governor Kate Warner, end-of-life law expert Ben White, and palliative care specialist Michael Ashby.

A final report will be handed to the government by November 1.

Comments from the Australian Medical Association President, Meg Creely, provide concerns over the direction of the review. Whitfield reported Creely as stating:

President Meg Creely said that, overwhelmingly, medical practitioners involved with VAD found it "a really rewarding part of their medical career".

However, she said there was an administrative and financial burden on doctors that needed to be addressed.

"What we hear from our members is that legal access and practical access are not necessarily the same thing," Dr Creely said.

Creely seems to be suggesting that doctors who participate in killing their patients often find the act "rewarding" but they want to be paid more.

Canada has never reviewed their euthanasia law.

When Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, the original law (Bill C-14) required that the law be reviewed beginning in June 2020. That review never happened.

Instead Canada expanded the euthanasia law in March 2021 when it passed Bill C-7. Bill C-7 allowed people who without a terminally condition to be killed, it removed the 10-day waiting period when a person has a terminal condition, it allowed a doctor to kill an incompetent person, when that person was previously approved for euthanasia, and it allowed euthanasia for mental illness alone, which is currently scheduled to go into effect in March 2027.

After passing Bill C-7, the Canadian government established a euthanasia committee composed of 10 members of parliament and 5 Senators. The AMAD committee did not review the law but rather it examines further expansions of the law.

On July 1, 2026, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition launched a campaign demanding a complete review of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)

Now that Tasmania is doing a review of their law, maybe it's time for Canada to review its euthanasia law. 

No One Has The High Ground On Disability Rights Part 2

By Meghan Schrader
Meghan is a disability activists and a member of the EPC-USA board.

No One Has The High Ground on Disability Rights Part 1 (Link).

Meghan Schrader

Like I’ve said, euthanasia falls on a spectrum of policies that marginalize and objectify people with disabilities. So, when I compare the policies of the United States and Canada, and look at the history of how American leaders from across the political spectrum have treated people with disabilities, I am tempted to despair about disabled people ever being any powerful leaders’ priority. This pattern of marginalization helps create the social conditions that make euthanasia seem like a legitimate solution to disabled people’s problems. 

We know that ableist institutional environments have contributed to coerced euthanasia in Canada. As I’ve mentioned, the USA Justice Department released a slip opinion saying that a 27-year-old federal community integration mandate that states provide enough community support for disabled people to avoid unnecessary institutionalization is essentially null and void; that mandate only forbids “unjustified” institutionalization and states can justify institutionalization however they want. 

In my opinion this development is selfish, bigoted and cruel. But the Province of Ontario in Canada has done the same thing with its More Beds Better Care Act, which allows euthanasia-eligible patients to be forcibly transferred to institutions far away from their families. 

In the past year and a half there have been several instances of USA disability policy regression that push disabled people towards bad life outcomes, and many disability advocates I know would go so far as to view the collective impact of these policies as a kind of authoritarianism. But the Canadian government taking over hospices that decline to participate in euthanizing disabled people that Canada has allowed to live in squalor and misery is no less authoritarian, especially when disabled Canadians have expressed the need for euthanasia-free healthcare spaces. “You had better kill people with disabilities on your property or the government will take over your hospice,” isn’t better than any disability policy being passed or suggested in the United States right now. 

Regardless of which political contingency most strongly influences US social policy, rhetoric that dehumanizes disabled people is everywhere. A conservative-leaning Catholic writer, JD Flynn, whose son has Down Syndrome, posted on X, “You’re not owning the libs by slurring disabled people.”

One X user tweeted back,

“As much as I understand your particular opposition to it, preserving the derogatory use of the word "retard" is in fact necessary for rejecting liberal control of language and defeating the euphemism treadmill which is taking over the English lexicon.”

Another X user wrote,

“Nobody calls disabled people retards anymore. They probably don't even remember what that word means. You're more likely to see a mentally handicapped person call you a retard for this post than to see one be offended by the use of the word.”

Bullies called me a retard when they threw rocks at me, pushed me into the dirt, used my blankie to clean a bathroom floor, pulled down my pants & said that they wished I was dead. I know what the r word means.

And disabled people who have been bullied with the r word do not exist to assist in “rejecting liberal control of language and defeating the euphemism treadmill which is taking over the English lexicon.”

Not that conservatives have a monopoly on this behavior. Remember back in 2008 when the leftist news site Wonkette wrote a despicable blog post about Trig Palin on his birthday?

If you thought that Governor Palin didn’t have the spoons to assume the presidency if Senator McCain died or if you loathed her policy positions that‘s fine, But it wasn’t ok for some liberal to create a vulgar meme taunting that in contrast to the many “retarded” things Palin had said, she had only given birth to one “retarded thing.”

It’s my experience that no matter whether society’s most powerful people identify as conservatives or liberals, leaders habitually ignore disabled people’s needs. This pattern helps create the social conditions for the euthanasia movement to flourish.