Thursday, August 13, 2026

A friend cancels her death date after receiving care and support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I had the opportunity to speak to an amazing retired nurse, earlier this week, while attending a conference.

The woman (retired nurse) spoke about a friend who was approved for (MAiD) euthanasia but in the end had a true dignified natural death.

The woman told me that when she learned that her friend was approved for euthanasia, that as a friend, she explained that she opposed euthanasia because it is a homicide, but she emphasized, with her friend, that other options existed.

The retired nurse didn't stop there. 

The woman explained that she began visiting her friend regularly and helped her with some of her needs. She visited as a friend and hoped that her friend would change her mind.

At first her friend continued with her euthanasia approval.

The woman continued to visit and even brought other friends with her at times, so they could socialize and enjoy being with each other, while at the same time she advocated that her friend try care options that would benefit her.

Her friend was approaching death but her experience of living made her decide to delay her euthanasia death and eventually her friend canceled the euthanasia.

The woman told me that her friend agreed to euthanasia because she didn't realize that other options existed. She thought that there were two options, dying by euthanasia or dying in pain. When she realized that pain and symptom management existed and that she had friends who actually cared about and for her, she changed her mind.

This was a victory. The friend died a natural death and a truly dignified death.

This story challenges everyone to recognize that we all have people in our lives that need to be assured that being killed by (MAiD) euthanasia is not only wrong, but other options exist.

This story proves that caring for others, which is sometimes very difficult, has enormous benefits, but these experiences are worth it.

If you need training to become a visitor or an advocate for people in need contact Compassionate Community Care (Link) or email them at: info@beingwith.org

Lawsuit filed to prevent assisted suicide in Illinois.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We reported on December 12, 2025 that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed assisted suicide bill SB 9 into law. The Illinois assisted suicide law is scheduled to go into effect on September 12, 2026.

A group of Illinois physicians, a Catholic bishop and a faith-based nursing home filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Illinois’ assisted suicide law before it goes into effect.

John Clark reported for mystateline.com on August 12 that:
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, argues that the state’s End-of-Life Options Act violates constitutional protections for free speech, religious freedom and due process by requiring physicians and health care organizations that oppose assisted suicide to participate in the process against their beliefs.

Clark reports that the Illinois lawsuit is based on preventing assisted suicide and protecting freedom of speech, conscience rights and religious freedoms:

However, the new lawsuit argues that objecting physicians and institutions are still required to discuss what the law describes as end-of-life options, provide information or referrals to willing providers, and comply with other requirements that conflict with their religious beliefs and medical ethics.

The plaintiffs contend those provisions force them to endorse or facilitate actions they believe are morally wrong.

According to the complaint, the physicians object to informing patients about what the law characterizes as the benefits of medical aid in dying, referring patients to providers willing to participate, documenting certain requests in medical records, and complying with provisions governing death certificates.

Clark states that the lawsuit is seeking an injunction against the assisted suicide law. 

The suit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction blocking enforcement of those provisions before the law’s Sept. 12 effective date. Plaintiffs also seek declarations that portions of the law violate the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and certain federal health care statutes.

A similar lawsuit was filed in New York to prevent the implementation of their assisted suicide law. On July 31, 2026; The Beckett Fund reported that a temporary order was obtained preventing the state of New York from forcing Catholic Sisters and Catholic healthcare from participating in the assisted suicide law while the federal lawsuit by Catholic healthcare proceeds in the court.

The lawsuit instituted by the Beckett Fund has temporarily protected Catholic Healthcare from being forced to participate in assisted suicide but it has not achieved an injunction to prevent the New York assisted suicide from going into effect. 

On June 11, we reported that The Institute for Patients' Rights joined two federal lawsuits, one in New York and one in Illinois, with a coalition of national and state-based disability and patient advocacy organizations. For both states, Not Dead Yet, United Spinal Association, and the National Council on Independent Living, are organizational plaintiffs.

Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba
By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

Tuesday, August 11, 2026

New Mexico: 170 people prescribed assisted suicide poison in 2025.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Mexico 2025 assisted suicide report stated that there were 170 people who received the lethal poison prescription in 2025.

The basic data in the report stated:
In 2025, 170 individuals were prescribed the medication, reflecting a decrease from 213 in 2023. Among those prescribed, three individuals had not yet ingested the medication at the time of reporting. Females represented 51% of prescriptions and males 49%...
The report indicates that 166 of the 170 people had died by assisted suicide when the report was published.
There were 26 healthcare providers who prescribed MAID medication in 2025. Of those prescribed in 2025, three individuals had not yet ingested the medication at the time of reporting, and one of them died before ingestion.
The New Mexico assisted suicide law was sold to the public based on competent adults who freely consent to "self-ingest" the poison.

The New Mexico assisted suicide report does not confirm that these conditions were met.

Social Death of Disabled Fuels Assisted Suicide Culture

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

In 2023 and 2024 I published blog posts celebrating the anniversaries of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was on July 26th. But I didn’t write a blog post last year; I wasn’t sure what to say.

Since 2025, there has been a year of disability access erosion. The government has strong-armed restructuring the Special Education system and attempted to eliminate bellwether disability programs and guidelines that have existed for decades. The government has reduced access to home and community care that helps prevent institutionalization. The government has attempted to reduce benefits for disabled veterans, discontinued sign language interpreters at White House press briefings, paused new regulations improving air travel for wheelchair users and much more.

One of the most radical changes to America’s disability access infrastructure is the Department of Justice’s approach to a 1999 SCOTUS precedent called Olmstead LC. Olmstead generally requires states to provide community supports to disabled people who would be unnecessarily institutionalized without them. Ie, SCOTUS held that there may be some people who do need institutionalization, like if they are homicidal, have no ability to care for themselves whatsoever or prefer to live in an institution. But within reason, states can't put disabled people in institutions because states prefer that to community support. This determination created Olmstead’s “community integration mandate.”

For 27 years, Olmstead has been interpreted to mean that states have to create as many community services as possible. Legal loopholes and structural barriers to community services continue to cause unnecessary institutionalization, but Olmstead helps many disabled people who can live safely in their communities avoid arbitrary confinement.

Recently the Department of Justice released a slip opinion saying that states don't have to follow that precedent anymore; if they want to consolidate their disability services in institutions, and thus coerce disabled people who could live safely in their communities into institutions, that's fine. The Olmstead precedent still stands, but the DOJ will not enforce it.

At the same time, the government has proposed eliminating categorical grants for the Agency For Community Living, dismantling the ACL and spreading its functions across different agencies, even though the ACL has been shown to play a crucial role in helping disabled people live in their communities. The President’s 2026 budget proposed eliminating the federal Long Term Care Ombudsman Program that helps monitor abuse in institutions, and HHS rescinded guidance requiring that nursing homes hire enough staff to prevent life-threatening neglect. These policies make it more likely that disabled people will be institutionalized and will increase the misery of those experiences.

Coercive institutionalization has a significant impact on euthanasia prevention efforts. Bear in mind that one of the ways hospital staff have tried to bully disabled Canadian Roger Foley into assisted suicide is to withhold medical equipment and procedures needed to meet his basic needs. Disabled Canadian Normand Meunier died by assisted suicide because a hospital didn’t keep an accessible mattress on hand which resulted in him developing a festering bedsore. Although our assisted suicide laws are not as expansive as Canada’s, many disabled people who would become terminal without the correct support are also at risk of being unnecessarily institutionalized. Coercing such persons into institutions makes it more likely that they will choose assisted suicide.

I think all readers can understand that people need the solace and support of their communities, and to feel that they belong there. Forcing people who do not need to be institutionalized into institutions is like an unjust prison sentence. Such situations cause despair and hopelessness, furthering the culture of death that euthanasia opponents are trying to fight.

I invite readers to consider late disability studies scholar and assisted suicide opponent Paul Longmore’s concept of “social death.” In Longmore’s memoir “Why I Burned My Book And Other Essays On Disability,” Longmore criticizes assisted suicide advocates for ignoring ableism.

Longmore asserts:
“One wades through reams of this suicide rights advocacy without finding any real acknowledgment of the intense social stigma and discrimination that segregate people with disabilities…deny them opportunities for education, employment, marriage, and family, rob them of social dignity and self-esteem, and inflict on many of them what can only be called "social death." One searches in vain for even a passing reference to the civil-rights movement of disabled Americans that has been battling this discrimination for generations. One finds no mention and, one concludes, no knowledge of the independent-living movement of people with major physical disabilities. Apparently, none of this has attracted the attention or interest of suicide rights activists.”
Collectively, the aforementioned policy changes and proposals inflict the “social death” that Longmore talked about. Weakening the requirement that states provide support in the most integrated setting possible will rob unjustly institutionalized persons of hope. That’s the impact of weakening disability access laws in general: robbing disabled people of hope for a happy, dignified life.

So, euthanasia opponents, embrace your full potential as human dignity advocates: honor euthanasia prevention and the 36th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act by supporting policies that help disabled people thrive.

Author Note 1: I did an interview with moral theologian Charlie Camosy about how coerced institutionalization and assisted suicide are connected to one another. It can be read here.

Author Note 2: For a detailed list of the extensive disability policy changes that have been implemented or attempted in the past year, see this link.

Sunday, August 9, 2026

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) exists to build a well-informed, broadly-based network of groups and individuals supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada created the term (MAiD) - medical assistance in dying, to make us feel better about killing, but the reality is that Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and expanded the law in 2021 by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ill to be killed.

In January EPC released the Life Worth Living film that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. This is a powerful award winning film. You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/

Canada is currently scheduled to extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone in March 2027.

On May 5, 2026, we spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that was examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone. The position of EPC is to demand that Canada fully review it's euthanasia law rather than further expand the law. On June 17, the parliamentary committee advised the federal government to not extend euthanasia to people with mental illness alone. We await the government's response.

EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby launched an emergency court case that would approve Brosseau for death by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving death for Brosseau as the Canadian government continues to debate this issue.

The cost of intervening in the Brosseau case is excessive. We need your financial support to cover the legal costs. (EPC Donation Link).

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

For more information you can read our newsletters (newsletters link) or you can read more of our blog articles (EPC Blog Link). The EPC blog has more than 6300 articles and has had more than 17 million pageviews.

EPC has many more activities. We need your support to continue our work. Donations can be made at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

Friday, August 7, 2026

Alicia Duncan's Book Launch in Abbotsford and Vancouver BC - August 20/21.

Join Alex Schadenberg and attend the book launch for the powerful - The Other Side of the Straightjacket, by Alicia Duncan.

EPC is promoting the Book Launch Celebrations on: August 20 in Abbotsford and August 21 in Vancouver.

August 20, 2026 - The book launch is at: The Reach Gallery Museum
32388 Veterans Way, Abbotsford BC V2T 0B3 from 6:30 - 9:00 pm (Link to register).

August 21, 2026 - Author presentation and book signing is at Suite Genius
225 W 8th Ave Vancouver BC V5Y 1N3 from 6:30 - 8:00 pm (Link to register).
 
Purchase the book from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for $25 (plus shipping) (Purchase Link).

In 2021, Alicia’s mother, Donna Duncan, died by Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a death that sparked national controversy and led to the first police investigation into a MAiD death in Canada. What began as a daughter’s search for answers became years of advocacy, legal action, and a mission to expose troubling gaps in the systems mean't to protect vulnerable people.


Donna’s story has been featured by major media outlets, including the BBC documentary Better Off Dead? and CBC’s The Fifth Estate. Alicia has since become a recognized voice in the national and international conversation around assisted dying, most recently providing testimony to Canada’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD).

More than anything, these events are about the story behind the book: why Alicia felt compelled to write it, what she learned in the process, and why these conversations matter now more than ever.

Thursday, August 6, 2026

Once euthanasia or assisted suicide are legal, the death lobby will pressure to expand the law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


New York officially instituted their assisted suicide law on August 5 (yesterday). The assisted suicide lobby pressured New York legislators for 10 years before New York finally legalized death by lethal poison.

The assisted suicide lobby will soon begin to lobby New York politicians to expand the law.

Kevin Dias, an assisted suicide lobby leader told Katelyn Cordero in an article published in Politico on August 5 that:

while they were disappointed by additional safeguards added through negotiations — such as the residency requirement and mental health evaluation — his organization has worked closely with the state on the implementation process.

Dias is referring to the fact that the original New York assisted suicide bill: 

  • did not have a residency requirement, meaning anyone from anywhere could die by assisted suicide in New York,
  • did not have a reflection period, meaning it allowed a same day death,
  • did not have a mental health evaluation, meaning, depressed people could die by assisted suicide.

Based on the comments by Kevin Dias the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition expects that the assisted suicide lobby will demand expansions to the assisted suicide law, likely in 2028.

The assisted suicide lobby knows that it is more difficult to legalize assisted suicide than it is to expand the law once it is legal.

In 2019 Oregon passed Bill SB 0579 which expanded the assisted suicide law by giving doctors the right to waive the 15 day waiting period when a person is considered near to death.

In 2021 California passed Bill SB 380 which expanded the assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours. It forced doctors who oppose assisted suicide to be complicit in the act and it forced all medical institutions to post their policy on assisted suicide. 

In March 2022 a group of California doctors launched a court case designed to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals. In September 2022 US District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha ruled that the California End of Life Options Act that was amended by Bill SB 380, violated First Amendment rights of doctors by requiring them to participate in assisted suicide.

In 2022 Vermont expanded their assisted suicide law by removing the 48 hour waiting period, (allowing same day death), removing the requirement that examinations be done in person, (allowing approvals by telehealth), and extending legal immunity to anyone who participates in the act.

In 2023 Washington State expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, reducing the waiting period to 7 days and forcing healthcare institutions and hospices to post their assisted suicide policies.

In 2023 Hawaii expanded their assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 20 days to 5 days, it allows the waiting period to be waived if the person is considered near to death and it allows advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison.

In 2023 Oregon expanded their assisted suicide law by passing House Bill 2279 which removed their state assisted suicide residency requirement.

In 2023 Vermont also expanded their assisted suicide law by passing Senate Bill 26 which removed their state assisted suicide residency requirement.

Oregon and Vermont removed their assisted suicide residency requirements in response to assisted suicide lobby legal challenges. By removing the state residency requirement assisted suicide has become a national issue since anyone in America can die by assisted suicide in Oregon and Vermont.

In 2024 Colorado passed Senate Bill 24-068 which allowed advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe assisted suicide, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 7 days, and allowing the doctor or advanced practise registered nurse to waive the waiting period if the person is deemed to be near to death (same day death).

In 2025 Maine passed bill LD613 which expanded the state assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 5 days.

Euthanasia expansions also happened in Canada, where euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in June 2016 (Bill C-14) and then expanded with Bill C-7 in March 2021. Bill C-7 removed the terminal illness requirement, removed the 10-day reflection period, allowed euthanasia for incompetent people who were previously approved and extended euthanasia to mental illness alone. The implantation of euthanasia for mental illness alone has been delayed until March 2027.

Groups that support euthanasia will state that Bill C-7 was based on the Truchon court decision in Quebec, but Bill C-7 expanded the law further than Truchon required. 

Expansion occurs for many reasons

When  examining the expansions of assisted suicide laws in America we recognize several key themes. There is the removal of waiting periods, allowing non-physicians to do the act, and allowing non-residents to die by assisted suicide. 

Assisted suicide laws have also been expanded by redefining the language of the law.

In December 2017, Fabian Stahle, a Swedish researcher asked the Oregon Health Authority how they define terminal illness. Stahle learned that the Oregon Health Authority defined the six month terminal illness prognosis as including someone who may have a six month prognosis even if they reject effective medical treatment. This was clearly an expansion of the law based on redefining the language of the law. 

Once assisted suicide is legal, restrictions on the law are seen as discriminatory. 

Before assisted suicide is legal, everyone is equal under the law. Everyone is equally protected from being killed or equally protected from suicide. 
 
Once legal, people who do not "qualify" under the assisted suicide law will claim that the current law lacks equality and is discriminatory because it doesn't equally apply to all people. 
 
We oppose killing people. 

We don’t just oppose killing people who are terminally or chronically ill, but we oppose killing people. 

We always support caring for people and never support abandoning them to death.

RFK Jr. Decertifies Kentucky Organ Procurement Organization

This article was published by National Review online on August 5, 2026.

Wesley Smith
By Wesley J. Smith

Say what you will about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but he definitely cares about ensuring that organ transplant medicine remains ethical, and unlike many government functionaries, he and his department are actually doing something about it. Thus, on the back of Medicare decertifying a Florida organ procurement organization for cause in 2025, the government is now decertifying the Network for Hope that operates in Kentucky and a few other states.

The government warned the network last year that its procurement procedures were ethically deficient. But the organ procurement organization never cleaned up its act despite knowing it was being scrutinized, including, apparently, for seeking to procure organs from people who had not died.

The unethical cases involve a procedure sometimes known as heart death (as opposed to brain death). In a heart-death donation, the donor is usually receiving intensive care. That medical support is withdrawn with consent and if cardiac arrest occurs — sometimes it doesn’t and the patient is then to be returned to care — after three or so minutes the patient is declared-dead because cardiopulmonary function has irreversibly stopped. After that, the procurement commences.

The case that caused the government to intervene is a real horror story as described by the New York Times:
In Kentucky, scrutiny began when a congressional committee heard testimony about the case of Anthony Thomas Hoover II, who had an overdose in 2021. After family members were told that he would not recover, they authorized donation.

As coordinators arranged for the surgery, Mr. Hoover began to stir, at one point “thrashing on the bed,” according to records reviewed by The Times. Still, Network for Hope, then called Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, tried to move forward. Finally, on the way to the operation, Mr. Hoover cried, pulled his knees to his head and shook his head, and a hospital doctor refused to withdraw life support.
Mr. Hoover eventually recovered, although he has lingering neurological injuries.

Good grief.

Despite that case, Network for Hope avoided punishment. But then:
A federal investigation last year determined that the group had similarly ignored signs of growing alertness in more than 70 other patients. Although the organ removals were eventually cancelled, the investigation said multiple patients exhibited pain or distress as they were being readied for surgery. Overall, more than 100 cases had “concerning features,” the investigators said, noting that the majority of transplants arranged by the Kentucky group were from circulatory-death patients.
Good for Kennedy and the government for moving on this. This is important. The people’s trust in organ transplant medicine is already shallow as unwise efforts to loosen ethical standards advocated by prominent bioethicists — such as allowing living people to be harvested — threaten to further erode public confidence. If we want to maximize the number of organs donated, people have to believe that their lives are deemed more important than their organs.

Next, the government should prohibit the use of a relatively new organ procurement procedure called “normothermic regional perfusion,” which allows cardiac arrest, cuts off circulation to the brain to induce brain death, and then restarts the heart before procurement. It seems to me — and I am far from alone in thinking this — that if someone is resuscitated successfully, he or she is not dead. Moreover, making patients brain-dead on purpose seems little different to me than actively killing them.

Assisted Suicide for people with eating disorders.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 30, 2026 we published an article about the Colorado 2025 assisted suicide data. There were three key take-aways from the Colorado data.
  1. Colorado does not know how many people died by assisted suicide. 
  2. Colorado has missing data concerning how many lethal poison prescriptions were filled.
  3. The number of people who were approved for assisted suicide for eating disorders in Colorado has grown substantially. In 2024, 19 people with eating disorders were approved for assisted suicide and in 2025, 17 people with eating disorders were approved for assisted suicide.
During the assisted suicide bill debate in the UK, Eat, Breathe, Thrive, an organization that specializes in the treatment of eating disorders produced a video about the threat of legalizing assisted suicide for people with eating disorders. 

The video features Ailidh, who lives with an eating disorder and says:
I'm worried. My concerns lie with people like myself who are still in the throws of anorexia right now and what the assisted dying bill could mean for them and the families.
The film shows an anthropologist speaking to the UK assisted dying bill committee claiming that only one or two people have died by assisted suicide for eating disorders in America.

Considering the fact that Colorado alone approved 19 people in 2024 and 17 people in 2025 for assisted suicide based on an eating disorder, clearly the comments to the committee were wrong.

Chelsea Roff
Chelsea Roff, the founder of Eat, Breathe, Thrive, explains the study that they did on assisted death for eating disorders and found that at least 60 people died by an assisted death based on having an eating disorder.

People with eating disorders are living with a serious but treatable condition. 

They are not terminally ill.

Event in Jordon Ontario - Exposing Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia in Canada (August 13)

Lessons on opposing MAiD in Canada

Rachel Parker Live and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are sponsoring an important event in Jordan Ontario

Date: Thursday, August 13 at 7 pm.

Location: The Jordan Hotel

(Purchase tickets

Use discount code: RP FOLLOWER 

An evening with: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, podcaster Rachel Parker and author / activist Jonathon Van Maren.

The evening provides excellent speakers and an incredible opportunity to focus-on and share what needs to be done to change Canada's future. 

(Purchase tickets

 

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Reflecting on the legalization of assisted suicide in New York.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


Today (August 5) is the day that New York state implements their assisted suicide law. 

This is a day of great sadness as we recognize the reality of the decision to legalize assisted suicide and we reflect on the fact that many lives will be ended by this decision.

Assisted suicide laws give doctors (in some states, (also) physician assistants and nurses) the right in law to be directly involved with causing the death of their patients and they provide total legal coverage for the medical staff who are willing to participate, even when the death that they facilitated was questionable.

Assisted suicide is sold to the culture as a form of freedom, choice and autonomy whereas the assisted suicide law actually gives doctors, the right in law, to agree that a persons life is not worth living and to prescribe lethal poison that will kill that person.

There is a misunderstanding about the nature of the assisted suicide act. Assisted suicide is sold as a self-killing, whereas the law is concerned about the rules that the doctor must follow in order to prescribe the lethal poison. Assisted suicide deaths are not always quick, peaceful and painless.

Further to that, there will be "legally" inappropriate deaths. A key problem with identifying deaths that are considered "outside" the parameters of the law is that one of the key witnesses is dead and the other key witness approved the death.

Assisted suicide changes the nature of medical treatment and care. One reason is that killing when sold as a treatment for medical conditions, normalizes killing and justifies it as a "medical option." Another reason is that some physicians will make assisted suicide a central part of their medical practice. These physicians will sometimes become cavalier with assisted suicide leading to a practical expansion of the law.

I oppose killing people. This is not just a statement but rather an understanding of our common human experience. Human persons are not just physical beings but rather we have an intertwined psychological and emotional nature. Offering death, at a person's lowest time, is not about autonomy but rather abandonment. Abandoning a person to death.

Cultural safety requires it's citizens and especially it's medical care-givers to be committed to caring and never killing. 

Giving doctors the right in law to kill creates a social inequality that becomes a threat to the lives of many in their time of need.


Response to: The Paradox of Assisted Suicide.

Mara Buchbinder's thesis: The Paradox of Medical Aid in Dying suggests that legalizing assisted suicide is popular because the practice is rare. Buchbinder also asserts that legalizing assisted suicide improves the death experience because patients can plan and discuss their death.

Dr's Pies, Geppert, Komrad and Hanson respond.

Dear Colleagues,


As psychiatrists and medical ethicists, we strongly disagree with anthropologist Mara Buchbinder, Ph.D.’s “Perspective” in the New England Journal of Medicine. [1] We believe Buchbinder’s thesis ignores the central, ethical issue underlying physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and offers several fallacious justifications for PAS.

First: nowhere in Buchbinder’s analysis is there any discussion of whether PAS is ethically justified, or consistent with the values of Hippocratic medicine. Many prominent medical organizations have repeatedly said it is not. [2,3,4]

Furthermore, it is a morbid irony to assert that an "unintended benefit" of MAID laws is to help "…start new conversations about what matters most to patients in the final stages of serious illness…” Does Buchbinder seriously believe that such intimate physician-patient conversations require legislation authorizing medically-assisted suicide on demand?

In truth, discussing MAID with a terminally ill patient narrows the conversation and orients the patient toward death as the preferred option. Responsible palliative care identifies options based on the patient’s actual goals and values [5]

Equally fallacious is Buchbinder’s reference to “this potential of MAID to control uncertainty” stemming from “the current historical moment.” The implication that a patient’s anxiety over “political unrest, economic instability, [and] climate change” is appropriately addressed by offering medically assisted suicide is stunning in its perversity.

As medical ethicist Dr. Leon Kass has observed, “We must care for the dying, not make them dead.” [6]

Respectfully,

Ronald W. Pies, MD 
Cynthia M.A. Geppert, MD, PhD, MA, MPH, MSBE, DPS, MSJ 
Mark S. Komrad, MD 
Annette Hanson, MD


References

1. Buchbinder M. The Paradox of Medical Aid in Dying. NEJM 395;5 July 30, 2026 [attached]

2. Snyder Sulmasy L, Mueller PS; Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: An American College of Physicians Position Paper. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 17;167(8):576-578

3. American Medical Association Code of Ethics. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/physician-assisted-suicide

4. WMA Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. (2019). https://www.wma.net/policies-post/declaration-on-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/

5. Geppert CM. Futility in Chronic Anorexia Nervosa: A Concept Whose Time Has Not Yet Come. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(7):34-43. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1039720. PMID: 26147264.

6. Kass L. Dehumanization Triumphant. First Things. Aug. 1, 1996. https://firstthings.com/dehumanization-triumphant/