Many MAiD Advocates Want Credit For Fixing Problems They Ignored For Decades

Meghan Schrader

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

I perceive a pattern of “MAiD” acolytes seeking “common ground” with disability rights opponents of “MAiD” while expecting levels of appreciation and respect they have not earned.

For example, I noticed that in their response to the September 2025 Atlantic article “Canada Is Killing Itself,” pro “MAiD” activists Paul Magennis and Kim Carlson asserted that “MAiD providers” regularly advocate for better services for their “patients.” They wrote:

“Yes, inequities in healthcare and social supports exist, and no one in the medical community knows this more than MAiD providers themselves. They have long demanded better resources for their patients, and they understand that the only way to prevent suffering rooted in those inequities is to fix the inequities directly.”

I am sure that there are a few instances of “MAiD providers” advocating for resources, but Carlson and Magennis claim that there is a widespread, longstanding pattern of that behavior. Do Maggenis and Carlson have any proof for that claim? Because that’s not the pattern that “MAiD” advocates have demonstrated throughout history.

For instance, the Accessible Canada Act, a watered-down version of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act that is not scheduled to be fully implemented until 2040, was passed in 2019, after the Carter decision legalized “MAiD” in 2015. The paltry “Canada Disability Benefit” was passed in 2023, after the legalization of “Track 2 MAiD” in 2021.

Powerful USA “MAiD” advocates who identify as social justice advocates have also largely ignored disabled people for decades.

It’s not that I haven’t encountered Oregon model “MAiD” supporters with a track record of supporting disability rights. But generally I think it’s clear that social justice leaders ignoring disability has contributed to “MAiD” supporters not understanding “Track 2 MAiD” as the bigoted act of systematically killing members of a marginalized group.

For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has fought for “MAiD” for decades, but did not create a disability rights division until 2012, 92 years after the organization was founded.

The BC Civil Liberties Association, which could be considered the Canadian "sibling" of the ACLU, fought for Canada's expansive “MAiD” program for decades before releasing its first statement in support of disability rights in 2024, 62 years after the organization was founded in 1962. This happened after the organization’s legislative allies dismissed disabled “Track 2 MAiD” opponents’ efforts to prevent wrongful deaths as “moral panic.” It happened after anti Track 2 expert witnesses at the Special Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying hearings were “routinely talked over, ignored, argued with, and at times, openly disparaged by committee members in favour of amplifying the ideology of MAID expansionists and pro-MAID lobby groups.”

So, I wrote an X post pointing out that the BCCLA’s 2024 statement was made after decades of ignoring disabled people. One X user who is part of the small minority of disabled people who supports Track 2 MAiD and led the effort to get the BCCLA to release their statement criticized my lack of “forgiveness.” They said, “You were not there when they realized the harm they had done and started to help.”

The key phrase there is started to help. The BCCLA’s choice to abandon disabled people for decades while advocating for “MAiD” played a critical role in creating a world where disabled people are offered “MAiD” before they are offered support. You can forgive people without making them your compadres.

There are many non-lethal examples of civil rights advocates ignoring disabled people, regardless of those advocates’ position on “MAiD.” For instance, researchers who published a 2023 study documenting life-threatening healthcare discrimination against disabled children were not allowed to present their findings on a conference on healthcare equity. The conference organizers said, "that's not the kind of inequity we're looking for.”

I’ve observed this pattern of social justice advocates ignoring serious disability rights violations throughout my life. Between 2011 and 2015 I was a member of a United Church of Christ congregation with a very kind pastor who strongly supported Oregon model “MAiD.” Every six months she centered church activities around a different civil rights issue, but unfortunately disabled people were the only group that she didn’t include. I have affection for that pastor; but I think that such omissions indicate “MAiD” advocates’ unpreparedness to address the abuses that are interwoven with “MAiD.”

When “MAiD” proponents dismiss disability justice opposition to “MAiD” as “moral panic” and decide that a few wrongful deaths is an acceptable price to pay for “autonomy,” they are taking a deep history of mainstream civil rights activists tolerating ableism to a lethal extreme.

In short, “MAiD” proponents like to brag about ending suffering, but for generations leading “MAiD” advocates have let disabled people suffer.

Join the EPC rally on Parliament Hill on Monday April 13.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition on Monday, April 13 for one hour at 12 noon as we rally to support Bill C-218 and as we mourn the loss of 100,000 Canadians to euthanasia since legalization.

The Second hour of debate for Bill C-218, the bill that will reverse the law permitting euthanasia for mental illness alone, is currently scheduled for Monday, April 13. We are supporting Tamara Jansen (MP) (the sponsor of Bill C-218) and we will urge Members of Parliament to support Bill C-218.

Currently, Canada is scheduled to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone, starting on March 17, 2027.

Canada will also surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization in mid-late April 2026 (Read article).

We mourn 100,000 Canadians who were killed by euthanasia.

Canada's parliament has also appointed a new Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to examine the issue of MAiD for mental illness (Read article).

Plan now to attend the rally on April 13. The list of rally speakers will soon be released.

Euthanasia for young people and Psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for psychiatric reasons and for young people have increased substantially over the past few years.

Jim van Os, MD, PhD, Wilbert van Rooij, MD, Mark S. Komrad, MD, DFAPA wrote a research article that was published in the Psychiatric Times on March 5, 2026 examining these issues.

The authors examine the Netherlands euthanasia data and suggest that there was "professional restraint" in the early years of the euthanasia law since the law did not prohibit euthanasia for young people or based on mental illness. The authors explain that euthanasia for these groups, in the early years, was almost non-existent. They write:

The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.

Within this expansion, youth euthanasia cases are increasingly prominent. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of euthanasia cases for individuals under 30 rose from 5 to 30, a 6-fold increase, representing over 9% of all premature deaths (suicide + assisted dying) in that age group in the Netherlands. When requests rather than completed euthanasia are considered, the numbers are worrying. Given that an estimated 3% of youthful (<24 years) applicants receive euthanasia, the estimated number of youthful applicants in 2024 would total 7300.

The authors suggest that the majority of Psychiatrists in the Netherlands remain reluctant to participate in euthanasia but a small group of psychiatrists have has actively promoted psychiatric euthanasia as an expression of compassion and respect for autonomy and they have established a group called the Dutch, Knowledge Center for Euthanasia in Mental Disorders (KEA) that is actually an activist group. The authors explain:

According to its website, its aim is to increase knowledge and societal acceptance of euthanasia for mental suffering, to improve access to euthanasia trajectories, and to support and advocate for patients with mental illness who request euthanasia, as well as their relatives and involved professionals. While presenting itself as a foundation for recognition and dignity, KEA operates as an activist organization, lobbying policymakers, engaging strategically with media, and exerting public pressure on dissenting professionals.

The authors continue:

In this framing, complex mental suffering rooted in trauma, social marginalization, developmental vulnerability, and failures of care are increasingly presented as a medical dead end. Structural deficits in mental health services, including long waiting lists and fragmented care, fade into the background. Professional hesitation is reframed as cruelty or paternalism rather than as clinical prudence.

This is an important statement for Canada to consider. Since Canada also has massive structural deficits in mental health services and long waiting times, promoters of euthanasia for mental illness would also argue that it is a cruel paternalism to deny a person death by euthanasia.

The authors then describe the role of Menno Oosterhoff in creating an atmosphere of acceptance for youth and psychiatric euthanasia. The authors write:

This shift has been personified by Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch psychiatrist whose actions have profoundly shaped public perception. In an 11-month period, he performed 12 euthanasia procedures for mental suffering, including cases involving youth and at least 1 minor. He publicly described his trajectory as a moral awakening, introducing the term “mentally terminal” to suggest an analogy between mental suffering and terminal somatic illness.

The concept has no grounding in psychiatric science or developmental psychology, but it proved rhetorically powerful. Oosterhoff recorded euthanasia conversations with a minor and made them available online.9 The material was later removed as the footage caused significant distress among clinicians, ethicists, and child psychiatrists. Yet, rather than prompting restraint, it increased his visibility. He became a frequent guest on television talk shows and published a bestselling book, positioning himself as a moral pioneer.

Colleagues reported troubling practices.9 Young patients were sometimes redirected toward euthanasia pathways while their treating teams were still actively engaged and believed meaningful improvement was possible. The message implicit in such interventions was that persistence in treatment could be bypassed if even one clinician was willing to declare suffering irremediable. The clinical authority of ongoing therapeutic relationships was thus undermined by a parallel pathway oriented toward death.

Canada has had a similar experience with Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practise. 

Euthanasia for psychiatric issues in the Netherlands has turned suicide prevention efforts upside down. The authors write:

A central justification advanced by proponents is that psychiatric euthanasia prevents violent or lonely suicides. While emotionally compelling, this claim fails empirically. Epidemiological analysis demonstrates that even under optimistic assumptions, euthanasia functions as a profoundly inefficient and harmful preventive strategy. Approximately 9 young individuals would need to die by euthanasia to prevent 1 suicide.

This result reflects a fundamental base-rate problem. Even among high-risk psychiatric populations, suicide remains a rare event. Introducing euthanasia as a sanctioned outcome reframes suicidality from a symptom requiring containment into a potential treatment endpoint, an acceptable “treatment plan.” For youth with trauma histories and narrowed future perspectives, this can entrench death-focused thinking rather than alleviate it.

The activities of KEA and the Thanet group caused a group of psychiatrists to submit their concerns. The authors explain:

A group of psychiatrists submitted a letter to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service to raise alarm about the activities of the KEA foundation and Thanet, a web-based pro-euthanasia initiative. This letter argued that the combined media activism of KEA and the policy-driven pressure created by Thanet substantially contributed to the well-known Werther or contagion effect,15 as repeated television appearances and newspaper stories were followed by a sharp rise in euthanasia requests from youth, raising serious concern that the Netherlands was drifting toward a harmful and irresponsible practice.

The authors then explain that euthanasia in the Netherlands is essentially a 

Canada's government has established a committee to examine Euthanasia for Mental Illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's federal government has established another Special Joint parliamentary Committee to examine the implementation of (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness alone. The committee is composed of 10 Members of Parliament and 5 Senators. 

The Members of Parliament on the committee are:

Conservatives: Michael Cooper, Todd Doherty, Tamara Jansen and Andrew Lawton.

Liberals: Hon Helena Jaczek, Annie Koutrakis, James Maloney, Marcus Powlowski and Kristina Tesser Derksen. 

Bloc Québécois: Luc Thériault (BQ).

The Senators on the Committee are:

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond, Hon. Yonah Martin, Hon. Rosemary Moodie, Hon. Pamela Wallin, Hon Kristopher David Wells.

The committee should not derail Private Members Bill C-218, which like it's predecessor in the last parliament (Bill C-314) would prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 has gained significant traction within the governing Liberal Party. This committee may move the debate into the committee rather than parliament.

Article: Preventing euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. Guide to supporting Bill C-218 (Read).

We are clear. No MAiD for Mental Illness.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition rally on parliament hill on Monday, April 13 at 12 noon.

For more information, contact us at: info@epcc.ca

When discussing issues related to euthanasia for mental illness alone, a member of parliament will listen to the concern of constituents. There are many people who have lived with mental health issues and suicidal ideation and are happy to be alive. These people may have been killed if euthanasia for mental illness alone were available at their dark time.

My comments about Canada's Senate. 

Senators are appointed until the age of 75 and are only responsible to their personal conscience. Justin Trudeau did not appoint Senators based on their political affiliation or as a reward for the work within the Liberal party, but rather he appointed people based on their philosophical beliefs. This is bad news for Canada and bad news for euthanasia in Canada.

Nonetheless, silence is our enemy. We will continue to stand up and speak the truth about euthanasia in general and euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Canada, The Godless Nation Filled With Serial Killers for Doctors.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on March 2, 2026

By Kelsi Sheren

Jonathan Reggler, a retired Vancouver Island family physician and active MAiD “provider” (Dr who poisons people to death), recently offered a moment of radical honesty in The Atlantic. Reflecting on his discomfort with Track 2 MAiD cases—those involving people who are not terminally ill—he explained how he resolves his moral unease and ill point out that this is how a killers talks.

“Once you accept that life is not sacred and [not] something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in — then … some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it’.”

This is not a throwaway line, that’s an omission. A Godless Dr, and Godless man. It is a philosophical confession and it quietly exposes the real engine driving Canada’s MAiD expansion—not compassion, not autonomy, but a specific worldview that has decided human life has no inherent worth beyond utility, comfort, or consent.

If life is not sacred, then nothing is off the table. The above quote show’s the world who this “Dr” really is.

That belief that God doesn’t exist and he can take life just as God can not stop at the elderly. It does not stop at the disabled. It does not stop at the depressed and it will not stop at children.

Do you remember when MAiD was sold to Canadians as an act of mercy for the terminally ill. Those already dying, those in unbearable physical pain, those with no alternatives. That frame has collapsed with stunning speed. Lies, all from the start.

Track 2 MAiD now includes people whose sole underlying condition is disability, chronic illness, or mental suffering. The safeguards keep loosening. The language keeps softening. What was once “unthinkable” has become “complicated,” then “nuanced,” then “necessary.”

This is how ethical lines move. Not with alarms, but with reassurances and continued lies that if you say out loud long enough people somehow believe to be true.

Jonathan Reggler did say what most MAiD killers who say out loud: the only way this system works is if you reject the idea that life has intrinsic value. Thats fairly easy when your a Godless human.

You do not need to be religious to understand why that matters.

The concept of the sacred is not about God—it is about limits. It is the line that says: even when something is inconvenient, costly, painful, or inefficient, we do not destroy it. Once that line is erased, the only remaining question is who decides and by what criteria. Right now the “who” is the liberal government and the criteria is slipping into “who ever feels like dying.”

Today, that decision rests with panels, protocols, and physicians who believe they are doing good while redefining death as care. These are the power hungry, killers of Canada. The “Dr’s” who believe killing is the right thing to do no matter what the alternative. These are the people who get paid by YOUR TAXES to kill people instead of help them. These are the people who wake up every single day of there life wondering how much further they can move the goal post and how many more they can kill before the globe catches onto the fact that Health Canada employees serial killers, not Dr’s.

The wild fact that Canada even discusses kid’s as a an option for euthanasia is one thing, but now defensively, beautiful little souls who cannot defend themselves is a different ballgame. Canada is already discussing “mature minors.” The Netherlands and Belgium already permit euthanasia for children, including infants, under certain conditions. These people are just as sick, but they stay fairly quite about it. Canadian Dr’s on the other hand brag about their kill count. The argument is always the same—unbearable suffering, poor quality of life, compassion and mercy. Angels of death is what they really are. They can look in the mirror and tell themselves whatever they want, their serial killers in white coats.

Notice what is missing: consent. A baby cannot ask to die. So someone else must decide their life is no longer worth living.

If life is not sacred, this is not a moral leap—it is a procedural one. This is no longer a slippery slope anymore, although I’ve always believed it’s been a cliff, this is simply looking at patter recognition. Every expansion of MAiD was once dismissed as fear mongering by the pro death cults. Every warning was called alarmist, or even named as misinformation and every boundary has fallen exactly as predicted.

Not because ALL doctors are evil, although Canada employs some of the worst our world has to offer—but because systems that abandon first principles do not self-limit.

Jonathan Reggler quote matters because it confirms the diagnosis: Canada has replaced the protection of the vulnerable with a cost-efficient, ideologically tidy exit ramp.

If life is not sacred, why stop anywhere? Why stop at age? Why stop at diagnosis? Why stop at consent?

And if the answer is “trust us,” Canadians should be very very afraid—because history is brutally consistent about what happens when the state decides which lives are worth continuing.

This is not healthcare reform.

It is a civilizational choice and we are making it with our eyes open now, well at least some of us are. This is a line I’ve personally seen crossed before and is why I am so painfully vocal about it. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve watched institutions talk about human beings the way accountants talk about numbers—assets, liabilities, acceptable losses. That language always comes before the harm, never after it.

War teaches you something uncomfortable: once a system decides a life is expendable for a greater good, the circle of who counts starts shrinking fast. First it’s the enemy. Then it’s the inconvenient. Then it’s the weak. The justification always sounds reasonable when you’re far from the consequences.

What alarms me about MAiD in Canada isn’t compassion for suffering—it’s the quiet confidence with which professionals now speak about ending life once its “value” drops below an acceptable threshold. I’ve seen where that logic leads when it’s backed by authority and paperwork.

You don’t need faith to know this is dangerous. You just need memory.

When institutions redefine human value, violence doesn’t always arrive with guns. Sometimes it arrives with consent forms, softened language, and budgets that quietly benefit from fewer people needing care.

When the state, the system, and the balance sheet all win by deciding a life is no longer worth the cost, that isn’t mercy.

That’s eugenics.

Swiss assisted suicide for people who are not dying.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Swiss Exit suicide group published their 2025 death data indicating a 15% increase from 2024. An article published by Swissinfo on March 2, 2026 stated:

In 2025, 1,421 people made use of Exit Switzerland's services in the German and Italian-speaking parts of the country. This is higher than in 2024, when 1,235 cases of assisted suicide were registered.

The article continued:

As has been the case for many years, more women (818) than men (603) used Exit to end their lives.

There was also a significant increase in the number of assisted suicide deaths of people who are not dying. Swissinfo reported:

According to its annual report, 32% of people who resorted to assisted suicide had terminal cancer, which corresponds to 461 cases. There is also a significant number of elderly people with multiple disorders (polymorbidity) who opted for an assisted death: last year there were 326 cases (23% of the total), compared to 205 in 2024.

Polymorbidity refers to people who are not dying but are approved for assisted suicide based on multiple health concerns. For instance, a sore back and chronic depression.

According to the data there were 326 (23%) who were poisoned to death for polymorbidity in 2025 and 205 (less than 17%) in 2024.

It is concerning that almost 58% (818) of the Exit assisted suicide deaths are women but when you consider the massive increase in deaths of people based on polymorbidity then one must ask if Exit has a misogynistic attitude?

Remember, Exit is only one of the assisted suicide groups in Switzerland.

More information on Switzerland's assisted suicide law:

• Zurich Switzerland will require every care home provide assisted suicide (Read).
• Swiss suicide clinic under fire after deaths without a medical condition (Read).
• Joint elder suicide in Switzerland to avoid Widowhood (Read).
• Irish woman learns of mother's assisted suicide death through What's App (Read).
• Suicide pushers celebrate elder suicides in Swiss Death clinics (Read).
• Elder suicide in Switzerland has quadrupled in 25 years (Read).
  

Canada will soon surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths.

I predict that Canada will surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths in April 2026.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We recently received the 2025 fourth quarter Ontario euthanasia report from the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. 

The report stated that in Ontario there were 5303 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up from 4944 in 2024, which represented a 7.2% increase. This was up from 4641 euthanasia deaths in 2023 which represented a 6.5% increase that year. 

Therefore the growth in euthanasia deaths is increasing, not stabilizing.

The report indicated that all Ontario MAiD deaths, in 2025, were clinician administered (euthanasia). In jurisdictions that legalize both euthanasia and assisted suicide, nearly all of the deaths are euthanasia.

Health Canada released the Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada on November 28, 2025.

The 2024 report stated that there were 16,499 reported (MAiD) Canadian euthanasia deaths which was up by 6.9% from 15,427 in 2023.

Since Ontario represents 39% of Canada's population, I conservatively predict that the number of euthanasia deaths in Canada increased by 7% in 2025 and I estimate that there were approximately 17,650 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2025.

According to Health Canada, from legalization until December 31, 2024 there were 76,475 Canadian MAiD deaths. Based on my prediction that there were about 17,650 euthanasia deaths in 2025, I predict that there were around 94,125 MAiD deaths in Canada from legalization until December 31, 2025. 

I predict that Canada will surpass 100,000 euthanasia sometime in mid - late April 2026. 

From exception to expectation.

When Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, that we called MAiD to make us feel better about poisoning people to death, we were told that it would be for people who were terminally ill and suffering. We were sold killing as a last resort solution and we were assured that it would not be common but rather it would be an exception. There was nothing further from the truth.

Canada immediately experienced euthanasia deaths that did not fit the euthanasia sales pitch. In November 2016, only a few months after legalization, we were contacted about a woman who died by euthanasia in British Columbia, who may have only had a bladder infection. 

What made the case even more grievous was that the euthanasia doctor didn't bother to do any tests to determine whether or not the woman was actually dying and when the family expressed concern about the death approval, the euthanasia doctor waived the 10-day waiting period, killing the woman within 3 days.

More recently there have been several concerning euthanasia deaths that have been published by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. To list a few:

• A woman was killed by euthanasia after her husband requested it for her (Read). 
• A man sought euthanasia after experiencing hospital overcrowding (Read). 
• A man with an essential tremor, who was lonely died by euthanasia (Read).  
• Some euthanasia deaths were driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Read).
• Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion (Read).
• Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Read).

Other notable Ontario euthanasia data:

In 2025 final consent was waived in 250 Ontario euthanasia deaths. 

One of the outcomes of passing Bill C-7 in March 2021 was that the legislation allowed doctors to kill someone who was incapable of providing final consent, as long as the person had consented to be killed while still competent. 

Therefore 1 in 21 Ontario euthanasia deaths was done to someone who was not capable of providing final consent.

Organ donation after euthanasia:

The Ontario report indicated that in 2025 only 31 of the 5303 people who died by euthanasia also became an organ donor. Some might suggest that this is insignificant, but the circumstances for approving organ donation after euthanasia are limited. Many people with a terminal condition do not have healthy organs. Since only 30% of the euthanasia deaths take place in the hospital, it is very difficult to kill someone outside of a hospital and then retrieve their organs in time for donation purposes.

Euthanasia based on disability in Ontario.

For people who were approved to be killed by euthanasia and self-identified as having a disability, the disability was: 20.37% mobility, 11.47% pain related, 7.09% flexibility, 5.36% dexterity, 2.34% hearing, 1.28% memory. Other disabilities were listed but were less common.

The youngest person to be killed by euthanasia in 2025 was 20 years old while the oldest person was 108. The average age was 78.

More data will be released by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario and more data will be gathered from other provinces in the near future. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will keep you up-to-date on these developments.

“Farewell, Babylon Bee”

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader 

I encourage euthanasia opponents to develop a cursory knowledge of disability issues, such as disability rights laws, disability history, semantic trends in the disabled community etc. No one’s perfect, but striving to gain knowledge about disability and learning about what most disabled people consider to be respectful behavior fosters good will between euthanasia opponents in general and the disability rights advocates who are working on that issue. Showing respect for the experiences and needs of disabled people is also integral to linking euthanasia opposition to broader efforts to promote disabled people’s well-being.

A satirical publication that takes an anti-euthanasia position that has blatantly failed in this regard is the Babylon Bee.

Regardless of what I think about the Babylon Bee’s political orientation or its stories in general, I thought the story "Disaster As Canada Switches Suicide Prevention Hotline With Suicide Assistance Hotline” that a friend posted on their Facebook timeline was a brilliant commentary about the absurdity of Canada’s “MAiD” program. This is also not the only Babylon Bee story that I’ve enjoyed over the years.

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

These articles use slurs and mockery that have been linked to ableist policies and behavior for decades. (I have discussed my own experiences with this kind of bullying here and here.) Given that the Babylon Bee is a Christian publication, I would have hoped that the editors would understand that such mockery harms disabled people spiritually; it alienates us from the support of our faith communities.

Moreover, the aforementioned stories by the Babylon Bee reinforce prejudiced ideas about disabled people’s suitability for employment and community integration that are creeping into the current harmful disability policies that I discuss in this blog post. Jokes about blind midgets and special needs pilots help create a culture in which unjust restrictions on disabled people’s employment and inclusion are regularized.

I think most people don’t have perfect disability rights literacy, especially if disability issues aren’t a regular part of their lives. In my opinion forgiveness is a good thing that is often forgotten in our bitterly divided political climate, and I think it’s valuable to extend grace for each other’s mistakes, whether they be in regard to ableism or something else. One can strive to educate without making judgments about the person’s character or cutting them off.

But I mentioned these stories to a devout Christian colleague of mine who has been involved in disability rights advocacy for decades. She said that she knew the lead editor of the Babylon Bee and would be having a chat with him about why these stories were harmful. Recently my friend told me that she had had that talk with the lead editor a while ago and he seemed to listen respectfully.

Yet just a few weeks ago the Babylon Bee published yet another joke about short buses.

Given that the lead editor of the Babylon Bee had that chat with my friend yet is determined to continue publishing jokes about short buses, I’ve decided that I will not read anything by the Babylon Bee or Not The Bee ever again. It’s one thing to make a few honest mistakes and another to wilfully do something harmful even after the people being hurt by it patiently ask you to stop.

And the harm of these jokes is fairly obvious. As I’ve mentioned, the Babylon Bee has repeatedly used the word “retarded” to mock people that the editors think are incompetent or foolish. The wilful use of that term is serious.

There are some semantic shifts in the disabled community that, while thoughtful, are not obvious to the average person. Or, the semantic shifts are legitimate responses to a term becoming associated with ableism, but deviations from those shifts do not, in my opinion, typically meet the threshold of wilful mockery. For instance, nowadays the term “special” is frowned on in the disabled community; the consensus is that the term “others” disabled people by communicating that our basic needs are “special.” But, that semantic development is fairly recent. The word “special” is still a common neutral descriptor of key disability programs, like Special Education and The Special Olympics. So in my opinion the impact of that term is ambiguous and it makes sense that people wouldn’t be aware of the disabled community’s objections to it.

The R word is different. “Special” is a disfavored term; the r word is a hate term, even if the people using it aren’t thinking hateful thoughts. The disabled community’s resistance to the term has been obvious for a very long time, so the Babylon Bee’s editors must be fully aware of that resistance. Using such terms and disability stereotypes when disabled people have politely explained why you should not do so constitutes conscious disregard for the perspectives of disabled people and those that love us. The editors and writers at the Babylon Bee are perfectly capable of expressing their political point of view without resorting to bigoted caricatures of people with disabilities, but they wilfully choose not to.

But disabled people don’t exist to help you prove how bravely politically incorrect you are, Babylon Bee. So I’m not reading your stuff anymore.

Author Note:

Here are some articles about disability in Christian communities that I think are relevant to the issues discussed in this blog post:

Humanize Podcast: Interview with Christian Disability Rights Advocate Melissa Ortiz

Joni and Friends:

How Your Church Can Include People with Disabilities

How to Remove Barriers to Accessibility in Your Church

https://joniandfriends.org/for-the-church/what-does-disability-mean/

Joni Eareckson Tada’s essay on ableism: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1maWSEJcRcdvERQpZ9WJ51IIM58kJqEZH/view?usp=drivesdk

Disability and Faith

Interview with disabled Christian author Stephanie Tate: https://disabilityandfaith.org/ableism-in-the-church-part-2/

Medical homicide as psychiatric treatment.

All or nothing: medical homicide as psychiatric treatment

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When medical homicide is debated, the question always revolves around a balance between the (alleged) needs of that small number, who wish to die, and those of larger society, to protect others from the dangers.

In Canada it was judicially decided (wrongly in my opinion) that an 'absolute' (or 'categorical') ban was not warranted ('Carter vs Canada').

Pro-death cultists are now attempting to replicate that reasoning in the case of medical homicide for mental disorders alone. But this case will be much more difficult to make. For two things have changed in the meantime:

1) Mental illness presents a completely different context from earlier assumptions surrounding end-of-life euthanasia.

And,

2) We now possess a decade of experience, of deep social harms which were largely unsuspected when 'Carter' was first decided.

As for the first point, psychiatric homicide runs afoul of the 'irremediable condition' requirement of Canadian euthanasia. For no one can determine when psychiatric disorders are incurable. Moreover, it also contravenes the basic understanding that euthanasia will (always) be the result of a fully voluntary, informed, and capable decision.

Death-cult apologists do not entirely contest these points. However, in keeping with their all-or-nothing "no categorical exclusion" playbook, they would like to state this question more narrowly: as whether any person, with any mental disorder, in any circumstance, might ever display proper decisional capacity (or irremediable condition).

Unfortunately, however, to frame the conversation in this way, involves pretending their adversaries actually believe otherwise. In the recent debate with Maid-in-Canada, for example, such was their immediate response to our central messaging, to the effect that the symptoms of mental illness often make that sort of choice impossible:

“He (Friesen) tries to soften this by saying that mental illness often makes that sort of choice impossible, but his position seems clear: he seems to believe it is self-evident that people with mental illnesses cannot make these kinds of serious decisions.”

And so it is that the authors create a completely fanciful portrait, of my thinking, which they may then reject as "categorically false.”

Sadly, MIC continue with this charade, also, in portraying the meaning of third party references. They notably use one (and only one) phrase, without context, to dismiss the very real capacity concerns shown by the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention:

“MAiD and suicide can, at least in principle, be distinguished”.

This snippet, they say, shows that CASP does not support my (supposed) denial of all decisional capacity among the mentally ill. However, let us explore the full thought of CASP on this crucial ‘overlap’ of medical homicide and common suicidality:

"there may be little to no overlap between MAiD and what we traditionally understand as suicide in those people seeking MAiD at the end of life. In contrast, the risk of overlap increases precipitously for those seeking MAiD for chronic, non-life threatening conditions and, in particular, for mental disorders."

Although we may disagree with the implied trivialization of medical homicide at the end of life, we strongly agree with the conclusion ultimately reached: that the serious (and generally admitted) capacity problem, of differentiating "rational" desires from common suicidality, creates a much larger potential, for social harm, when the subject is medical homicide for mental illness, than if that problem is considered in the original end-of-life context, or even that of "grievous and irremediable (physical) condition". Hence the rationale for a complete prohibition (in this more limited circumstance) becomes that much stronger also.

Practically speaking, this means that Bill C-218, for mental illness alone, stands a far greater chance of surviving constitutional challenge, than did previous law prohibiting all forms of consensual homicide.

But if that were not enough, let us consider the following, from the same source:

“Regarding the capacity for a patient to consent to MAiD, the very nature of mental disorders may impair the decision-making capacity of the patient. Those suffering from a mental disorder are routinely encouraged to avoid making major decisions while in the midst of their suffering. The decision of ending one’s life prematurely is enormous and grave and must not be made while in the throes of mental illness.”

There is not much ambiguity in the meaning of that paragraph.

The capacity/suicidality problem clearly constitutes an extremely serious motive for prohibiting the use of homicide as a treatment for mental illness.

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218

How Slovenia overturned their assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex, Alexander, Aleš, & Wesley

On January 21, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC-USA held a strategic meeting in Washington DC.

Aleš Primc, (second from the right) was a key organizer of the referendum campaign that overturned Slovenia's assisted suicide law.

Slovenia is the first country to legalize assisted suicide and then overturn the law through a referendum. On November 23, 2025 the Slovenian people voted 53.6% to overturn the assisted suicide law.

Aleš began his presentation by thanking (Alex Schadenberg) for helping them with advice, information and direction for the successful referendum campaign in Slovenia.

Aleš Primc

This is the message that Aleš shared.

The Slovenian government held a referendum in 2024 based on the concept of legalizing euthanasia. Slovenians passed the 2024 referendum by a 55 - 45% margin.

The Slovenian government then introduced a law to legalize poisoning by assisted suicide that passed in July 2025. 

Alés formed a group to gather signatures to enable a referendum to overturn that law. They needed 40,000 signatures, which is difficult considering Slovenia has only 2 million people. 

In Slovenia they do not collect signatures in the street, the people must go to the public office to sign in support of a referendum campaign. It was very hard to collect these signatures. We had 35 days to collect signatures and it took us until the final few days to get the signatures.

The polls showed that 30% of the people were planning to support the referendum.

Interview in Slovenia.

Aleš said that when Alex Schadenberg was in Slovenia in 2024, they learned that they had to develop their own language and their own arguments in order to win the campaign. Everything needed to be new. If they would speak the language used by the other side and react to their talking points they would not win the referendum.

The poison lobby framework was designed to manipulate people. They decided to go a different direction.

Aleš first wanted to say that they considered their victory to be a miracle.

It was important that they got all of the opposition political parties on their side as this legislation was pushed by the government. The opposition parties had political reason to support the campaign. Political parties have local structures that enabled them to collect the signatures and get out the vote.

It was important that the Churches recognized this referendum as their referendum. Not all of the Churches joined the campaign in the beginning, but once they got going they all joined.

It was important that the medical associations supported the campaign. These organizations didn't want to be involved directly with the campaign but it was very important that they were on our side. These groups didn't like that we used strong language and they wanted to use "nice" words, but they were on our side.

Most doctors do not want to participate in the "dirty job" of killing and they recognized that if some doctors participate that it would change medicine for everyone. They saw it as a law that created new obligations that were directly opposed to their professional ethics. If they didn't get them involved they may have only fought for conscientious objection, but they may have done very little.

When the referendum was approved, the structures within the medical association began to move on the issue.

At the same time, all of the Churches in Slovenia made a common statement supporting the referendum. This was important because it created a common position but it also changed the media response since the media will often attack the Catholic Church, but they couldn't because every christian and non-christian religious group supported the referendum.

The common statement made every religious group decide that this referendum was their referendum. As the referendum day approached more and more religious groups directly participated in the get-out-the vote campaign. It was incredible to see all of these groups becoming directly involved.

Another outcome of the common statement was that every religious group organized their own prayer.

Another development was the reaction of Croatians who viewed the referendum as their referendum because they knew that if Slovenia legally poisoned their citizens then Croatia would likely be next. Croatia is directly south of Slovenia.

The referendum became a common battle for all groups and we cooperated with them.

Language.

They decided to not use any words that are used by their opponents. They decided to do everything that is possible to win. They were not battling an idea, they were battling to win.

To win, they decided that they would only use their language. They never used the name of the law. The name of the law was designed to sell the law. They noticed in other countries, that groups will refer to legislation by it's name -- voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. They would have lost if they used the actual name.

Aleš always stated that this was the law that allows poisoning of the people. They decided that they would speak about poisoning people.

They asked - What is the intention of the poisoning lobby? The opposition frightened Slovenians by telling them that they would suffer. They wanted everyone to fear the last days of their life. They succeeded in their message through years of brainwashing people during the government debates.

Nobody in Slovenia, or the western world, wants to suffer. Fair enough, but the opposition message was ridiculous. So they decided to not speak about suffering. They did not speak about suffering because people were already brainwashed to fear death.

They did not speak about euthanasia or assisted suicide but poisoning.

When speaking about poisoning they did not need to speak about the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide because both involved poisoning. Speaking about prescribing or injecting doesn't help, with poisoning there is no difference. The person dies from being poisoned.

This law was about poisoning people and those who were promoting the law were the poisoning lobby. The intention of the law was to poison people. The law therefore established a framework whereby people could be poisoned.

It is a hard language and at first some people were hesitant to use this language. The Church and the doctors groups didn't use this language, but as the leader of the campaign it was important for Aleš to use this language.

The opposition were angry and almost terrified by the language. They constantly repeated that this is not poisoning. When they were doing interviews they spoke about this not being poisoning and  Aleš explained why it is poisoning, therefore they were speaking about poisoning.

They then stated that this is the pension, healthcare and social reform law. They stated that dead people don't need money from the government. Dead people don't need a pension, they don't need healthcare and they don't need social care.

When you are elderly and have an illness, the cheapest way for the government is to poison you.

In Slovenia they have socialized healthcare, but it is not a very good system. In Slovenia it will sometimes take two to four years to see a specialist. But the law called poisoning a healthcare right. 

The law allowed people to by poisoned to death in 20 days while people have to wait sometimes two to four years to see a specialist, but you can be poisoned to death in 20 days. They called this the government healthcare, pension and social reform law. People knew that this was true.

The government published a calculation of the cost to kill people by poisoning and the cost to provide healthcare, social services and pensions for people.

The government calculated that each poisoning will cost 3,000 to 5,000 euro but healthcare, social services and pension may cost 20,000 to 40,000 euro per month. They argued that this was why the government had legalized poisoning.

The group asked who gets the money that is saved from all the dead people? The government gets the money that iss saved from the people being poisoned to death.

Slovenians understood that if this law was not overturned that their lives were at risk. When Slovenians are sick they want to go to the doctor for healthcare not poisoning.

Slovenians said, I paid all of my life into the pension and healthcare system and never used anything and now when I'm older and would need healthcare or need a pension, after paying 30 - 40 years into the system, they will offer to kill me.

They succeeded in turning around the conversation.

When they had TV debates on the referendum the poisoning lobby said that it is not poisoning and they were lying. But they didn't speak about their talking points, they spoke about poisoning. It was important that they stuck to their talking points, even though the poisoning lobby tried to make them speak about other things.

They only had a few key talking points and they stuck to them. It is not easy on a TV show or debate to stick to your talking points but you have to do it. As soon as you start talking about their talking points you will not win.

Since Slovenia was not the first country to legalize therefore they didn't need to imagine what would happen. They presented actual evidence of what is happening in other countries, such as Canada.

It was very helpful that Alex Schadenberg regularly sent information and helped them during the campaign. The arguments and information was very important for them because if they didn't have information the other side could claim whatever they wanted, but they were able to use actual information and prove it.

Because of the regular information that they received, they led the "International" arguments campaign about what is happening in countries that have legalized.

They responded by saying, don't tell us that all of these things will not happen because this is what is happening, not only in one country, but also in the other countries that have legalized it. It was not that it may happen, but that it is happening right now.

It is important that you have real arguments not just potential arguments about imagined scenario's. They were careful to use actual facts.

Their arguments may seem simple but it was not easy to stick to their talking points because the media tried to pull them away from their talking points. It was very important to stick to the plan.

In Slovenia they proved that it was a good decision to stick to their talking points all of the time. They didn't let the poisoning lobby pull them away from their campaign.