France's Senate once again defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide, on Monday May 11, 2026 by a vote of 151 to 118. The Senate then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the part of the law that improves access to palliative care.
On January 21, 2026, France's Senate defeated a similar assisted suicide bill that had passed in the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025.
Even though France's Senate has defeated the assisted suicide bill twice and both times overwhelmingly passed a bill to improve palliative care, based on France's system of government the assisted suicide bill may pass again in the National Assemby and still beome law. Third reading on the bill in the National Assembly could still happen in June.
So when they die, they're actually drowning in their own blood.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The Bridge City News did an interview with Dr Joel Zivot, who is a Candian anesthesiologist and adjunct professor at Emory University in the United States. Zivot spoke to the Bridge City News about how euthanasia drugs cause death. I have edited the comments by Zivot for length. Zivot stated:
I'm an anesthesiologist and I also do intensive care medicine. I'm from Canada originally and I've been in the US for a number of years, and I'm always interested with what's happening in Canada. I have practised in Canada and I trained in Canada.
Zivot comments on the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision that led to the legalization of euthanasia, which is known as MAiD in Canada. Zivot continued:
I was concerned that such an action would imperil medical professionalism in Canada because it seemed to be advocating a wholesale ethical change as to what physicians are supposed to be doing. Medicine is interested in saving life, not taking it.
...In my intensive care capacity I encounter a lot of patients who die and that's normal and natural but the idea that medicine could be transformed into a practice that I could actually kill someone and call it treatment. Now treatment can be killing. That, of course, to me is an anathema to the ethical practice of medicine.
In the US I am also involved with the area of the death penalty. The reason I got involved in the death penalty is the use of science and medicine as a method of punishing people. The most common method of execution in the US is lethal injection which takes certain types of chemicals that in my hands are medicine and in the state's hands are poison and repurposes them to kill prisoners.
Zivot comments on his beliefs related to the death penalty and then says:
It's not the job of the doctor to kill prisoners and it is not the job of the tools of medicine. So my protest is that if the state wants to executive people, it has to use a technique that isn't an impersonation of medicine.
Zivot then comments on Canada's euthanasia program:
Assistance in Dying in Canada is strikingly similar to the way that prisoners are executed in the United States. When I realized that was going on that caught my attention.
I have reviewed hundreds of autopsies of prisoners executed using lethal injection and found a strikingly common finding of bloody froth in their lungs. So when they die, they're actually drowning in their own blood.
You may have no sympathy for convicted murderers but the US Constitution makes it very clear that when a prisoner is punished that the punishment can't be cruel. I believe that the punishment of lethal injection creates a cruel death.
I brought those same concerns to Canada. My concern in the Canadian assisted dying system is that there's been a persistent dishonesty in exactly what is happening when people are being killed by MAiD.
Dr Zivot was asked about the drugs that are being used for euthanasia. Zivot responds:
No drug company is manufacturing a drug where the labelled indication is to kill. It's not made for that. ...In both the death penalty and assisted dying, it's recognized that these drugs can be repurposed and be converted into poison.
Zivot comments on medical politics in Canada. He then speaks about dying with dignity:
There's been little focus on is the killing part of being dead. To get from alive to dead, you have to be killed, you have to die, and that's not instantaneous. So there's a thing that has to be done to you that causes your death. And that can take some time.
So words like dignity of course, what does it mean to be dignified, to die with dignity? ...
So to suggest somehow that the only dignity available to people who are suffering is to kill them feels to me to be a very sinister use of the word dignity.
You're basically saying that if you want to be alive and in pain that there is something wrong with you. So if your not dying with dignity then you're living with undignity.
That's branding, that's a false and pernicious claim about people who want to be alive.
Zivot was asked about euthanasia being extended to people with mental illness alone in March 2027. Zivot responds:
That's obviously very disconcerting. Let's hope that between now and then that clearer heads prevail.
I take care of a lot of people who are mentally ill. I have patients who've tried to kill themselves.
When I encounter them, my assumption is that they want to live. Sure enough, in many cases once they have recovered from their attempted suicide, they live. Sometimes there's gratitude.
I think that you want your doctor to assume that you want to live. Mental illness leads to a series of bad decisions. I don't know how. if we say that a person has mental illness and loses capacity, that the capacity to request death, that capacity is preserved.
So why is a person who is mentally ill able to make that decision?
Zivot then comments his experience with patients with mental illness and how they are cared for to help them live. Zivot states:
If there is some particular theoretical person who has thought about it, who's done every possible thing, who is not under resourced, who is not lonely, ... and you think that person should be allowed to die? I still don't think it's my job to do it.
The problem is that once you make that available, you create opportunities and incentives for people to die and that's the worst possible thing.
Zivot was then asked, if lethal injection results in death by drowning, why aren't there more doctors screaming from the rooftops? Zivot responds:
I presented my concerns to the Senate of Canada and I was roundly criticized for it. When I was testifying, a person who was there waiting their turn to speak was an advocate of MAiD, when talking about MAiD he began to cry and said it was the most beautiful thing he had ever seen.
When it came to my turn, I said to the chairperson, if you would like me to cry, I can do that too, if that would be effective.
I am not suggesting that this person was not sincere, but the sense that the only beauty lies in killing is a terrible, terrible idea.
Zivot was then asked for his final comments. He said:
MAiD is basically saying that if you don't have MAiD then you're facing a terrible painful death. That is untrue.
Palliative care is a branch of medicine that is probably underfunded. Even without palliative care, I'm a physician in intensive care and I deal with people who are dying and I'm pretty comfortable in providing people with sedation or pain control to allow a natural death.
I don't need to kill them. They will die and they don't have to die in pain.
What people really need is companionship.
Zivot spoke about a study on labour epidurals. The study found that when a woman has companionship and support that the pain she experienced was less. Zivot continued:
We should be there in support of people while they live. If death is going to occur, then we should provide something to ease the pain of natural dying but we don't need to kill them to do that. It's just not true.
I think that MAiD has created this illusion that there's only two choices. It's either a miserable painful death or MAiD.
That has to stop and be challenged.
Zivot ended the interview by commenting on the effect of Canada's Charter on the euthanasia issue.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Dr Jim van Os
I had the opportunity to speak to the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026 (Link to my testimony).
Before my presentation, the committee featured three Psychiatrists from the Netherlands explaining their experience with euthanasia for mental illness. Dr Jim van Os, a Professor of Psychiatry at Utrecht University warned Canada not to extend euthanasia to mental illness.
Professor van Os told the Parliamentary committee:
The Dutch experience, in my opinon, offers a warning for Canada. For 20 years our euthanasia law left psychiatric cases largely untouched. However, over the past decade, a small group of activist physicians and organizations built a practice through sustained media campaigns.
In 2024, the Dutch Euthanasia Expertise Center (euthanasia clinic) received around 5000 requests, roughly 1000 on psychiatric grounds. Among people under 30, requests rose from about 30 per year to nearly 900 in six years. Completed euthanasia rose fivefold.
This pattern has been widely interpreted as a so-called suicide contagion effect amplified by the institutions that should safeguard against it.
This committee perhaps should keep in mind under the Dutch law physicians must agree that there are no reasonable options. Euthanasia is in principle the very last resort. Canadian law does not work this way.
In Canada patient choice trumps the physician's professional judgment. So a doctor cannot insist that other options be tried first. That single difference will in our assessment drive Canadian numbers beyond ours.
In 2024 the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities warned that the Dutch practice was unsafe. Persons with psychosocial disabilities have a fundamental human right of protection against premature death.
Euthanasia for mental suffering cannot be cleanly separated from physician performed suicide. It is in many cases suicide carried out by a psychiatrist.
Our research and clinical work reveal a minefield on every side.
Autonomy. Most who request euthanasia for mental suffering are traumatized, marginalized, often living in poverty without prospects.
Mental illness, by definition, compromises autonomy. Calling such a request a free expression of choice ignores the substance of the suffering.
Discrimination. The arguments that refusing euthanasia for mental suffering is discriminatory equates psychiatric suffering with terminal cancer. It is a false equivalence.
Cancer with a two-month prognosis is linear and progressive. Mental suffering is not. Recovery happens often unexpectedly through relationships, purpose, meaningful work, bonding with another person or even an animal.
The patient recovery movement insists that recovery is possible for everyone. Plasticity is the rule.
Criteria. Clinicians do not agree on irremediability, on futility, on competence. The result is something like a lottery.
Whether you receive suicide prevention or a lethal injection depends on which clinician you meet.
Substance. Recent Dutch analysis show that many who receive euthanasia for mental illness are women with unaddressed trauma. Their unconscious self-destructive dynamics get enacted in the procedure. The psychiatrist becomes recruited into a deadly outcome.
Toffrey Wayne and colleagues describe how, in the Netherlands, people with autism spectrum traits increasingly receive euthanasia for what is at root social suffering framed in medical language. The intervention should be social and existential, not lethal.
Psychiatry claims it can prevent suicide n one patient and help finalize suicide in another with the same suffering. That is incoherent. It is not autonomy, it is not anti-discrimination, it is a contradiction at the heart or our profession.
My message to Canada.
Do not expand euthanasia to those with mental illness. The evidence is not there. The UN, the International Association for Suicide Prevention and our lived experience point the same way.
The social trials that we run in the Netherlands show another path. Care that builds relational continuity, hope and connectedness. That is the system worth building, not procedural pathways to death.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
I had the opportunity to speak to the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026 (Link to my testimony).
During the question / answer session MP Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil) commented on his personal experience with cancer and stated that he supported euthanasia for people who are going through significant pain and near the end of life and then asked:
What would be the argument that you would give to somebody who says that by denying someone who's sole illness is mental illness the right to access MAiD, wouldn't that be denying them their autonomy and the freedom to make choices that they deem necessary to make themselves?
I responded (paraphrased):
...you were talking about cancer pain and that's a completely different thing than psychological pain.
We are hearing psychiatrists say to us very clearly that to access a grievous and irremediable medical condition for psychiatric conditions would assume that there is a clear consensus or a clear way to say that this person is not going to get better and psychiatrists are saying that it is not possible to say that. So we are talking about a diagnosis that is not able to be confirmed as irremediable and yet the question is can they go ahead with MAiD (euthanasia) in those cases?
If it were a physical condition and where the condition is not irremediable, the person is not dying and likely to get better, then the doctor would say that we cannot approve you for MAiD (euthanasia) and yet we are saying with mental health that we can't determine irremediability but we might approve it anyway.
Even though psychiatrists are saying that it is impossible to declare a psychiatric condition as being irremediable (will not get better) some psychiatrists will decide that a person has an irremediable psychiatric condition and then approve euthanasia. People who are living with suicidal ideation and want to die by euthanasia will then doctor shop and go to that psychiatrist, who would become known as the euthanasia psychiatrist.
Senator Yonah Martin (BC) agreed
that Canada has not done a full review of the law. She said that the
numbers show an increasing number of MAiD deaths and an increasing
number of problematic situations.
What do the current outcomes tell you that makes the 2027 expansion of MAiD for mental illness alone unsafe.
My response (paraphrased):
It
is impossible to expand MAiD to mental illness when you consider how
the current law is working and also how the language is set in the law.
If
you cannot determine irremediability then obviously people would not
qualify based on a mental illness. But if someone (a psychiatrist) from
their own professional experience says that the person's condition is
irremediable (will not get better) then it would lead to a situation of
doctor shopping where people who want to die by MAiD, based on mental
illness alone, would go to that specific psychiatrist because that's the
one who is willing to approve them.
They (the doctors) only have
to say, according to the law, that they are "of the opinion" that the
person fits the criteria of the law.
Canada should not be
considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with
mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the
law.
Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement in advocating to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people whose requests arise only from a mental illness. Allegedly Ms. Long, who does not identify as disabled, criticized the parliamentary committee for not seeking input from people with mental illness who want government help to ensure fulfillment of their suicidal wishes. Specifically she said the committee had not respected the principle of “Nothing about us, without us.”
(Ms. Long was reading a text by Claire Brosseau, who is a woman who is seeking euthanasia based on mental illness alone).
Say what?
Assuming Ms. Long doesn’t have the lived experience of disability, one would think that, as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence, she might be able to make the solidarity connection in a more genuine way than by simply claiming it. I get it that the issues raised by euthanasia of people with psychiatric disabilities may be too specialized for folks who are not disabled survivors of childhood trauma and the mental illness that often flows from it. It probably doesn’t occur to Ms. Long that allowing MAiD for people with mental illness undermines the public policy of Suicide prevention, by allowing (often ableist) mental health professionals to judge not just the remediability of a mental illness, but also the person’s quality of life and human worth. And maybe it doesn’t occur to Dying with Dignity that inappropriate or inadequate mental health care means that people with psychiatric disabilities are requesting MAiD because they haven’t gotten the help they need, and are subject to stresses like homelessness, addiction (from attempts at self-medication), and stigmatization.
If Ms. Long really cared about disabled people, she would know that, while some disabled individuals support assisted dying, disability organizations that advocate for equality, acceptance and accessibility oppose medical killing. ADAPT and Not Dead Yet have opposed medical killing since the mid 1980s. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities took its position against legalized medical killing in 1996, at the height of public support for Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy in 1993. Surely Ms. Long knows that disability advocates recognize and object to the belief that disabled people are (supposed to be) better off dead, and the growing popularity of assisted dying … as promoted by Dying with Dignity. She would also know that disability advocates are aware that the option to “choose” state-provided euthanasia is fast becoming a duty to die.
If she knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.
When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.
So please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.
Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Alarm bells don't get much louder than the written brief from the heads of psychiatry at 13 Canadian medical schools urging Ottawa to stop the expansion of medically assisted death to those whose only condition is mental illness.
The editorial quotes from the psychiatrists letter:
"As a society, we must provide hope and support to individuals during periods of despair and psychological suffering. In our clinical and academic experience, people can and do recover from prolonged suffering related to mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use when provided with appropriate, evidence based treatments and supports," they wrote, adding they "strongly believe" that expanding MAiD would result in preventable deaths and would undermine suicide prevention efforts.
The Globe and Mail also stated in an article published on May 5, 2026 that the federal government is prepared to prevent the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone, if the committee that is examining the question makes that recommendation.
The Globe and Mail was originally a promoter of euthanasia but over the past few years they have stated that Canada's euthanasia law has gone too far.
At the same time Dying With Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group, filed an emergency relief on May 4, 2026 in an Ontario court to force the court to agree to the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. Brosseau is a former actress.
According to the Dying with Dignity press release, Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith have filed the case.
Dying With Dignity would not be spending the massive amount of money on a court challenge if they believed that the federal government will extend euthanasia to mental illness alone in March 2027.
I had the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee on euthanasia on May 5, 2026. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the committee will recommend scrapping euthanasia for mental illness and then agree to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
I was approved to speak to Canada's Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026. Previous sessions of the Joint Committee on euthanasia, which also dealt with expansions of euthanasia, denied me the opportunity to present to the committee.
I was given 5 minutes to present to the committee (link to my speech).
Based on my experience watching the previous hearings that examined euthanasia for mental illness, euthanasia for children and euthanasia by advanced request, I felt that the response from the Members of Parliament had changed. The majority of the joint committee continued to support euthanasia but they had become more cautious and were having second thoughts about expanding the law to include killing people who have a mental illness as their sole condition.
Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia in 2022, also presented at the same hearing. Alicia provided an excellent testimony about why it was wrong to kill her mother, but also how the family was prevented, by the authorities, from receiving the "medical" reports that approved her mother's euthanasia death.
Alicia was questioned by two Senators who attempted to undermine her testimony. It is obvious that pro-euthanasia committee members are uncomfortable with the truth related to Donna Duncan's death and wanted to undermine her testimony rather than question the law that enabled a doctor to kill her mother.
My testimony focused on the need to fully review Canada's euthanasia law. I stated that:
...Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.
More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.
Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.
Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.
Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to people with mental illnesses alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.
I was asked several questions.
Senator Yonah Martin acknowledged that there has never been a review of Canada's euthanasia law. Previous committee's examined further expansions of the law, but not whether the law is being abused, even if the abuse is based on the vague language of the law.
One Member of Parliament asked me about people who are dying from cancer. I will paraphrase my response.
I said that this committee is examining euthanasia for mental illness which I believe is a different issue.
Under the law, a person with a physical condition that is not terminal or irremediable does not qualify for euthanasia. If the law is extended to persons with mental illness, psychiatrists have testified that it is impossible to determine if a person's mental illness is irremediable, but the law would still permit euthanasia.
Most psychiatrists will tell patients with mental illnesses who are requesting to be killed by euthanasia that it is impossible to determine if they have an irremediable condition therefore it is impossible to approve them for euthanasia.
But some psychiatrists will approve requests for euthanasia by stating that the person has an irremediable mental illness. These psychiatrists will become known for approving euthanasia for mental illness, leading to patients, who are doctor shopping, contacting them to be kileed by euthaansia.
This situation is not different than our current situation except that in this case the people seeking death will be living, solely with a mental illnes.
I was also asked about people who wanted to die by euthanasia for mental illness, and are happy to be alive today. I responded by sharing the stories of Kathryn D'hondt and Andrea (Link to stories).
I was sitting beside Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity. There were several Senators and Members of Parliament who clearly support Dying with Dignity, who glowingly asked questions to enable Long to provide a longer testimony.
Dying with Dignity is a very dangerous group since they support euthanasia for nearly every situation.
Long appeared very nervous. She spoke about the recent legal challenge whereby Dying with Dignity is supporting Claire Brosseau in her demand to be killed by euthanasia based on mental illness.
Dying with Dignity must be nervous because they wouldn't launch an expensive court case if euthanasia for mental illness will be in place in March 2027.
My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.
Developments in Canada have influenced debates in other countries, including the defeat of the assisted dying bills in Scotland, the UK House of Lords(1) and Slovenia, where assisted suicide was overturned through a referendum.
Rather than extending assisted dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s assisted dying law is functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendment? These questions have never been addressed.
Dr Ramona Coelho stated in her article, published by the MacDonald Laurier Institute on January 5, 2026(2) as a commentary on the Sixth Annual Report on MAiD that:
“Although the report emphasizes self-identified disability, all MAiD recipients are disabled by definition. Disability refers to any long-term impairment that limits participation in life. MAiD is legal for individuals with a “grievous and irremediable” condition, an incurable illness causing irreversible decline in capabilities. Anyone meeting these criteria is by definition disabled, though not all disabled people should qualify for MAiD.
Common conditions listed for Track 2 MAiD reinforce this point. Diabetes appears frequently, and Ontario’s MDRC documented a man who received MAiD for an essential tremor. These are disabilities, yet they do not usually cause the serious decline that MAiD is intended to address. By emphasizing self-identified disability, the report obscures the real story: MAiD eligibility targets disabled people, a concern highlighted by the disability community, the United Nations and human rights watchdogs, and most recently, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”(2)
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for repeal of Track 2 MAiD, increased oversight of the law and no further expansion, including the scheduled expansion of MAiD for the sole criteria of mental illness.
For instance, Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025.(3) Kiano was seeking assisted dying in Ontario, where he lived, but his requests for MAiD were not approved by doctors in Ontario.
Kiano then contacted Dr Ellen Wiebe in Vancouver, British Columbia, who assessed him and approved him for MAiD.
Margaret Marsilla, Kiano’s mother, was shocked that her son, who was living with Type 1 diabetes, resulting in Kiano becoming legally blind and also living with significant mental health issues, could have been approved for MAiD.(3)
Kiano was approved as a Track 2 candidate for MAiD. Kiano’s family was never consulted, which is important since Kiano was living with depression and suicidal ideation.(3)
The family did not learn about his death until several days after his death.
If Kiano’s death was the only disturbing MAiD death then one might suggest that his death is an outlier, but in fact there have been many controversial MAiD deaths.
Instead of expanding MAiD further, Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.
More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.
Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.
Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.
The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.
Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.
1.Colby Cosh, “Canada’s horrifying example causes UK to think twice about euthanasia,” (January 31, 2026), online: National Post,< https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-horrifying-example-causes-u-k-to-think-twice-about-euthanasia>
2.Dr Ramona Coelho, “Disabled Canadians should never feel compelled to die. Let’s given them the support they need to live,” (January 5, 2026), online: Macdonald Laurier Institute, <https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/disabled-canadians-should-never-feel-compelled-to-die-lets-give-them-the-support-they-need-to-live-ramona-coelho-in-the-hub/>
3.Sharon Kirkey, “A Doctor took my ‘son’: This 26 year-old was denied assisted death in Ontario but died by MAiD in BC,” (January 30, 2026), online: National Post, <My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Alex Schadenberg
I have great news.
Alberta Bill 18 - The safeguards for last resort termination of life act passed on April 18, 2026 and it will soon be signed into law. You can tell by it's title that the bill will not stop Albertans from being killed by euthanasia but it does improve safeguards and it will prevent some deaths.
Bill 18 was introduced as Canada's federal government is once again debating euthanasia for mental illness alone. Below is the press conference with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith when Bill 18 was introduced.
What does Bill 18 do?Bill 18:
requires
the person to have a 12 month terminal prognosis, thus preventing
Track 2 euthanasia approvals. Track 2 refers to euthanasia for people
who are not terminally ill.
prevents the expansion of euthanasia to people with mental illness alone,
prevents the expansion of euthanasia to "mature minors", people who cannot consent and prevent euthanasia by advanced request,
prevents out of province referrals,
requires the assessor to contact other practitioners who have cared for the patient, before approval.
requires (MAiD) euthanasia practitioners to receive specific training,
prevents health care practitioners from introducing euthanasia, without a request,
requires Regulatory Colleges to sanction practitioners who violate the act.
provides conscience rights by enabling practitioners to refuse to participate or provide assessments for (MAiD) euthanasia,
enables institutions to refuse to participate or provide assessments for euthanasia.
require
practitioners who refuse to participate or provide assessments to
provide information to patients wanting to access euthanasia.
The best improvement from Bill 18 is that it prohibits euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill by requiring the person to have a 12 month prognosis. Bill 18 also prevents health care professionals from introducing the question of euthanasia and it allows medical institutions to refuse to provide euthanasia, which protects palliative care and religiously affiliated institutions from being forced to provide euthanasia.
Now that Bill 18 will soon the law of Alberta, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that more provinces will introduce similar legislation.
My presentation will focus on the outcomes of Canada's euthanasia law based on the language of the law.
This article is not based on my presentation but concerns Canada's euthanasia law and determining when counselling or aiding suicide, which remain illegal in Canada, become informing a patient that euthanasia or assisted suicide are a legal option?
The Criminal Code of Canada states:
Suicide: Counselling or aiding suicide
241(1) Everyone
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.
The Criminal Code provides an exception for medical assistance in dying which states:
(2) No
medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under
paragraph (1)(b) if they provide a person with medical assistance in
dying in accordance with section 241.2.
Exemption for person aiding practitioner
(3) No
person is a party to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they do
anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse
practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in
accordance with section 241.2.
The Criminal Code exception for medical assistance in dying is not limited. Section 241 (5.1) states:
Clarification
(5.1) For
greater certainty, no social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist,
therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other health care
professional commits an offence if they provide information to a person
on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying.
Canada's Criminal Code essentially states that it is an offence to counsel, abet or aid a person to die by suicide, unless the counselling, abetting or aiding is done based on providing information for euthanasia or assisted suicide (MAiD).
Why is this important?
Fr Larry Holland
There are many stories of people who have felt coerced to request euthanasia.
For instance, a Catholic priest in Vancouver was asked (coerced) on two occasions if he wanted euthanasia. The first request was made by a doctor, the second was by a nurse. How often did the priest have to say NO?
I received a call from a family in British Columbia who were upset after their elderly father was asked five times if he wanted euthanasia. His wife asked:
How do we get them to stop asking us if he wants MAiD?
Heather Hancock
Heather Hancock, who lives with Spastic Cerebral Palsy was pressured three times to request euthanasia. The third time happened while she was in a hospital in Medicine Hat Alberta. Hancock described the situation:
One nurse came to my bedside in the early morning hours before breakfast and asked me "to do the right thing and consider MAiD." Her next words still ring through my head... "if I were you, I would take it in a heartbeat. You're not living, you're existing!"
I replied, "I am not you, and you have no right to push me to accept MAiD. I will never accept it! My life has value and no human being has a right to say otherwise."
Then there was the case of the veterans affairs worker who suggested (MAiD) euthanasia to a veteran who was dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a traumatic brain injury.
We don't know if the veterans affairs worker was a social worker or psychologist, nonetheless, there was no attempted prosecution, even though the veteran was not seeking MAiD and not happy to be offered MAiD.
In three of the four cases, the coercion was done by a medical professional, so even though these people felt coerced towards euthanasia, the law provided the medical professional with legal protection.
Garnett Genuis (MP) introduced a Private Members Bill C-260 to prevent coercion by non-medical staff. Whether this bill passes or not, Canada's Criminal Code clearly needs to be amended.
My concern is that Canada's euthanasia law is intentionally vague, it lacks definition and oversight. Further to that, the law gives medical professionals, who are willing to be involved with killing people, complete and total legal protection.
What about Kenneth Law?
Kenneth Law is a
Canadian who sold a suicide poison kit online to as many as 1200 people
world-wide. Law has plead guilty to multiple counts of aiding suicide.
Based on a plea agreement,
the Crown Prosecutor dropped the 14 counts of murder, that if
convicted, would have resulted in 25 years in prison, for an agreement
where Law plead guilty to aiding the suicide of his victims, a charge
that would likely result in a 14 year sentence and after time served may result in 8 years remaining in his sentence.
Law is supposedly different because his poison kits were not oriented to Canada's MAiD law. Clearly we can see that Canada's Criminal Code needs to be clarified.
Even though I have concerns with the language of Canada's euthanasia law, my first concern is that we are killing people.
Canada's
euthanasia (MAiD) law has been in place now for 10 years. There has now
been more than 100,000 euthanasia deaths in Canada since legalization.
The law is intentionally vague, it lacks any effective oversight and it is out-of-control.
Parliament needs to stop expanding Canada's euthanasia law and do a complete review of the law. Parliament needs to examine the language of the law and how the meaning of the language has evolved. Parliament needs to examine the practise of euthanasia and how the law has expanded far beyond its original stated intentions.
This article only deals with one of many concerns with Canada's Criminal Code. Canada's parliament needs to bring some sanity to the insanity.
Last year, I wrote here warning about a bioethics paper that advocated restricting the amount of orally received food and water given to dementia patients, an intentional undernourishment approach that the authors labelled “minimal comfort feeding.”
Well, the idea of death by intentional undernourishment has now hit the big time in the popular media with a long New York Times piece telling the story of a dementia patient who died under that regimen. I expect it to spark a national conversation. (I make a brief appearance in the piece. The reporter, Kate Raphael, could not have been more cordial and presented my views accurately. Also, she offers plenty of objections from medical professionals, so this response should not be deemed a criticism of her work.)
The title of the piece asks: “She Didn’t Want to Live with Advanced Dementia. So Why Was She Being Kept Alive?” It quotes the daughter of the dementia sufferer:
“We were never interested in prolonging her life just for the sake of prolonging her life,” Ms. Hendrickson remembered telling the doctor. “We wanted her to just be happy and comfortable.”
The doctor, who was not employed by the memory care unit, had a suggestion. She had recently read a paper that put forward a new approach, called “minimal comfort feeding,” in which providers stop scheduled feedings and instead offer dementia patients just enough food and liquid to ensure comfort, and only when the patient shows signs of hunger or thirst. The idea was that someone with advanced dementia with no interest in food, or limited interest, might be allowed to die once they begin to refuse enough hydration and calories to sustain them.
We must be very clear here. The issue is not about patients who refuse hydration and calories or who have no interest in food, but of not providing as much sustenance as they may want: intentionally undernourishment. Indeed, the original bioethics paper offers this definition:
Minimal Comfort Feeding: Only as much food and liquid as necessary to avoid discomfort . . .
MCF is the provision of only enough oral nutrition and hydration to ensure comfort (Table 1). With MCF, eating and drinking is not scheduled; rather, caretakers offer food and liquids only in response to signs of hunger and thirst. Patients are neither wakened for regular mealtimes nor encouraged to eat or drink. Instead, they are offered frequent, fastidious mouth care, continued social contact, therapeutic touch, sensory distraction, and medications to relieve distress associated with apparent thirst or hunger before being provided with minimal amounts of liquid or food.
In other words, if the patient shows signs of hunger, kill the urge by medication (sedation?). If the patient still wants to eat, sufficient food and drink to sustain them will be withheld.
The ultimate point isn’t comfort but hastening death. Where a dementia patient might live years if properly nourished with scheduled meals, under MCF, the “time to death” is “weeks to months.” The original paper even suggests that surrogates be allowed to decide to slow-motion starve patients in the absence of a signed directive so requesting:
Therefore, oral nutrition and hydration sufficient to sustain life may be declined by the individual for themselves in the future via advance directive or, in the absence of an advance directive, via a surrogate exercising substituted judgement.
The issues presented by this question are easily conflated and confused, but distinctions are important in ethical deliberation. The following actions and omissions are not what we are talking about by supporting full nutritional support for dementia patients who willingly eat or ask for food:
Forced feeding: This should never be done to a dying patient. When patients are dying — whether of cancer, dementia, or another malady — refusing sustenance is often a natural part of the dying process.
Feeding tubes: This is a medical treatment that involves surgery and a medically constituted formula. As a medical treatment, it can be refused in an advance directive. In contrast, spoon feeding when a patient willingly eats is a form of humane care of the same category as keeping patients warm, clean, and turning to avoid bed sores. Traditionally, humane care cannot be withheld.
Forced medical treatment: This entails keeping patients alive for as long as possible regardless of their desires. Dementia patients may already have DNRs placed on their charts, refuse antibiotics, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy, respirators, and other life-sustaining medical interventions.
There are other issues to consider. What would the impact on caregivers be if they could be legally required to refuse nourishment that a patient wants? I think it would drive many caring nurses and aides out of the industry.
What about the chances for abuse by greedy relatives who would benefit from an earlier death or by assisted-care facilities receiving government payments? And think about the temptations to discard the vulnerable in a society — while calling it empathy — that seeks to save medical resources. And how would defining dementia patients as killable affect their perceived inherent equality? The list could go on and on.
These are not abstract questions. I have up-close and personal experience with the dilemmas associated with terminal dementia, as my mother died from the affliction. Mom was receiving hospice support at my home. At one point, she refused all food and I thought it was the end — until Helen, her saintly Visiting Angel, brought her some canned peaches. My mother took one look, quickly scarfed them down and asked for more! She soon began eating other meals too, particularly enjoying bowls of cereal. “This is delicious!” she repeatedly exclaimed. In other words, the joy of eating what she wanted, and as much as she wanted, brought her greater comfort than would have medicating her to deprive her of proper sustenance.
“Minimal comfort feeding” is just a euphemism for slow-motion euthanasia. If allowed, it would eventually lead to cases where advanced-stage dementia patients are getting lethally jabbed — all in the name of even greater “compassion” and “comfort,” of course. Do we really want to go down that path?
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Note: We regularly receive calls from family members who have a loved one who is living in a hospital or care home with dementia and are often being pushed to withhold or withdraw food and fluids. Withholding or withdrawing food is discouraged but less concerning than withholding or withdrawing fluids. Death by dehydration happens within 10 - 14 days while death by starvation takes a long time. We encourage people to maintain small amounts of nutrition and hydration, enough to maintain the human body, but not so much as to cause problems.
We believe that one should never cause death, but enabling natural death is encouraged. There can be a difficult question when someone is approaching the terminal phase but not yet dying. When someone is not dying, the reason for withholding or withdrawing food and fluids is to cause death by dehydration.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition considers intentional death by dehydration to be ethically the same as euthanasia, but is a slower process with the same outcome.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Dr Stephen Ward
Dr. Stephen Ward who is an internist and a practicing primary care physician for 16 years in Cheshire CT responded to the CT Mirror who published an editorial supporting assisted suicide on April 15. Ward responded with - Assisted suicide is not the compassionate answer.
As a physician myself, assisted suicide contradicts the physician’s most basic calling, to provide cure and hope for the patient. The prescription is no longer aimed to prolong life and delay death. Instead, death is the treatment.
Dr Ward comments on the editorial article emphasis on autonomy and writes:
What is portrayed as “choice” will be in reality closer to coercion. When life sustaining care is expensive and inaccessible, “choice” becomes limited. Assisted suicide becomes a cheaper alternative to years of expensive medical care and disability accommodations.
Dr Ward comments on healthcare cost containment and states:
The state would rather pay for your early exit than life-sustaining care. What an egregious message to send to our loved ones, neighbors, and friends.
Dr Ward then responds to the assurance that "safeguards" will protect you by stating:
However, in the tragic case of Eileen Mihich, every safeguard failed in Washington state, a state where assisted suicide has been legal for 17 years! Eileen suffered from serious mental illness, she was not a Washington resident, no doctor verified she was terminally ill, and no waiting period was enforced. Eileen was able to access assisted suicide drugs while side-stepping every safeguard. This can happen again to someone else’s daughter, sister, or friend.
Dr Ward then comments on attitudes that promote assisted suicide.
Unfortunately, misguided notions of “quality of life” means freedom from suffering in the name of a false compassion. This is a violation of patient autonomy. Yet assisted suicide celebrates despair as freedom to choose. The terminally ill and chronically infirm are among the most vulnerable in society and deserve legal protection. It is not the role of government to determine who does or does not have more human value than others.
Dr Ward completes his article by stating:
Yes, Connecticut is a state that leads in quality patient-first centered care. Let’s keep it that way. Connecticut should focus on expanding access to hospice and palliative care, not intentionally ending another human’s life.
Connecticut has faced assisted suicide bills nearly every year for almost 15 years.
Connecticut legislators need to listen to Dr Stephen Ward and continue to protect their citizens from assisted suicide.
Show the powerful Life Worth Living film in your community.
Below is the trailer for the Life Worth Living film:
Reviews we received of the film:
I just watched Life Worth Living and I have to say I'm so incredibly impressed. I can't contain my enthusiasm for this film. It's one of the best film projects on the subject of medical killing ever. I'd expect awards to be forthcoming for best documentary film. Lester.
Another review:
I have purchased the film "Life Worth Living" a couple of weeks ago and have watched it. I feel that it's a film that everyone should watch because it shows what is happening in the system of "health" care in Canada and it opens our eyes to the reality of how far our government and the medical system has gone in the direction of killing people instead of healing people.
I would like to ask permission to show this film for our parish community. Eva
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition granted Eva permission to have the film shown in her community. Please arrange screenings of the film.
Life Worth Living features:
Alicia Duncan, whose mother died by euthanasia with conditions based on mental health,
Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian military veteran who came back from combat with PTSD and other disabilities. Kelsi is a social media influencer and a life coach.
Roger Foley, a Canadian man living with a significant disability who has been pressured by hospital staff to request euthanasia.
Dr David D'Souza, an Ontario pain specialist.
Dr Catherine Ferrier, a Quebec Gerontologist and a leader of Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia,
Dr Will Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and leader of Euthanasia Resistance BC
Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care,
Alex Schadenberg, (myself), author, keynote speaker, International leader opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.
France's Senate once again defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide, on Monday May 11, 2026 by a vote of 151 to 118. The Senate then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the part of the law that improves access to palliative care.
