The Dutch debate youth psychiatric euthanasia and suicide prevention

Professor Jim van Os

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Research by Jim van Os, a Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Public Health at Utrecht University Medical Centre, in The Netherlands, that was published on April 22, 2026 by Cambridge University Press, examines the relationship between suicide and youth psychiatric euthanasia.

van Os responded to the claim that youth psychiatric euthanasia is necessary to prevent violent suicide deaths. Based on research on 353 young euthanasia applicants, van Os concludes that for every 10 youth psychiatric euthanasia deaths, 9 would not have died by suicide. van Os writes:

Thus, ten youths would need to undergo assisted dying to prevent one suicide, and nine would die without a preventive purpose having been served. Empirically and ethically, the prevention argument does not appear to hold; real prevention requires other, previously well-debated factors such as relational continuity, trauma-informed care and social inclusion in response to mental suffering.

van Os presents his concerns that the number of youth psychiatric euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands has increased substantially. He writes:

Between 2020 and 2024, the number of euthanasia procedures for individuals under 30 rose from 5 to 30, a sixfold increase, representing over 9% of all premature deaths (suicide + assisted dying) in that age group.

van Os suggests that youth psychiatric euthanasia has created a Werther effect, meaning that the acceptance of youth psychiatric euthanasia has created a suicide contagion effect. 

The "suicide prevention" argument was promoted by Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch Psychiatrist. van Os explains:

The suicide prevention argument in The Netherlands was most notably advocated by a retired psychiatrist, who admitted in a national newspaper to having performed euthanasia 12 times in 11 months, including young people and minors. Introducing deterministic terminology like calling patients ‘mentally terminal’, the retired psychiatrist argued that refusing assisted dying to a suicidal patient can be catastrophic in the case of a ‘false-negative’ event. 

The prevention argument has received sympathetic and emotionally charged media coverage. There is anecdotal evidence that, as a result, clinicians in The Netherlands are increasingly faced with demands by young people – and sometimes their families – that euthanasia is indicated in order to prevent a suicide.

van Os explains the data concerning young people who request euthanasia:

The recent study by Schweren and colleagues on 353 young people (<24) who applied for psychiatric assisted dying at the Dutch Euthanasia Expertise Centre found that: 47% of applicants withdrew their request, 45% were rejected, 3% died by assisted dying and 4% died by suicide during the evaluation process, translating to an annual suicide risk of around 2.9%. So in this group explicitly requesting euthanasia, the annualised suicide rate is about five-fold higher than in other high-risk psychiatric populations – but still far from universal, meaning most do not die by suicide, even after requesting assisted dying. 

No jurisdiction that has legalized euthanasia has experienced a decrease in the suicide rate, van Os explains:

Empirically, there is no population-level evidence that assisted dying reduces suicide mortality. A systematic review by Doherty and colleagues found no consistent reduction in suicide rates in countries that legalised assisted dying; in some, suicides even increased. In The Netherlands, despite growing numbers of psychiatric euthanasia cases, suicide among young women continues to rise.

van Os then examined the theory that permitting euthanasia for youth with mental illness will decrease suicide. van Os uses "generous assumptions" and found:

Thus, even under generous assumptions, and realistic sensitivity scenarios thereof, the ‘preventive’ justification for assisted dying is not convincing. The intervention eliminates far more lives than it plausibly saves.

van Os examines several other factors and concludes that theory that permitting psychiatric euthanasia reduces other suicides creates a form of collusion:

When suicide prevention morphs into medicalised facilitation of death, prevention logic collapses into complicity. The preventive claim – ‘better assisted dying than a violent suicide’ – assumes a causal substitution that cannot be empirically or ethically established. It risks transforming demoralised youth into ‘false positives’ of a system that mistakes despair for autonomy.

From a strictly epidemiological standpoint, that facts are that: (a) suicide remains a rare outcome, even among those requesting assisted dying; (b) predictive accuracy for suicide is low; positive predictive value in youth is <20%; and (c) no evidence exists that assisted dying reduces suicide rates; in any realistic model, around 10 young people die for each suicide theoretically prevented by assisted dying.

Therefore, the argument that youth euthanasia prevents suicide appears to be scientifically unfounded and morally inverted. True suicide prevention lies not in medical facilitation of death but in restoring relational continuity, trauma-informed care and societal inclusion. Compassion without critical reasoning risks becoming cruelty by proxy.

The research by Jim van Os is important as Canadian debates extending euthanasia to people for psychiatric reasons alone.

Jocelyn Downie

Recently, euthanasia activist and academic, Jocelyn Downie, argued before a Parliamentary Committee that preventing euthanasia for mental illness alone will lead to violent suicide deaths.

Downie is a long-time activist who has bought into the Oosterhoff theory that euthanasia reduces other suicides. But Downie, like the others, didn't test the theory with actual data.

Canada has experienced a massive increase in euthanasia deaths and has also experienced a massive increase in suicide deaths. If Oosterhoff and Downie are correct, the suicide rate would actually be going down, or minimally speaking, not increasing. 

There is no jurisdiction, over a long period of time, that experienced a lowering of the suicide rate after legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Fewer Animal Euthanasia Deaths — but More Human Euthanasia Deaths

This article was published by National Review online on April 21, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

After a bear was euthanized in California because she paw-swiped a human who owned a house under which the bruin and her cubs were living, there was a popular outcry. Now, a bill has been put in the hopper in the California State Senate promoting “coexistence” between people and wild animals. From S.B. 1135:

It is the policy of the state that the management of wildlife shall include an emphasis on the coexistence of humans and wildlife through department-led efforts to reduce, minimize, and mitigate conflicts. These efforts shall also seek to align with the state’s conservation, public safety, environmental planning, and climate adaptation goals and to be accomplished through coordination and cooperation between the department and wildlife coexistence partners.

Here are the details:

Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department shall establish the Wildlife Coexistence Program to manage and promote wildlife coexistence by conducting all of the following activities:
(a) Managing, tracking, and responding to wildlife conflict calls, reports, and incident responses.
(b) Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating conflicts between humans and wildlife by proactively and continuously implementing best practices that emphasize effective and ecologically appropriate nonlethal conflict resolution solutions developed using best available science and indigenous knowledge.
(c) Investigating, documenting, and analyzing reported human-wildlife incidents, including, but not limited to, depredation, perceived or actual human-wildlife conflicts, and wildlife health issues.
(d) Maintaining a statewide wildlife incident reporting tool.

Okay. That’s going to take a lot of time, effort, and resources in a state in which homelessness is rampant, children aren’t learning in school, and the public debt is increasing. Still, my main concern is public safety. Dangerous animals that have attacked humans should be euthanized, it seems to me.

There is also a major push around the country for “no kill” animal shelters. I’m fine with that, particularly for adoptable pets. But aren’t our moral sensibilities being inverted? As we see a greater push for fewer animal deaths by euthanasia, concomitantly, euthanasia activists are pressuring for policies to increase the number of ill and disabled people who are killed by assisted suicide or a lethal jab.

In 2024, I wrote about a California assisted-suicide activist who, in the California Health Report, urged the medical community to be more proactive in informing qualifying patients of their right to be killed. (This happens all the time in Canada.) The fellow groused that Canada had so many euthanasia deaths whereas California — with an equivalent population — had so comparatively few.

Meanwhile, Compassion and Choices (formerly and more honestly known as the Hemlock Society) sought to increase the number of people of color who opt for assisted suicide. Similarly, Thaddeus Mason Pope — the bioethicist leading the charge for radicalizing access to euthanasia and assisted suicide, took to the pages of the American Journal of Bioethics to advocate the “Top Ten Expansions” he wanted to see to increase access to euthanasia. He concluded:

The United States took an early worldwide lead with MAID when Oregon enacted its Death with Dignity Act in 1994. But . . . the United States has lost its lead. And it is quickly falling to the back of the pack in terms of MAID safety and access.

I would put it differently. The U.S. isn’t falling into the moral abyss as fast as some other nations, but we are falling.

I am all for reducing the number of animals that are euthanized, consistent with public safety, the protection of livestock, and the ability to care for them humanely. I just wish we were equally committed to “no kill health care” for humans.

Previous similar article:

• Animals can have no kill shelters. Why not humans? (Read).
  

Repealing the Final Rule Would Be A Tragedy For Opposition To Euthanasia.

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

As I’ve mentioned, the Final Rule, a 2024 update to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, is one of the best tools that the anti euthanasia movement has had in decades. The Final Rule strengthens Section 504 and the Americans With Disabilities Act in several ways, including new prohibitions against medical personnel pushing disabled people towards death. These provisions are new bulwarks against assisted suicide, coerced DNRs, futile care statutes and the infanticide of disabled babies; such as in the 1982 Baby Doe case. Everything groups opposing euthanasia need to avoid a Canada-like situation is in those regulations.

The Final Rule not only addresses futile care statutes, assisted suicide and infanticide, it also contains numerous other beneficial provisions. For instance, the Final Rule contains new protections for disabled parents, internet access, accessible medical equipment and better community services for disabled people at risk of being institutionalized. Hence, the Final Rule will help protect disabled Americans from the scarcity that is pushing disabled Canadians towards euthanasia.

But in 2025, 17 states filed the Texas vs. Becerra lawsuit, now called Texas vs. Kennedy. The original lawsuit sought to repeal the entire Final Rule, as well as Section 504 itself. (The challenge to Section 504 itself was dropped after backlash.)

In addition to multiple disability protections that I think EPC blog readers from across the political spectrum can agree on, one clause of the Final Rule defined gender dysphoria as a disability. This was one of the reasons that the 17 states filed suit against the Final Rule.

But the gender dysphoria issue is currently a moot point. Regardless of whether one believes that gender dysphoria ought to be defined as an impairment, the President’s executive order on gender issues means that this government will not enforce that part of the Rule. So, eight of the original 17 states dropped out of the lawsuit.

But 9 states still want to eliminate the rest of the Final Rule. Texas, Florida, Alaska, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas, Montana and South Dakota want the government to avoid “burdening” states with the Rule’s requirement that states institute new supports for disabled people at risk of being institutionalized. So, on January 23rd, 2026, those states filed an updated version of their lawsuit. This iteration of the lawsuit makes no mention of gender dysphoria or repealing Section 504 itself, but it still seeks to have the entire Final Rule set aside.

I am also very worried that even if the lawsuit is dropped, HHS and the Department of Justice will rescind the entire Final Rule anyway.

This would be a shame, because the Final Rule is a critical tool for achieving opposition to euthanasia.

Groups opposing euthanasia have always fought the infanticide of disabled babies, which we know happens periodically in hospitals across the US and abroad because doctors make prejudiced judgments about the value of the babies’ lives. (Such as the UK Alfie Evans case.) Section 84.56 specifically addresses this problem. To quote from the text of the Final Rule:

“Comments: Several commenters asked the Department to clarify the application of § 84.56 to newborn infants.

Response: As indicated within the NPRM, the Department considers section 504, including § 84.56, to apply to newborn infants. This includes the prohibitions against the denial of medical treatment under § 84.56(b)(1) and (2), and the prohibitions on the discriminatory provision of medical treatment under § 84.56(b)(3).

Comment: One commenter objected based on its understanding that the Department's proposed rule would not apply to decisions to withhold treatment from infants with disabilities in which the disabling condition is related to the condition to be treated, noting that § 84.56(b)(2) addresses treatment for a separately diagnosable condition or symptom and not for the underlying disability. The comment concerned infants with disability conditions such as meningomyelocele, hydrocephaly, microcephaly, or other anatomical anomalies. The comment noted that failure to treat these conditions represents discrimination against a child with a disability.

Response: The Department believes that this comment misconstrues the section 504 rule. The Department intends that this rule will generally apply to the provision of medical treatment for infants, including those seeking treatment for separately diagnosable symptoms or conditions related to their underlying disability, when medical treatment is provided to other similarly situated children. For example, an infant with microcephaly may experience seizures. This would constitute a separately diagnosable symptom or condition for which treatment would be subject to the protections of § 84.56(b)(2) despite the fact that the seizures are a symptom of the infant's microcephaly. As the Department's NPRM made clear, with respect to separately diagnosable conditions, the rule will not require that the condition be entirely unrelated to the underlying disability. “Nor does it matter for these purposes whether the condition for which the individual is seeking treatment is in some sense causally related to the underlying disability if the decision to refuse treatment would not be made as to similarly situated individuals without the disability.” 88 FR 63405. In addition, § 84.56(b)(1) prohibits denying or limiting medical treatment to a qualified individual with a disability based on bias or stereotypes about that patient's disability, judgments that the individual will be a burden on others due to their disability, or a belief that the life of a person with a disability has a lesser value than the life of a person without a disability or that life with a disability is not worth living. Under such circumstances, the discrimination described by the commenter would also be covered under § 84.56(b)(1) even if the condition for which the patient sought treatment was not a separately diagnosable symptom or condition from their underlying disability.”

So, if you are fighting infanticide, the Final Rule is your best friend. 

Opposition to euthanasia has also always fought futile care laws, like those that exist in Texas and California, which allow hospital ethics committees to override patients’ and families’ desires for life-saving care that ableist physicians consider “futile.” For instance, the anti-futility provisions in the Final Rule were inspired by the case of Michael Hickson, who was denied treatment for COVID-19 because he was a quadriplegic. The Final Rule forbids such authoritarianism. It is the anti euthanasia movement’s best shot at eliminating futile care laws once and for all.

An excerpt about the Final Rule’s prohibition on medical futility reads as follows:

“The Department proposed §  84.56(b)(1)(iii) to prohibit recipients from denying or limiting medical treatment based on the provider's belief that the life of a person with a disability has a lesser value than a person without a disability, or that life with a disability is not worth living.

Comments: The Department received a broad array of comments from disability organizations, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders supporting this approach. We received stories from people with disabilities describing their own experiences or those of friends regarding the denial of life-sustaining treatment and the difficulties involved in accessing it after such denials. We also received similar stories from providers. For example, one provider association described a 25-year-old patient with a developmental disability who had been referred to an inpatient hospice unit after becoming poorly responsive with brain imaging demonstrating a shunt and severe abnormalities. After the provider learned from a family member of a recent sudden change in the patient's behavior, the patient received a second opinion, leading to the shunt being surgically revised, the patient's condition improving, and her enjoying her life for many more years. In the words of this commenter, the patient's “referral to hospice without sufficient exploration of other treatment options was inappropriate and may have been driven by a mistaken clinical assumption regarding her baseline quality of life.”

Response: The Department will retain the provision as proposed. We respond to specific questions regarding the application of this requirement throughout this section.”

Hence, this section of the Final Rule forbids the futile care impositions that groups opposing euthanasia have fought for decades.

Moreover, we know that disabled Canadians are agreeing to be killed by “MAiD” because they aren’t getting the supports they need: not having wheelchairs, pain control, food, housing, jobs, etc. These conditions also contribute to high rates of suicide among US citizens with disabilities. Hence, the Final Rule helps prevent disabled Americans from experiencing Canada-like tragedies.

And, given that the Final Rule prohibits federal funding recipients from “from denying or limiting medical treatment based on the provider's belief that the life of a person with a disability has a lesser value than a person without a disability, or that life with a disability is not worth living,” it precludes turning disabled people’s suicides into a “medical procedure.” Think of the efforts we will have to expend against assisted suicide in the future: wouldn’t you like to use the Final Rule to fight those bills?

I urge other euthanasia opponents to do what they can to defend the Final Rule. Time is of the essence, because many of the regulations in the Final Rule are supposed to take effect this month and federal officials have already eliminated or delayed some of them. For instance, officials have rescinded new provisions requiring adequate staffing in nursing homes. New rules about internet access and home and community based services have also been paused. Therefore, the aforementioned anti-death provisions could soon be paused or eliminated as well.

So, if you are someone in Washington DC who interacts with officials at HHS or the Department of Justice, make the importance of the Final Rule part of your conversations. If you live in one of the states that is bringing the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit, write to your attorney general and ask them to drop it.

The Final Rule furthers compassion and dignity for disabled persons. It is also one of the USA’s most urgent anti-euthanasia issues in decades.

Author Note:

For information about how to contact your attorney general to ask them to drop the lawsuit, see this link.

To write to the US Department of Justice, go to this link.

To write to the Department of Health and Hunan Services, use this link.
For a quick explanation of what Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is, see this Drunk History video about the history of the law. 

Meghan is a disability instructor and a member of the EPC-USA board.

Man who sold suicide poison online will plead guilty to aiding suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kenneth Law

Kenneth Law, a Canadian who sold a suicide poison kit online to as many as 1200 people world-wide, will plead guilty to multiple counts of aiding suicide. 

Based on a plea agreement, the Crown Prosecutor will drop the 14 counts of murder, that if convicted, would have resulted in 25 years in prison, for an agreement where Law pleads guilty to aiding the suicide of his victims, a charge that would likely result in a 14 year sentence.

In other words, Law may get off with a 14 year sentence for knowingly selling a suicide substance to 1200 people that resulted in 100's of deaths. Since he has been in custody since May 2023, he may be free in 8 years.

On May 3, 2023; I reported that Law, had been arrested and charged with two counts of assisted suicide and was believed to have assisted the suicide of at least 7 people in the US and the UK.

Lucas Casaletto reported for City News that:

Peel Regional Police announced the arrest of a 57-year-old Ontario man stemming from the online distribution of ... across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that resulted in two deaths.

Authorities in Peel Region opened an investigation following a report from the Times of London in the United Kingdom. It mentioned that a GTA resident named Kenneth Law had been selling ..., a legal but lethal drug, to people in the U.K. and the U.S., which resulted in seven suicides.

On March 31, officers in Peel Region began investigating the circumstances of a sudden death in Ontario. It is believed that Law distributed and marketed the substance online to target individuals at risk of self-harm.

Law was arrested by Peel police ... and charged with two counts of counselling or aiding in suicide. He appeared briefly in a Brampton court ... 

Neha Raju (23) and Tom Parfett (22)

On May 9, 2023 CTV News journalist, Jon Woodward reported that Law was facing two counts of aiding and abetting the deaths of two people in Peel Region, allegedly through the online sales of a legal substance that is lethal in high concentrations. Law sold the substance world-wide for the purposes of aiding suicide.

Woodward reported that 23-year-old Neha Raju and 22-year-old Tom Parfett died in the U.K., and 20-year-old Noelle Ramirez died in Colorado, and 17-year-old Anthony Jones died in Michigan and the police were investigating 1200 people who were sent the lethal substance online.

Imogen Nunn

Euronews reported on August 25, 2023 that Law was being investigated by UK authorities in the suicide deaths of 88 people and it was suspected that Law had shipped the suicide substance to at least 232 people in the UK.

On August 27, 2023 Jon Woodward further reported on  CP24 on the Law investigation that the death of Imogen Nunn was also connected to Law. Woodward stated that:

Louise Nunn

The British mom of a TikTok star is coming forward demanding justice after she found out her daughter died using a so-called suicide kit allegedly sold by a Canadian man, as deaths possibly tied to Kenneth Law rise to over 100.

Louise Nunn said it was sickening to learn that the death of her daughter Imogen, known as “Deaf Immy” to 710,000 TikTok followers, was one of 88 British people local police say died after ordering products from Law’s websites over a two-year period.

Nunn said it was heartbreaking to learn of other deaths months and years before Imogen’s, and believes many lives could have been saved if authorities had acted earlier.

“I can’t even say how angry it makes me feel. It’s sickening. Why did they let it go on for so long? They could have stopped this a long time ago,” Nunn said.

Imogen Nunn died suddenly in January, 2023 and the family didn't know how she died until the toxicology report confirmed that she died from the suicide substance.  Woodward also reported that the youngest victim connected to Kenneth Law was 17.

Many of those who died were in their 20s, according to family members. The youngest was 17-year-old Anthony Jones in Michigan. The earliest known case is a 21-year-old named Jaden, who died in February 2021 — his family said they went to police in B.C. almost two years before Imogen Nunn’s death.

Some of Kenneth Law's victims.

On December 12, 2023 CBC News Toronto reported that Law was charged with 14 counts of second-degree murder. The CBC news report stated:

Law was charged with 14 counts of second-degree murder, in addition to the 14 counts of counselling or aiding suicide that he was already facing. CBC News Toronto stated that York Regional Police Insp. Simon James, who heads up a multi-service task force investigating Law confirmed the charges at a news conference today. The new charges are related to the same alleged victims in multiple Ontario municipalities, from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

On October 7, 2024, Jon Woodward reported for CTV news that Law was challenging the second-degree murder charges to the Supreme Court of Canada. Woodward reported:

“Assisting suicide is not murder,” Law’s lawyers, Matthew Gourlay, Stephanie DiGuiseppe, and Taylor Wormington wrote in a brief filed Friday.

"Mr. Law is not alleged to have been present at any of the deaths. He is not alleged to have deceived the victims into unwittingly ending their own lives. It would impermissibly warp the language of the Code to assert that someone who mails a toxic substance that another person later voluntarily consumes in another location with suicidal intent has “actually committed” their murder," they write.

Woodward's report indicates that at least 130 people died after consuming the poison.

Charges against Law included a 16-year-old death in Ontario. CBC News reported on May 8 that 17-year-old Anthony Jones from Michigan allegedly died in connection to Law's suicide kit.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will continue to report on this horrific case.

I live with Schizophrenia. I support Bill C-218.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In March 2021, the Canadian government expanded the euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7. One of the expansions in the law permitted euthanasia for a mental illness alone. The government originally approved a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone to prepare for the change.

The government delayed the implementation and currently euthanasia for mental illness alone will begin on March 17, 2027.

Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in parliament to prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone. 

Bill C-218, if passed will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

On April 17, 2026 the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received the following message urging passage of Bill C-218 based on personal experience. The supporter stated:

Inability to Know Which Suicides to Prevent and Which to Provide is a good subject.

I live with the illness schizophrenia and at risk of developing dementia and I fear this future decision. 

I told family and friends that I am against euthanasia. My only hope is that in the future, not only for myself but for others, is that euthaanasia does not become legal for mentally people. 

How do you treat an illness with MAID when suicidal feelings are a symptom of the illness, where do we differentiate the difference?

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

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

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

 

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

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

More information on Bill C-218.

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

At Last! A Fair Shake for Terri Schiavo’s Brother in the New York Times

This article was published by National Review online on April 13, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

My friend Bobby Schindler, the late Terri Schiavo’s brother, is one of the kindest, humblest, most decent people I know. And yet, because he dared to stand up for the inherent value of his sister’s life and against the injustice of her court-ordered dehydration — and has continued to fight on behalf of brain-injured people and their families — journalists and bioethicists often look down their noses at him as someone just beyond the pale of sophisticated society.

But in a story in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine reciting how many allegedly unconscious patients are actually aware — I refuse to use the term “vegetative” as it is a dehumanizing denigration of intrinsic human value — much to my delighted surprise, Bobby is treated fairly and with respect by journalist Katie Engelhart.

Bobby Schindler

As the head of the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, Bobby toils as a patient advocate for people who are being pressured to end the lives of their cognitively disabled loved ones. It is in this context that a woman fighting for her husband’s life meets Bobby:

One day, someone in the group told Tabitha that she should contact a man named Bobby Schindler, a patient advocate who helped people like Aaron.

Tabitha messaged Schindler through his website, and he called her the next day. He listened as if he really cared. Schindler told Tabitha that her hope for Aaron was right and just. That it was correct to resist the doctors’ appeals for “comfort care.” He offered to introduce Tabitha to a lawyer he knew, so that, in dealings with the hospital — for instance, if the hospital wanted to discharge Aaron to a nursing home before she felt he was ready — she could say, “My lawyer will handle this.” And Schindler seemed to understand everything that Tabitha was going through, because of what had happened to his sister, Terri Schiavo.

Bobby is not in it for himself, but to help:

In the 20 years since he established the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, Schindler has never advertised his services. “I think just the fact of Terri’s name is enough for people to find us,” he says. Most of the time, people wanted his advice. Or the name of a good lawyer. Or money. Almost everyone wanted more time. They called from the I.C.U. to say that doctors had started talking about comfort care, about organs.

Schindler would tell the callers what he had come to believe in the years since his sister died one of the most litigated deaths in U.S. history: that there might be hope for their loved ones. That they could fight hospital administrators. That the persistent vegetative state diagnosis was “subjective.”

This is what he does. When Bobby stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Jahi McMath’s mother at a news conference when she was fighting against a brain death diagnosis for her daughter in Oakland, he saw a mother’s pain. Behind the scenes, to my shame, I counseled him against getting involved. Fighting brain death is not the policy hill to die on, I said. Nothing can prevent Jahi from being taken off life support.

I was doubly wrong. In the end, Jahi was not taken off life support but moved to New Jersey, and it turned out, she was catastrophically disabled but not dead. I witnessed it myself. (She later died of complications from intestinal surgery.)

In any event, one can disagree with Bobby’s beliefs and his family’s valiant struggle (in my view) to save Terri’s life. But I am pleased that — finally — a mainstream journalist treated Bobby with the respect and fairness he deserves. And in the New York Times, no less. Will wonders never cease.

Tamara Jansen (MP) Parliament hill speech on Bill C-218. Preventing euthanasia for mental illness.

This is the speech by Tamara Jansen on Monday April 13 on parliament hill at the EPC rally to almost 100 participants who attended in the pouring rain.

My friends,

Tamara Jansen speaking at EPC rally.

You know, when I first got involved in politics, it wasn’t because I had some grand plan to stand on Parliament Hill one day and speak about a bill like this.

It started much more simply. I got to know my local MP Mark Warawa and loved what he stood for.  I started helping him organize town halls, meet with people in the community, and make connections.  He was doing all this because he was passionate about the vulnerable citizens living among us.

And one of the things Mark cared deeply about was palliative care. He believed, in a very real and practical way, that when people are suffering, our job is to come alongside them—to care for them, to support them, to remind them that they are not alone.

Now, Mark also served on the original committee studying what would become MAiD, and I remember him saying—more than once—that we needed to be very careful because once you open a door like that, you don’t always get to decide how far it swings.

At the time, some people thought that was a bit of a stretch.

But I don’t think anyone would say that today.

Because here we are, just a few years later, and what began as something quite limited has been expanded, piece by piece, to the point where we are now planning to offer MAiD to those whose only condition is mental illness—people who are not at the end of life.

And somewhere along the way, I found myself thinking: this isn’t what people believed they were agreeing to.

That’s why I brought forward Bill C-218, building on the work of my colleague Ed Fast—because at some point, when you can see where a road is leading, you have to be willing to stop and say, “Let’s take another look at this before we go any further.”

Now, when you take the time to really look at what is being proposed here, and you listen carefully to the people who are working most closely with those who are suffering, you begin to understand that this issue is far more complex than it is often presented by organizations like Dying With Dignity. We have heard from psychiatrists across this country—highly trained, deeply experienced professionals—who are telling us, quite plainly, that when it comes to mental illness, there is no reliable way to determine that a condition is truly irremediable.

That word matters, because it is the very foundation upon which MAiD rests. It assumes that we can identify, with confidence, when suffering cannot be alleviated. But in the case of mental illness, the evidence simply does not support that level of certainty, and the doctors themselves are telling us so.

And if we pause for a moment and reflect on that, it raises a very serious concern. Because what we are being asked to accept is not a clear medical conclusion, but a judgment—one that carries permanent consequences. Mental illness does not follow a straight line. It shifts, it responds, it improves, sometimes in ways that surprise even those who have spent years studying it. People who once believed they could not go on have, with time and care, found their footing again. And yet, under this expansion, we are being asked to make life-ending decisions with no clear certainty that things couldn’t improve with time and care.

But there is another piece of this that Canadians often don’t realize. Under the current framework, there is no requirement that a person must have received every reasonable treatment—or even meaningful treatment at all—before being approved for MAiD. Just think about that for a moment. We are prepared to offer a permanent solution, even in situations where the path to care has not been fully pursued, or where access to that care may have been limited in the first place.

And when you place that reality alongside the circumstances many people are living in, it becomes much more serious. Because vulnerability is not just about a diagnosis—it is about the whole situation a person finds themselves in. It is about someone who feels isolated, someone who feels like a burden on their family, someone who looks around and quietly begins to wonder whether others might be better off without them. Those are not rare thoughts in moments of deep struggle—they are, in fact, painfully common.

So we have to ask ourselves what happens when a person in that state is presented with MAiD as an option. Are they making a free and fully unburdened choice, or are they responding to a set of pressures—emotional, social, even financial—that are shaping that decision in ways we cannot measure?

At the same time, experts who have spoken to us have raised another concern, one that is difficult to ignore. They are seeing individuals who are already struggling with suicidal thoughts becoming aware that there is now a system that can provide the outcome they want.

And in some cases, when one door closes, another can be found—because what has emerged is a form of doctor shopping, where individuals seek out assessors who are willing to say yes, even when others have urged caution or continued care. Some experts have described this as creating a kind of pull, where MAiD begins to appear not as a last resort after every avenue has been exhausted, but as an available alternative.

We have already seen the consequences of that. Kiano’s story is one that many of you here know well. He was a young man who was struggling, who needed support, who needed time, and whose mother fought for him—fought the system for him—because she believed, as any parent would, that her son’s life was worth fighting for. And yet, despite those efforts, he was eventually able to find a pathway that led to his death. How many more Kiano’s are out there that we have not heard about?

And that is where this becomes more than policy. Because when a system allows that kind of outcome, it raises a very serious question about whether we are truly protecting the vulnerable, or whether we are making it easier for them to give up at the very moment they most need someone to stand in the gap for them.

And so I want to close by simply saying thank you.

Thank you to every one of you who has taken the time to stand here today, and to so many others across this country who may not be on this hill, but who have picked up the phone, written an email, or had a conversation with their Member of Parliament because they know this matters.

These things are not always easy to do. They take time, they take courage, and they come from a place of deep concern—not just for ourselves, but for people we may never meet.

And that, more than anything, is what this bill represents.

It represents a decision, as a country, to stand with those who are struggling… especially when they cannot stand on their own. It represents a belief that vulnerability should never become a pathway to being overlooked, or worse, to being offered something final when what is still needed is care, time, and hope.

And I want you to know that your voices are being heard.

In Parliament, those calls, those letters, those conversations—they matter. They shape decisions, they influence outcomes. They remind every Member of Parliament that behind every vote are real people, real families, and real lives.

So please, keep going.

Keep speaking.

Keep standing for those who need someone to stand for them.

Together we will reaffirm the kind of country we want to be.  One that truly cares for those most vulnerable in communities across Canada.

Thank you.

• Tamara Jansen speech in the House of Commons on Bill C -218, preventing euthanasia for mental illness alone (Read).