Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
France's National Assembly will once again vote on a bill to legalize euthanasia on June 30 (tomorrow) even though this same bill has been twice overwhelmingly defeated by France's Senate. The June 30th vote will be a Third Reading vote, that if passed will likely lead to the legalization of euthanasia in France.
If the euthanasia bill passes in the National Assembly it will go to the Senate, but if the Senate defeats the bill a third time, the bill would be sent to the National Assembly for a final vote on July 15.
Even though France's Senate continues to defeat the euthanasia bill, the National Assembly can over-ride the vote of the Senate and legalize euthanasia.
On January 21, 2026, France's Senate defeated the euthanasia bill that had passed in the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025.
France's government is strongly supporting the bill and have pressured members of the National Assembly to once again pass the bill. President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet are both committed to legalizing euthanasia.
France's government is unlikely to extend the euthanasia debate as they lack parliamentary time. France's parliament take an August break and in September the National Assembly will focus on the national budget.
Groups opposing euthanasia have organized rallies across France. We have great hope for a miracle and we remind people that it is not over yet.
We believe in caring for people, not killing them.
The Anglican Church of Canada has authorized clergy to bless people being euthanized just before, during, and after being lethally jabbed (when permitted by the bishop). From “Pastoral Liturgies at the Time of Death in Contexts of Medically Assisted Dying”:
It is not our intent to enter into the ethical arguments regarding MAiD, nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD. . . . No matter where people are in their life journey, we as a Christian community and Christian leaders in particular are called to respond pastorally to the needs and concerns of the people before us. Wherever the church serves, we are the Body of Christ reaching out to the suffering, the sick, and the dying. When someone reaches out for pastoral care, the church responds: there is a duty of pastoral care.
If the Anglican Church can’t enter into an ethical argument about euthanasia what is the point of being a church? And given that suicide has always been considered an egregious sin in Christianity from its very early days, wouldn’t “Christian” pastoral care be obligated to at least try and help the suicidal person decide not to be made dead?
Here is another justification for blessing a euthanasia killing in the document:
Death is a natural part of life, and in the spirit of the Church’s continued ministry, we are called to walk alongside health care agencies and practitioners to offer a pastoral response and presence to those who are dying. As the Book of Alternative Services notes, “if the sick could not get to church, then the Church [. . . should] come to them.”
Natural death is “a natural part of life.” Being killed is not. Moreover, is it really properly a Christian act to “walk alongside” a doctor or nurse practitioner who kills? The earliest Christian ethical writing dating from about 100 — the Didache — explicitly condemns “murder” as profoundly sinful. True, Canada has legalized this particular form of homicide, but the issue with regard to a church is not statutory legality, but rather, ethics and morality.
The document spouts false premises and shallow rationalizations for supporting being euthanized:
People who choose MAiD freely and without coercion may indeed be ready to go. They have been living with and suffering through complex health challenges and they want the pain to stop. They want to be able to sleep. They desperately do not want their families and loved ones to watch and wait, wondering how much longer? They have exhausted all medical options, and they know, everyone knows, that there is no cure. Some wish, most of all, not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well. Some, who are Christian, also desire not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side.
The law in Canada does not require that “all medical options” be exhausted. And how can putting oneself out of their loved ones’ misery be blessed? Moreover, every suicidal person is “ready to go.” If someone who is disabled or ill can be supported spiritually in having themselves made dead, why not also any other suicidal person?
For the first time in the history of the Netherlands, a child has been euthanised by the state. The Dutch health minister revealed this week that Sophie Hermans, a child under the age of 12, was given a lethal injection in late 2025.
This case follows another relaxation of the safeguards on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In 2002, the Dutch decriminalised euthanasia and assisted suicide for competent adults. The law expanded to cover 16- and 17-year-olds, with parental consultation, and 12- to 15-year-olds with parental consent. In 2023, another change in the law allowed children under the age of 12, according to Dutch MP Harry Bevers, to ‘die with dignity’ if there is no possibility of recovery and they faced unbearable pain and distress.
The Netherlands didn't technically change their euthanasia law but rather they extended the Groningen Protocol, which allowed euthanasia of newborns, to include children under the age of 12. Yuill continued:
Euthanasia in the Netherlands is officially only permitted if the request comes from the patient and if a doctor agrees that they are suffering unbearably. But how can a minor request something a child cannot possibly comprehend – namely, the end of his or her life? How can a young child understand the need to maintain his or her dignity? The age of consent for sex is 16 in the Netherlands, and those below the age of 18 cannot legally get married. The Dutch government advises that children under the age of 15 should not use social media. And yet, Dutch children now have the ‘right’ to request a lethal injection.
In fact, the Netherlands appears to be moving relentlessly and thoughtlessly towards a euthanasia model employed in Europe in the 1930s. Then, euthanasia proposals began as requests from patients. However, when Nazi Germany began its euthanasia programme in 1939, the ‘patients’ were generally children with physical and intellectual disabilities. They did not consent – let alone request – euthanasia.
Yuill states that doctors in the Netherlands are not the same as doctors in Nazi Germany, nonetheless child euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living.
Yuill shares some of the crazy euthanasia stories from the Netherlands and then states:
Similarly, the expansion of euthanasia to children was motivated – in the words of then health minister Ernst Kuipers – by the hope it would ‘end the “dilemma for doctors” to administer euthanasia to young children who can’t decide for themselves’. The voluntary part of ‘voluntary’ euthanasia seems to have disappeared.
Yuill explains that most Canadians were unaware that Canada had planned to expand euthanasia to mental illness alone in March 2027.
Yuill ends the article by stating:
All of this is why we in the UK must look very critically at the legislation recently brought forward by Labour MP Lauren Edwards. The bill – which supporters will not allow to be amended – is not safe in its current form. Indeed, that is why there were 1,200 amendments tabled when it was first introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. And the experience of every jurisdiction where euthanasia is legal would tell us that it would only get worse.
In choosing an example of such thinking, I found myself remembering a passage from assisted suicide opponent Jonah Goldberg’s 2007 book “Liberal Fascism,” in which he does a great job tracing the right to die movement’s roots in the eugenics movement, but then argues that the Americans With Disabilities Act’s effects on small businesses make the ADA “fascist.”
Goldberg writes:
“In Nazi Germany businesses proved their loyalty to the state by being good “corporate citizens,” just as they do today…let us concede that what the Nazi regime expected of “good German businesses” and what America expects of its corporate leaders differed enormously. This doesn’t change some important fundamental similarities. Consider, for example, the largely bipartisan and entirely well-intentioned Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, celebrated everywhere as a triumph of “nice” government.”
It’s not OK to compare the Americans with Disabilities Act to the policies of Nazi Germany, especially given the Nazis’ mass murder of the disabled.
Also, the Americans with Disabilities Act is not “nice;” it requires society to accommodate disabled people, even if some of the people doing the accommodating hate the disabled people’s guts. Because that’s what has to happen in order for disabled people to be fully functional members of society.
Goldberg goes on to complain:
“The law mandated that businesses take a number of measures, large and small, to accommodate customers and employees with various handicaps…Now imagine that you own a small, regional soft drink company. You’ve worked tirelessly toward your dream of one day going eyeball-to-eyeball with Coke or Pepsi. Proportionally speaking, making your factories and offices handicapped-friendly will cost you vastly more money, not just in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of the bureaucratic legal compliance costs (Coke and Pepsi have enormous legal departments; you don’t).”
Disabled people do not have an obligation to experience daily humiliation for a small soda business owners’ dream of going eyeball to eyeball with Pepsi any more than we have a duty to be demoralized and die for “MAiD” proponents’ designer deaths.
Goldberg laments,
“Or imagine you’re the owner of an even smaller firm hoping to make a play at your regional competitors. But you have 499 employees, and for the sake of argument, the ADA fully kicks in at 500 employees. If you hire just one more, you will fall under the ADA. In other words, hiring just one more thirty thousand-dollar-a-year employee will cost you millions.”
“The ADA surely has admirable intent and legitimate merits. But the very nature of such do-gooding legislation empowers large firms, entwines them with political elites, and serves as a barrier to entry for smaller firms.”
The ADA is not “do gooding,” it is one of the only tools disabled people have to ensure that we are treated with at least a modicum of dignity. To put it bluntly, it is selfish to try to consign disabled people to ignominy so that your small soda business can compete with Coca Cola.
Goldberg goes on to claim,
“Indeed, the penalties involved in even trying to fire someone can amount to guaranteed lifetime employment. Smaller firms can’t take the risk of being forced to provide a salary in perpetuity...”
If Goldberg were disabled, he would like the Americans With Disabilities Act a lot more. In comparison to the experiences of disabled people who would not otherwise be able to enter a small business to buy a soda, a soda company’s desire to compete with Coca Cola is rather trite.
I mention Goldberg’s 2007 statement because I am wondering if the current American government has implemented or suggested so many damagingdisability rightspolicies because many of its supporters are people like Goldberg who have said “Man, implementing laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act is a pain in the head. Could you eliminate them, or at least make their requirements more “reasonable,” please?
So, other euthanasia opponents, don’t be like Jonah Goldberg. If you want euthanasia prevention to fully promote the dignity of disabled people, demonstrate full support of laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Alex Schadenberg
I have been in the UK for several days as I spoke at an international leaders conference and I attended another international conference.
It has been an interesting experience in the UK with the resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Labour Party) and the emergence of Andy Burnham, as his likely successor as the leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister.
The House of Lords debated multiple amendments to the Leadbeater bill but the bill was so flawed that the debate (timed-out) before voting on the bill.
All of this happened in-spite of the fact that Prime Minister Starmer was a strong supporter of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Now, Lauren Edwards, (Labour MP) for Rochester and Strood has promised to bring back the Leadbeater bill. Edwards wants to pass an identical version of the bill to enable parliament to legalize assisted suicide without needing approval from the House of Lords.
Since the House of Lords uncovered flaws with the assisted suicide bill, it would be ridiculous to approve the bill, in the House of Commons based on procedural rules.
Starmer / Burnham
Considering the multiple parliamentary issues faced in the UK, the most reasonable approach would be that after the Labour Party choose a new leader / Prime Minister, then the new Prime Minister (7th in 10 years) would set the parliamentary agenda with a new speech from the throne.
If another assisted suicide bill is introduced then it would be dealt with in a democratic manner and likely be defeated based on the reality of legalizing assisted suicide.
As for assisted suicide in the UK, last March Scotland defeated their assisted suicide bill by a vote of 69 to 57 even though the same bill had passed by a vote of 70 to 56 at second reading. Members of the Scottish legislature changed their vote after debating the reality of assisted suicide.
The British House of Lords and the Scottish parliament essentially recognized that Canada's experience with euthanasia proves that it is impossible to legalize assisted suicide with effective oversight and without inevitable expansions.
Britain needs to focus on improving care and rejecting killing.
We oppose killing people and support caring for people.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Noelia Castillo
An article by Alex Trelinski that was published by The Olive Press in Spain reported that on June 24, 2026 the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that families can legally challenge a euthanasia approval.
Trelinski reported that following the euthanasia death of Noelia Castillo, 25 that the Supreme Court decided with a 23 to 9 vote that parents can challenge a euthanasia approval of a family member. The report stated that:
In its ruling, the Supreme Court specifies that those who appeal the granting of euthanasia must be part of the applicant’s closest living circle.
They must possess, according to the ruling, ‘a sufficient capacity for knowledge and empathy with them to be able, if necessary, to detect possible flaws in the understanding and comprehension of the situation in which the applicant finds themselves’.
The court says they can challenge a decision when they demonstrate a special affective closeness with the person requesting euthanasia and provide a reasonable indication of proof over a possible breach of legal guarantees.
The Spanish Supreme Court has enabled some effective oversight of the law, as close family members will have the insight and relationship to question decisions by doctors when the approve the killing of a close family member.
The Spanish Supreme Court decision grants rights to Spanish family members that does not exist in Canada.
In September 2020 a Taryn Grant reported for CBC News Nova Scotia that a man who has received conflicting assessments for MAiD (euthanasia) and whose wife of 48 years says is delusional about his medical condition, can go ahead and die by euthanasia. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) enabled the plaintiff (wife) to challenge her husband's euthanasia approval. Grant reported:
A Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge has upheld a lower court decision that effectively allows a man to go ahead with a medically assisted death, in spite of his wife's efforts to stop him.
The 83-year-old man from Bridgewater, N.S., was assessed by physicians and approved for medical assistance in dying (MAID) earlier this year, but his wife, Katherine, 82, filed for an injunction with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, forcing him to cancel his plans.
In early 2024 there was a case in Calgary AB concerning a 27-year-old autistic woman who lived with her family and had been approved for death by euthanasia. Her father challenged the approval to kill his daughter and claimed that, based on the law, she does not qualify to be killed by euthanasia.
CBC News reported on March 12, 2024 on the Calgary court case that the father stated that his daughter did not have a medical condition that qualified, under the law, and yet his daughter had already been approved for death by lethal poison.
CBC News reporter, Meghan Grant reported on March 25, 2024 that Justice Feasby ruled that the 27-year-old daughter can die by euthanasia despite her father's concerns. Justice Feasby withdrew the temporary injunction that prevented the woman from dying by euthanasia but maintained a 30 day stay of the injunction, which gave the father time to appeal the decision.
On April 2, 2024, Kevin Martin reported for the Calgary Herald that the father of the 27-year-old autistic woman appealed the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On April 8, Justice Anne Kirker ordered a stay on the injunction to prevent the death of the 27-year-old autistic woman until after the appeal was heard. The date of the appeal is not known but will likely be heard in October.
The EPC sought and received intervention standing in the case, but the appeal was never heard.
The EPC has been contacted by many family members who are concerned about the euthanasia approval or death of a loved one. Currently there is no legal precedent in Canada t0 enable families members to challenge a euthanasia death approval.
It is only just to enable close family members to challenge a approvals for euthanasia based on a clear understanding of that person's physical and mental health.
For the first time, a doctor in the Netherlands has ended the life of a terminally ill child, Minister Sophie Hermans of Public Health wrote in a letter to parliament. The special committee established to assess euthanasia for children received the report last year, NOS reports.
The assessment committee has reviewed the case, spoken with the doctor involved, and passed its assessment to the Public Prosecution Service (OM), Hermans wrote. The OM will determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with the law. The assessment committee’s recommendation will weigh heavily in this decision.
Let's be clear, the assessment committee recommendations that the Public Prosecution Service is seeking happens after the death of the child. If the Public Prosecution Service finds concerns with the death, it won't matter because the child is already dead.
Now that the Netherlands have reported a child euthanasia death, I am concerned about the further spread of this scourge to other countries including Canada.
A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) that was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 called for a further expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada by recommending, among other things, that euthanasia be expanded to include children considered "mature minors."
As bad as euthanasia for "mature minors" is, during a presentation by Dr Louis Roy from the Québec College of Physicians to The Special Joint Committee on euthanasia on September 7, 2022, Roy urged Canada's Federal government to permit infant euthanasia. Dr Roy suggested that euthanasia of newborns should be allowed in rare circumstances, such as a newborn who may not survive.
Euthanasia of newborns is eugenic, the belief that some lives are not worth living.
Fortunately Canada has not expanded euthanasia to mature minors but euthanasia lobby groups such as Dying with Dignity have been lobbying the Canadian government to make this expansion.
Euthanasia was legalized based on the concept that it would be limited to competent adults who were terminally ill and freely capable of consenting to be killed. Child euthanasia does not fit this paradigm, but the euthanasia lobby was never actually concerned with consent or competence. Those were just sales pitches to create support for the concept of allowing doctors and nurse practitioners to be legally permitted to kill.
The Prescription Poison film (43 minutes) will be released on July 24, 2026. Watch the Prescription Poison film trailer.
The Prescription Poison film was produced by Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films.
Prescription Poison is a warning to America concerning the growth of assisted suicide that, unless stopped, will lead to a Canadian system of killing.
American supporters and groups can organize screenings of the Prescription Poison film.
You may also want a speaker, such as Alex Schadenberg, to lead a discussion forum, after the screening.
For early screening plans contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca
Donations to cover the cost of the film are still required. Donations are made to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.
The cost to order and screen the film will be available soon. The Prescription Poison film will be available on July 24.
The film features: Denise Leipold, Margaret Marsilla, Victor Nieves, Professor William Peace (RIP), Ales Primc, Alexander Raikin, Jessica Rodgers, Alex Schadenberg, Wesley J Smith, Dr Sarah Smith, Nir Solomon, Dr William Toffler.
EPC has an online petition and post-cards to be sent to members of parliment as well as a traditional paper petition demanding a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.
*Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)
Contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca to order post-cards or paper petitions at no cost.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is petitioning the government to undertake a complete, and long-promised review of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.
Events have unfolded in a completely unexpected and alarming fashion; that current policy has little to do with its originally stated intent of the law; that such policy is in fact led to a horrific course that no one anticipated (or very few) but which is now evolving under its own anti-human economic logic and impetus.
Even our organized resistance to euthanasia did not anticipate Canada's euthanasia law becoming so extreme. Canada has always made it a priority to champion fair treatment of the most vulnerable, in terms of access to needed care and services. For we all immediately understand that legal medical homicide threatens safety. What we did not understand is just how bad the law would become. Very simply put, the "most vulnerable" narrative assumes that disputed benefits actually exist; that people are generally able to access appropriate services; that only certain groups (defined perhaps by economic, racial, gender, or ability criteria) are not. However, as the situation now exists in Canada, real health care --meaning truly life-affirming care, free of the pressure to accept euthanasia-- is hard to attain (in so far as that availability depends upon the State).
Good and decent doctors and nurses do exist, of course! And they are clearly among the most influential part of our Coalition. However, our chances of being treated properly as patients should not be dependant upon the personal moral compass of individual professionals who are now forced to operate as dissidents within a hostile system.
That is not at all how things were intended to be. We have always been taught to expect proper medical care as a right of citizenship. Our universal Canadian system was established with the precise goal of making such care available to all.
Shockingly, the true calamity we are now experiencing involves nothing less than the cynical replacement of that time-honoured medical ideal, with a radical, euthanasia-based, veterinary-style system of population management.
In this scheme, advanced medical treatment will indeed be provided for those briefly incapacitated persons who may easily be restored to full productive status. But a radically different path is marked out for everyone else, which is to say: for anyone at all whose physical or mental status --for whatever reason-- might cause their expected economic contribution to fall below the cost of their upkeep. In these cases, illness, disability, and even simple aging itself, are now to be collapsed into the smallest social dimension possible, by actively steering all such individuals towards the newly discovered medical "treatment" of euthanasia.
Indeed, the only easy way to escape this trap requires personal resources large enough to privately make up the difference. For our ruling elites there is obviously no difficulty. Simply jump in the plane, and off they go, to state-of-the-art facilities provided by dynamic extra-national organizations dedicated to the satisfaction of every client whim (medical or otherwise) in settings of luxury.
However, in Canada few individuals possess such options. The available earnings of the entire working and middle classes are already fully committed to the spending policies of which medical care is by far the greatest component. For the individual taxpayer, that money cannot be spent twice. No personal budgetary room remains for typical Canadians to pay, out of pocket, for real medical care.
To repeat the essential: service deprivation is now the norm, not the exception. To portray this as a "most vulnerable" issue (wholly, or even primarily) would require the redefinition of "most vulnerable" to include any person whose speedy recovery cannot guarantee prompt return on investment. And in the normal experience of accident and aging (while excluding our rulers) this is a category which includes the entire population.
Alex Schadenberg May 5 presentation
The EPC presentation to the AMAD Committee on May 5 stated that Canada needs to do a complete review of it's euthanasia law, which was actually part of the original euthanasia law that was implemented in June 2016. I stated:
...Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) who died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025.
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.
In short, the problem of euthanasia affects every person at certain seasons in their life. Our common problem is the deliberate promotion of euthanasia by the State. It is the shameless presentation of medical homicide as a legitimate solution for many problems. Nor have we seen the worst. We may now expect decision-makers to actually lower care standards on purpose. For if suffering is assumed to have a cure --in euthanasia-- then suffering can no longer be allowed to impede rationalization.
In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that very few people could have suspected that a supposedly limited access to voluntary euthanasia might ever devolve into the scale of industrial destruction, of human life, to which we are now witness. Quite naturally, many people have come to question the "why" and the "how" of such a calamitous outcome.
And that is why we are calling for a complete review of Canada's euthanasia policy.
*Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)
We demand a full review, as originally promised in the original law but never happened: an open and unfiltered scrutiny of current practice, accompanied at each stage by questions of past decisions. Everything must be on the table.
We further believe that serious changes must result. For we want real medical care.
Link to our letter to federal and provincial parliaments (Link to letter).
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians was released on June 17, 2026, which is also the 10th Anniversary of the legalization of euthanasia in Canada.
The AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition on March 17, 2027. The report concluded:
That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.
It is great news that the AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental illness, but the battle is not over.
Possibly the most interesting parts of the AMAD Committee report were the supplemental reports from the members of the Committee.
Dr Marcus Powlowski MP
The supplemental report (starting at page 63 of the report) from AMAD Committee Chair, Marcus Powlowski, (Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River) and a physician is most interesting. Powlowski's arguements may influence Canada's future euthanasia debates.
Powlowski first examined Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) with regard to not permitting euthanasia for mental illness alone. he writes:
Unfortunately, the discourse about whether to allow MAiD for mental illness seems to have been largely reduced to the somewhat simplistic question of whether not allowing it is a violation of the Charter. The argument being if we allow MAiD for physical illness, but do not allow it for those with mental illness, we discriminate against those with mental illness (under s.15) and inappropriately restrict their liberty or threaten their security (s.7)...
Powlowski explains his position on Canada's Charter:
I think the courts ought to conclude, as did our committee, that not allowing MAiD for mental illness, until such time as some fundamental concerns are addressed, is a reasonable limitation under s.1. These fundamental concerns are the difficulty/perhaps even impossibility of determining irremediability of mental suffering (a core requirement under the law), and the lack of ability to distinguish suicidality from rational decision making in someone with a mental illness (I will return to this issue, and explain why it is so important, at the end of this submission). Numerous witnesses cited these concerns as reasons why we should decline to expand MAiD to this population.
The Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision did not obligate the government to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone, but even when interpreted in that manner, I agree with Powlowski that not permitting euthanasia for mental illness is a reasonable limitation.
Powlowski then deals with the question of "readiness" to expand euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone.
In addition, although some, perhaps a majority, of MAiD providers assured us of their readiness
to provide MAiD for mental illness, and the adequacy of existing safeguards, we also heard
disturbing stories of questionable conduct by some MAiD providers. Given what we heard it is
hard not to conclude that some providers take an exceedingly expansive interpretation of what
constitutes "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability", what constitutes an "advanced
state of irreversible decline in capability"; and what constitutes "enduring physical or
psychological suffering that is intolerable". Furthermore, we heard stories of doctors with a
seemingly cavalier attitude towards ending a life.
Although we were assured that mechanisms, such as Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons,
would provide adequate safeguards, we were presented with scant, if any, evidence to indicate
that such bodies have, as of yet, seriously pursued allegations of misconduct by MAiD
providers. This does not mean that colleges have not received complaints or looked into them.
As the president of the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons pointed out- colleges
only publish the reports of hearings when there has been a finding of wrong doing. That being
said the paucity of any prosecutions of providers, combined with the suggestion by a number of
witnesses that in fact there seems to be a lacunae of law enforcement when it came to MAiD
ought to give rise to concern. Several witnesses suggested the criminal system, the medical
colleges, and at times government Ministry's responsible for MAiD provision (BC), all allegedly
treat enforcement as someone else's responsibility. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary it
is frankly difficult to believe that the system is ready to expand.
This may be the most important comment by Powlowski. As the chair of the committee he recognizes that Canada's euthanasia law lacks effective oversight and is saying that expansion to people with mental illness alone would not be safe.
Further to that, his comments are important to the argument by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) that Parliament needs to completely review the law. The evidence suggests that the law lacks oversight, but further to that, the original law required a complete review and that has not happened.
Powlowski then argues that since Canada's law requires a person to have an irremediable medical condition, that the law would need to be amended to approve euthanasia for mental illness alone. He wrote:
But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written.
Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for
some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person
eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is
seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better.
Perhaps the simplest solution to the legal question is to recognize the requirement of
irremediability as being dispositive of the issue. The law as written requires irremediability. If there is really no way to accurately determine irremediability it would seem we would need to
change the law if we want to allow for MAiD for mental illness.
Jocelyne Downie
Powlowski suggests that based on irremediability that many euthanasia deaths for physical illness also do not qualify within the law. He writes:
We did, I would acknowledge, hear the argument that perhaps with some physical illness
irremediability is not certain either (the argument was most forcibly made by Professor
Downie- a law professor not a medical clinician). To the extent that there are such cases I
would suggest it would be more appropriate to question whether MAiD is appropriate in any
such case where there is uncertainty over the medical prognosis - rather than to accept the
conclusion of those practitioners who suggested they were "comfortable" with making a
decision about irremediability even if there was inherently some inability to come to that
conclusion with reasonable certainty.
Powlowski then answers the question about the role of parliament and the role of the courts. He writes:
I would suggest the elected legislature is totally justified in drawing a line, in deciding that we
are unwilling to support the state enabling physicians to taking the life of someone who,
perhaps, would have gotten better. The decision of whether we do so is a moral decision and
very much a reflection of what we value as a society. As such it is a decision more appropriately
made by those of us who are elected by the members of society, and who are ultimately
accountable to the people- at the poll box, rather than the unelected courts.
This is important since Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision that would approve Brosseau for death by lethal poison based on mental illness alone. The euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving that Brosseau be killed.
Powlowski made many more important comments but his closing argument is important:
In recommending that we not extend MAiD to those with mental illness we are not suggesting
embarking on a new path of prohibiting suicide, or further trying to limit people's autonomy.
We are suggesting the state decline to provide assistance to people with mental illness ending
their lives and decline to allow medical professionals to actively do it for them.
EPC opposes killing people but we are not limiting a persons autonomy but rather we oppose the state giving doctors and nurse practitioners the right in law to kill people. When a doctor or a nurse pracitioner kills you, it is not about autonomy, it is about someone else killing you.
The EPC presentation to the AMAD Committee on May 5 urged Parliament to do a complete review of the euthanasia law, which was actually part of the original euthanasia law that was implemented in June 2016. I stated:
...Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025. 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.
In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization. Many of these deaths have been controversial and were outside the intent of the law.
EPC urges the government to consider the many stories associated with our euthanasia law that have been publicized world-wide and recognize that the law needs to be reviewed.
We look forward to presenting to the AMAD Committee when they provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.
This article was published two days before the report of the Special Joint Euthanasia Committee report recommending that the Canadian government not extend euthanasia to mental illness alone.
Carr explains that the Canada's original euthanasia law that was passed in 2016 was essentially limited to people with a terminal condition who were suffering.
Carr suggests that most Canadians believe that the law remains the same, but in fact Canada's law was expanded in 2021 to include people with disabilities who are not terminally ill. Carr explains:
But Canada’s MAID framework has evolved significantly since then. In 2021, Parliament expanded the law through Bill C-7, creating two pathways for assisted death. The first pathway applies to people whose natural death is imminent and expected soon (reasonably foreseeable).
The second — known as “Track 2” — allows separate access to MAID for individuals with disabilities who are not dying.
This expansion fundamentally changed the scope of assisted dying in Canada.
Track 2 means that assisted suicide may be available to people living with disabilities even when they are not nearing the end of life. Thousands of Canadians have already accessed MAID through this pathway. Between 2021 and 2024, a total of 2,050 people died from Track 2 MAID.
Carr explains the significance with expanding the law.
People with disabilities and disability organizations across the country have warned that Track 2 creates serious risks. Many individuals seeking MAID have described suffering related not to medical conditions alone but to poverty, housing insecurity, social isolation or lack of disability supports.
These are not medical failures. They are social failures.
For people with intellectual disabilities and many others in the disability community, the concern is straightforward: no one should feel that assisted suicide is easier to access than the supports needed to live with dignity.
Carr suggests that Canada's euthanasia law combined with homelessness, poverty and a gap in disability supports, combined poor access to mental health and community supports has created a serious problem for people with disabilities. Carr writes:
Against this broken backdrop, expanding assisted death beyond end-of-life situations risks sending a troubling message — that the suffering created by social inequality can be addressed through assisted suicide rather than social reform.
And now Parliament is once again debating whether to expand MAID further to also include mental illness. But what happened to suicide prevention? Are people with disabilities not entitled to the same suicide prevention as everyone else?
Carr then comments on the recent parliamentary hearings by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Aid in Dying, that yesterday recommended to parliament that euthanasia for mental illness not be implemented in Canada. Carr continued
Legitimate questions have been raised about whether Canada’s current framework adequately protects people who are living with structural disadvantage.
These questions are now before the courts. A coalition of disability organizations, including Inclusion Canada, has launched a Charter challenge arguing that Track 2 violates equality rights and the right to life guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case asks whether Canada’s laws are discriminating against people with disabilities by allowing assisted death in circumstances where death is not imminent.
Canadians should agree on one principle: people with disabilities deserve the same commitment to dignity, support and opportunity as anyone else.
Persons with disabilities deserve the same response other Canadians receive when they are suffering: investment in supports, housing, and mental health services, not a faster path to death. Our politicians should be helping people live meaningful lives, not end them.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the challenge by Inclusion Canada to eliminate Track 2 euthanasia (people who are not otherwise dying). We agree that Canada's euthanasia law focuses on killing people with disabilities with Track 2 cases being exclusively for people with disabilities.
We also thank Krista Carr and Inclusion Canada for their leadership.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians was released on June 17, 2026, which is also the 10th Anniversary of the legalization of euthanasia in Canada.
The AMAD Committee decided whether Canada should implement euthanasia for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition on March 17, 2027.
The report concluded:
That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.
It is great news that the AMAD Committee has decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental illness, but the battle is not over.
EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision that would approve Brosseau for death by lethal poison based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving that Brosseau be killed.
Even though the parliamentary committee is recommending that euthanasia for mental illness be indefinitely excluded from the law, a judge may legislate from the bench that Brosseau, and in turn others, can be killed by euthanasia based on mental illness alone.
Marcus Powlowski (MP)
Marcus Powlowski, the co-chair of the AMAD Committee a Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River, and a physician provided some excellent insight into his reasoning in the report. He wrote:
In addition, although some, perhaps a majority, of MAiD providers assured us of their readiness to provide MAiD for mental illness, and the adequacy of existing safeguards, we also heard disturbing stories of questionable conduct by some MAiD providers. Given what we heard it is hard not to conclude that some providers take an exceedingly expansive interpretation of what constitutes "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability", what constitutes an "advanced state of irreversible decline in capability"; and what constitutes "enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable". Furthermore, we heard stories of doctors with a seemingly cavalier attitude towards ending a life. (page 64)
In his comments, Powlowski appears to agree with EPC that there needs to be a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law. The report recognized our statement to the Parliament Committee on May 5 by including our statement on page 28:
Alexander Schadenberg, of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, asserted that, rather than expanding MAID,
Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s euthanasia law is actually 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 amendments?
There were presenters that commented, at the parliamentary committee, on potential abuses associated with Canada's euthanasia law, but only EPC pointed out that parliament was required to provide a complete review of the law in 2020, but it never did. Sign our petition urging Canada's parliament to completely review the law. (Petition Link)
Secondly Powlowski suggests that, based on the language of the law, euthanasia for mental illness should never be permitted. He writes:
But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written. Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better. (page 64)
EPC supports Bill C-218 which is the private members bill that was introduced by Tamara Jansen (MP) to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.
Now that the Parliamentary Committee on euthanasia has decided to prevent the expansion of euthanasia to mental illness alone, EPC once again urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).
The best way to prevent euthanasia for mental illness is for parliament to pass Bill C-218.
