UK assisted suicide bill will go to a vote on September 11, 2026

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that failed to pass earlier this year in the House of Lords has been revived by Lauren Edwards MP with nearly identical language as the failed Leadbeater bill.

On November 29, 2024; Members of the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges the UK to Kill the bill not the patients.

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their July 17 report that:

Yesterday, Lauren Edwards MP published her Private Member’s Bill. We say “her” bill, but it is essentially the same as the one which foundered in the Lords earlier this year: they could have taken this opportunity to reflect and respond to the many concerns of experts and professional groups, but the clear priority is to leave open the door to use of the Parliament Acts, and so you can be sure that there will be strenuous efforts to prevent MPs from seeking amendments to the Bill.

The House of Lords debate exposed serious flaws with the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill and yet Edwards insists on pushing the same flawed bill because, if passed by the House of Commons, it would not be required to be debated by the House of Lords, where strong opposition to assisted suicide exists.

The Parliament Acts have only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards, who is a Labour MP for Rochester and Stroud, has introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two essentially identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

A similar parliamentary tactic was used in France where the National Assembly passed identical euthanasia bills on June 30 and July 15 that enabled them to ignore the opposition to the euthanasia bill in the Senate, even though France's Senate is elected.

California also legalized assisted suicide in 2015 with a similar tactic.

Concerning California, on August 18, 2015 we wrote:

The assisted suicide lobby has renewed their push to legalize assisted suicide in California after their previous assisted suicide bill, SB 128, was stopped in the Health Committee.

The assisted suicide lobby is taking advantage of the special legislative session called by Governor Jerry Brown to address shortfalls in healthcare funding. The new assisted suicide bill AB 15 is nearly identical to SB 128, but AB 15 will not be heard by the Health Committee.

In other words, SB 128 was stopped in California's Health Committee, then Governor Brown opened a "special session" to examine shortfalls in healthcare funding that included Bill AB 15, an identical assisted suicide bill to SB 128, which passed in the special session and became law.

 

Edwards appears to be using the same playbook that was used recently in France and in 2015 in California.

 

Kill the bill, not the patients. 

Woman who sought assisted suicide 26 years ago is happy to be alive.

Alex with Jeanette Hall

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We received a message from Jeanette Hall who commented on the article concerning France legalizing euthanasia. Jeanette wrote:

Alex. It is 26 years (July 17, 2000) that I learned I had terminal colon cancer and wanted to follow that same course with Oregon's law and asked Dr. Kenneth Stevens to help me end my life. I pray there are many Dr. Stevens in France that will want to see their patient live. Still "Great to be Alive."

Dr Kenneth Stevens is a physician in Oregon who helped Jeanette find a reason to live.

 

The text from the youtube video explaining the story.

The patient that I specifically recall is a patient by the name of Jeanette Hall. She was referred to me by her surgeon. She had a low rectal cancer.

So when I saw her I told her what she had, I told her we could treat it with radiation and chemotherapy and said that this is potentially treatable.

She said I don't want to go through all that. I had an Aunt who lost her hair and I don't want to lose my hair.

She went back and saw the surgeon. The surgeon told her that if she wasn't treated that she would be dead within 6 months or a year.

The Oregon law says that if life expectancy is 6 months you qualify for the law so I could have written her a prescription for the lethal medication at that time.

She came back and I talked with her again and she said: why aren't you giving me the pills? I want the pills.

I learned more about her. I learned that she had a son who was going to the police academy. I said:

Wouldn't you like to see him graduate? That really made her think that I really have something to live for.

She really struggled in her mind as to whether she was going to be treated or not treated. She finally accepted the treatment, it took a few weeks to give, it was not easy, she actually did lose her hair and her hair grew back and she was able to attend her son's graduation from the police academy.

Five years later, my wife and I were at a restaurant and she was there with a friend and she came over and she said:

Doctor Stevens, you saved my life. If I had gone to a doctor that believed in assisted suicide I would not be here. I'd be dead.

More information about Jeanettte Hall.

• Patients recovery convinces doctor to fight assisted suicide (Read).

France legalized euthanasia. What's next?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

On July 15, France's National Assembly passed a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 to 241. This was the final vote in the National Assembly and it over rides the previous votes rejecting the euthanasia bill in France's Senate.

Agence France-Presse reported on July 15 (translated):

For the fourth time in a year, the National Assembly – the lower house of the French Parliament – approved the bill, by 291 votes to 241 (and 29 abstentions).

In a restraint session, MPs, to whom the government gave the final say after three rejections from the Senate – the upper house – authorized assisted suicide assistance for the first time, or even euthanasia, with a series of conditions.

We are concerned that pressure to expand an already expansive law will lead to quick expansions of the law. Agence France-Presse also reported that:

Before attending the vote, the president of the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD), Jonathan Denis, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the ADMD, spearheading the fight for this new right for decades, would continue to fight on the free choice between assisted suicide and euthanasia or the consideration of advance directives and psychological suffering.

The euthanasia lobby is pushing to expand the law to allow euthanasia by advanced request and euthanasia for mental illness alone, similar to the political push by Canada's euthanasia lobby.

 

Wesley Smith

Based on media reports, Wesley Smith wrote that:

• The bill does not require terminal illness. Rather, it requires a “serious and incurable illness” that “threatens life in an advanced or terminal stage” — meaning death could be years away. The patient must also experience “constant physical or psychological suffering” related to the disease that is “resistant to treatment or unbearable” (as defined by the patient). Psychological suffering alone does not make one eligible for hastened death.

• There is no time set for when a disease “threatens life.”

• Only French legal residents and citizens 18 and over are eligible.

• Doctors can kill requesting patients when they are unable to kill themselves. Inability to self-administer death is not defined.

• There is only a two-day waiting period between approved request and the ability to become dead.

• There are no meaningful conscience protections for doctors unwilling to kill or prescribe poison nor explicit protections for dissenting health-care institutions. While doctors need not personally end life, they must be complicit by providing patients with the names of doctors willing to do the lethal deed.

• France’s national health service will pay for the death (which could save it a lot of money, as expensive patients will be no more). 

The battle is not over. Agence France-Presse reported that:

The President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced Tuesday that he would refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, to take into account the oppositions that persist, especially on the right.

In a decision that could take place around August 15, the Sages will have to say whether certain clauses, such as the minimum period of reflection of two days granted to the patient after the agreement of doctors to assist in dying, are compatible with the principles of individual freedom and human dignity, according to the services of the Prime Minister.

We hope that the Constitutional Council rejects, or at least moderates the bill. 

France's Presidential election will be in April 2027. It is our hope that Emmanuel Macron will be replaced by someone who opposes euthanasia.

France's Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, opposed the euthanasia bill.

France legalizes euthanasia.

This article was published by National Review online on July 15, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

The West continues its love affair with the culture of death as the French National Assembly just voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, overriding the Senate’s rejection. I haven’t read the bill, but here are a few notes I discerned from various media reports: 

• The bill does not require terminal illness. Rather, it requires a “serious and incurable illness” that “threatens life in an advanced or terminal stage” — meaning death could be years away. The patient must also experience “constant physical or psychological suffering” related to the disease that is “resistant to treatment or unbearable” (as defined by the patient). Psychological suffering alone does not make one eligible for hastened death.

• There is no time set for when a disease “threatens life.”

• Only French legal residents and citizens 18 and over are eligible.

• Doctors can kill requesting patients when they are unable to kill themselves. Inability to self-administer death is not defined.

• There is only a two-day waiting period between approved request and the ability to become dead.

• There are no meaningful conscience protections for doctors unwilling to kill or prescribe poison nor explicit protections for dissenting health-care institutions. While doctors need not personally end life, they must be complicit by providing patients with the names of doctors willing to do the lethal deed.

• France’s national health service will pay for the death (which could save it a lot of money, as expensive patients will be no more).

Please remember that the law as it currently exists will surely not be the permanent ceiling of permissibility but as other jurisdictions illustrate, merely be the launching pad for an ever more expansive euthanasia regime. Moreover, even these weak-tea parameters will probably not be enforced meaningfully, because that’s how the culture of death rolls. And once euthanasia starts, it picks up steam year by year by year as hastened death becomes normalized.

The constitutionality of the law will surely be litigated, which could theoretically prevent it from going into effect. We will see, but that kind of holding action rarely works, and even when it does — as in Portugal — the prohibition doesn’t last for long.

More articles on this topic:

• France's National Assembly legalizes euthanasia (Read). 
• France's Senate once again defeats euthanasia bill (Read).
• France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15 (Read).

I watched in sadness as France legalized euthanasia.

By Sebastien Ostertag

I watched in sadness and anger as the French National Assembly legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 for and 241 against.

Indeed, as many people have pointed out and will point out in time, those who voted for or abstained on the vote have blood on their hands. Emmanuel Macron has blood on his hands. This law, in what it allows and what it will lead to (as many of its proponents have promised), will be the most extreme euthanasia law. 

Before the vote there were a number of speeches, many of which included the classic lies that were made in order to get this horrible bill passed. Multiple speakers including Elise Leboucher, Frederic Valletoux, and others argued that the law was strict and wouldn't impose death upon anyone, or that, as Oceane Godard of the Socialist Party argued, “There is no absolute truth.” All of these are lies that were pushed by the pro-euthanasia activists in order to get enough support for the bill. 

Elise Leboucher, one of the sponsors of the bill, told a quick story about a man she knew who recently died. It was a touching story, though at the end of it she admitted that she didn't know if this man would have chosen assisted suicide or euthanasia. 

A deputy for Emmanuel Macron's Ensemble party made the argument that this law is similar in its greatness to Robert Badinter's law which prohibited capital punishment. Her comparison is beyond ironic, comparing a law ending killing to a law allowing it. Badinter was also opposed to euthanasia. 

Frederic Valletoux, one of the sponsors of the bill, argued that assisted suicide and euthanasia must only be the exception, as in the last resort. This was exactly what Simone Veil, who pushed for the legalization of abortion argued when her bill was being debated. Those who brought up the Veil law also mentioned the right to choose death for themselves, similar to the right to choose abortion. 

Karen Erodi of the extreme-left La France Insoumise stated the quiet part out loud when she complained that the délit d'entrave, which would have criminalized attempting to dissuade someone from committing suicide, had been taken out of the bill. She was joined by Sandrine Rousseau of the far-left Ecologiste party who lamented that minors/children won't have access to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Should their parties win next year, we can already expect what they will attempt to pass into law. 

The greatest and most thoughtful speeches came from both the right, which includes the far-right Rassemblement Nationale, the right-wing UDR, and the center-right Les Républicains, and the hard left, which includes the GDR (the French Communist party).

Communist deputy Yannick Monnet explained that he was in favor of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, but that he would abstain in the vote due to the fact that his proposal to make sure that everyone wanting death had had the opportunity to access palliative care, which isn't available for a majority of the French people, had been voted down. He explained that the bill was, “A major ethical evolution” for the society and that assisted suicide and euthanasia should remain the “exceptional answer,” meaning the exception. 

The speakers for the Rassemblement National and the UDR both gave great speeches against the bill, though the most inspiring was given by LR deputy Justine Gruet who stated that this law “remains the most permissive in the world.” She called out the government and the left for rushing the parliament to pass the bill before the summer and she brought up how the law has no conscience clauses for nurses or religious retirement homes and hospitals. Adults who are under a legal guardianship due to their IQ or some sort of a mental disorder will now be able to ask for suicide even though they can't legally sign anything. There will now be no control requirements to make sure the doctors followed the law until after the death of the patient. Gruet stated before the final vote that,

“Currently if a person tries to commit suicide, society proposes care and accompaniment. If at the moment of doing the act the person hesitates, a jolt of life, in a society of humanity and solicitude, we do not ask the caregiver to push the syringe. Society rests on the same demand: When a human being suffers, it is our duty to help the person through to support, care and accompaniment. 

Does fragility diminish dignity? No, human dignity isn't measured, it isn't calculated, it remains intact in the greatest vulnerability. Its the richness of human life. We are preparing to recognize a right to die without guaranteeing the right everywhere of being cared for and accompanied. How (can we) propose death where we haven't fully offered care? Presence is hope. Personally I would never agree to organize the death of somebody. You are building here, and it's so surprising on the part of the left in this session, a societal model of the law of the strongest against the weakest.

A human never abandons another human, it's a fundamental principle that founds our social compact… Tomorrow this bill won't concern abstract principles, tomorrow it will concern someone you know, someone you love, and that day your responsibility will no longer be judicial, it will be deeply human.”

The fight isn't over, as Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu and the Senate President Gerard Larcher are both asking the French Constitutional Council to review the law and to strike down anything that may be unconstitutional. We must hope and pray that they re-establish the rights of religious establishments to operate without being forced to kill, the extension of the conscience rights for all medical professionals as well as protections for adults under guardianship. 

To fully repeal this law will require a new government. The next French presidential elections are in April 2027. 

We must pray and work for the next government to repeal this horrible law. Should the far-left win, we can be sure that they will extend the “right to suicide” to children and those with only mental illnesses. Worse than that, they will push to criminalize suicide prevention by passing a délit d'entrave. This law could soon become the worst euthanasia law.

Terrible news: France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill.

This is the final vote to legalize euthanasia. The bill will now go to Constitutional Council to determine if it complies with the constitution.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have very bad news for everyone who opposes killing people.

France's National Assembly passed their euthanasia bill by a vote of 291 to 241 on Wednesday, July 15.

We reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232.

 

France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times after the previous votes. This final vote will not go to the Senate for a vote as the National Assembly can pass legislation into law even when they are not able to reach agreement with the Senate.

The issue might not be over yet.

Sylvie Corbet reported for The Associated Press on July 15 that the Prime Minister and the Senate President will refer the bill to the Constitutional Council. Corbet wrote:

Senate President Gérard Larcher and Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said they will refer the bill, once adopted, to the Constitutional Council, which will have up to a month to determine whether it complies with the Constitution. The law would only enter into force once that review has been completed.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

Similar to Canada, France's bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian data indicates that nearly every assisted death was the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide). Also, like Canada, France's healthcare system will cover the cost of killing.

France's euthanasia bill has been sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that this bill does not limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. This bill employs undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given legal immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but, over time, the law will be forced to expand since it is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

We hope that the Constitutional Council will reject the euthanasia bill.

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people. We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and we support caring options. 

More articles on this topic:

• France's Senate once again defeats euthanasia bill (Read).
• France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15 (Read).

Taiwan initiates referendum vote regarding euthanasia.

Proposed referendum enters the formal review process; vote expected in November 2026.

Viviana Runstedler
Staff Writer, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The international push for legalized euthanasia propels ever forward.

The Taipei Times has recently wrote about the proposal for a referendum to legalize euthanasia in Taiwan for those facing “intractable diseases” or “suffering from intolerable pain.”

Taiwan has been debating euthanasia off and on in their legislature for years without conclusion. Jonathan Chin reported on July 15, 2026 that: 

DPP Legislator Chen Kuan-ting (陳冠廷) said that he has also proposed a bill legalizing euthanasia, but it has remained stuck in committee review due to a lack of consensus.

Chin’s coverage notes that due to the stalemate, legislators now want to put the question directly into the hands of the voters. Chin quotes Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), chairman of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which sponsored the original bill: 

Legalizing euthanasia has grave implications on Taiwanese concepts on human dignity and fundamental values, making it a matter that the nation’s voters should jointly decide.

Chin continues: 

DPP caucus chief executive Chuang Jui-hsiung (莊瑞雄) questioned the referendum’s timing, as the political parties could not reach a consensus on euthanasia even within their own caucuses.

Other coverage suggests that the wording of the referendum will lean heavily on pro-euthanasia terminology. The Taipei Times reported on July 14, 2026 that the phrasing would be: 

“Do you agree with the legalization of euthanasia — under the prerequisite of guaranteeing the right to autonomy over one's own life — to provide systematic measures and regulations for those suffering from incurable diseases and unbearable pain so that they can end their lives of their own free will and with dignity?

The euthanasia propaganda machine repeatedly uses talking points referring to “personal autonomy” and (infamously) “dying with dignity.” These terms make it appear heartless to oppose euthanasia while hiding the indignities that occur, including abuse of elders and vulnerable populations such as veterans with PTSD. By wording the question this way, the government is encouraging voters to agree with the question. Hopefully the referendum review process will rectify the phrasing to allow voters to make an unbiased decision at the polls.

The Taipei Times article confuses the difference between euthanasia and the right to refuse treatment:

Euthanasia is no longer taboo in Taiwanese society, as Taiwan faces an aging population and shows growing awareness of the right to self-determination, TPP Legislator Chiu Hui-ju (邱慧洳) said.

It is legal for those with terminal illnesses, irreversible comas, persistent vegetative states, advanced dementia and incurable diseases that include unbearable pain to sign advance medical directives to refuse life-sustaining treatments or resuscitation under the Patient Right to Autonomy Act (病人自主權利法) and Hospice Palliative Medical Care Act (安寧緩和醫療條例).

Stating that there is no difference between refusing life-sustaining treatment and death caused by lethal poison is a corruption of medical ethics. Despite the often identical outcome, refusing treatment leads to a natural death while euthanasia is always an unnatural killing with severe ethical implications for the medical providers involved. The blurring of this line in the medical field is very dangerous, but has been used by the euthanasia lobby for decades.

The people of Taiwan are facing a referendum that will quite literally determine life-or-death for members of their populace. It is of the utmost importance that they recognize how their media may be manipulating them towards voting in favour of euthanasia.

Taiwanese society should study the impact euthanasia has had in other countries where it is legal, including the Netherlands and Canada.

In January, EPC released the powerful, award-winning film Life Worth Living that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. 

You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/. 

Please share this resource with anyone you know who is living in a region considering the legalization or expansion of euthanasia.

France's National Assembly must defeat euthanasia bill. Don't follow Canada's lead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's National Assembly will, once again, vote on a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide on Wednesday, July 15. 

France's euthanasia bill has passed three times in the National Assembly and it has been defeated three times in their Senate. If the bill passes in the National Assembly on July 15, it will legalize euthanasia and bypass the opposition of the Senate.

Similar to Canada, France's euthanasia bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian experience is that nearly every assisted death did so with the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide).

In Ontario, Canada's largest province, the 2025 euthanasia report states that, since legalization, there were 28,634 euthanasia deaths and 3 assisted suicide deaths.

France's National Assembly has sold the concept of poisoning people as something that will be done in exceptional circumstances. This is the same argument that was made in Canada, but the opposite has happened.

Euthanasia went from an exception to an expectation in Canada.

In 2025, there were approximately 17,700 medical homicide (euthanasia) deaths in Canada representing approximately 5.6% of all deaths with Québec killing more than 8% of all deaths.

Since Canada legalized medical homicide there has been more than 103,000 assisted deaths. These statistics indicate how killing has become common in Canada.

Don't follow Canada's lead.

Euthanasia has changed the nature of healthcare in Canada. Canada is experiencing a crisis with the cost of healthcare. 

Euthanasia is now being sold to Canadians as a form of healthcare. A recent report indicated that at least 24,000 Canadians died in 2025 while on a waiting list for treatment, once can understand how legalizing euthanasia is not simply an option but for many it is perceived as the only option.

Euthanasia has become a form of healthcare reform since dead people don't require healthcare.

To make things worse, euthanasia laws almost always expand. The death lobby knows that it is harder to legalize euthanasia than it is to expand the law, once it is legal.

Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 with a requirement that a person must be terminally ill before they can be killed by euthanasia. 

In 2021 Canada expanded that law to permit euthanasia based on a person having a "grievous" and "irremediable" medical condition. The law never defined the terms "grievous" and "irremediable." The disability protested the change since the law now specifically focuses on killing people with disabilities.

Once the law expanded to people who were not terminally ill, stories of people with disabilities being approved to be killed because they were living in poverty, homeless, or having difficulty obtaining medical treatment started to be reported in the media. A Mississauga food bank stated that people needing their services were seeking death by euthanasia based on poverty.

France's bill, like every euthanasia bill claims to have "safeguards."

France's euthanasia bill is being sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that none of these bills have "strict" safeguards that limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. These laws employ undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given total legally immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Claire Brosseau, is a Canadian actress who is participating in a court challenge bacause she wants to die by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. Brosseau claims to be living with intolerable psychological suffering. If Brosseau were a long-term resident of France would she be killed by euthanasia?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but if passed, the law will be forced to expand since i is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

France's euthanasia bill includes a 1.1 Billion euro palliative care expansion package. France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times while overwhelmingly supporting the palliative care expansion package.

Increased funding for palliative care does not assure expansion palliative care availability. Most provinces in Canada pay for euthanasia through palliative care funding codes. Therefore, it is impossible to know how much money is being spent on palliative care and how much money is being spent on killing. 

Canada euthanasia report - massive problems with reporting errors.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 8, 2026, we published an article explaining that Canada had approximately 17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 representing a 7.3% increase in killings from 2024 and representing about 5.6% of all deaths.

Our article reported that the British Columbia (BC) Health Authority released its 2025 euthanasia data indicating that there were 3189 reported euthanasia deaths in BC in 2025 which was up by 6.3% from 3000 in 2024.

We also shared similar data, in that article, from Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia.

 

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link). 

Since then more 2024 BC euthanasia data was obtained by Terry O'Neill, a Catholic researcher in BC, showing massive errors with euthanasia (MAiD) reporting in BC. O'Neill obtained further data from the BC MAiD Oversight Unit, a department of the BC Health Authority.

According to the BC 2024 euthanasia data there were 4169 requests for euthanasia resulting in 3000 reported euthanasia deaths.

The data indicates that the MAiD Oversight Unit reported 2,807 errors with 51.9 per cent of “MAiD case outcomes” requiring corrective “follow-up.” The report said that “follow-up” means obtaining missing information or clarifying existing information.

That means that in BC, there were 3000 reported 2024 euthanasia deaths with 51.9% of those deaths required some type of follow-up, with some of the euthanasia reports having multiple reporting errors.

When examining the errors in the BC report one notices that:

• 22.7% MAiD outcome form had eligibility criteria errors,
• 14.9% prescriber form, errors in safeguards (assessments),
• 10.9% had missing forms,
• 9.4% MAiD outcome form eligibility criteria errors,
• 8.3% receipt of the written request error
• 6.4% Administration of MAiD error,

There were many more categories of errors that were less common.

 

Similar concerns about reporting errors exist in Canada's biggest province, Ontario.

On November 12, 2024; we published a commentary on Alexander Raikin's research published in The New Atlantis that we titled: Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant (MAiD) euthanasia deaths.

On November 18, 2024; Alexander Raikin's article: A quarter of all Ontario MAiD providers may have violated the Criminal Code. Does Anyone Care? was published by The Hub. Raikin's article is based on the same research that led to his earlier article, except that his most recent article adds significant historical context to the issue.

After publishing these articles several people emailed us stating that compliant or non-compliant, all euthanasia deaths involve the killing of a human being and are inherently wrong. I agree.

Euthanasia (MAiD) is about poisoning a person to death. Further to that, the law provides Canadian doctors and nurse practitioners complete legal immunity from the law for homicide, when the "safeguards" are followed. When the legal parameters of the law are not followed, the doctor and nurse practitioner can be prosecuted.

Nonetheless, there have been no prosecutions in Canada and Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons (Provincial bodies) have not removed even one medical license in Canada, even for the worst cases.

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.

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link).

Prescription Poison film: Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

The Prescription Poison film (43 minutes) will be released on July 23, 2026. 

The Prescription Poison film is produced by Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films. 

Prescription Poison is a ground-breaking documentary exposing the expansion of assisted suicide in America.

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US at:  www.prescriptionpoison.com 

The film will awaken America to the growth of assisted suicide and is a warning to Americans that, unless stopped, the Canadian system of killing will become a reality in America. Watch the Prescription Poison film trailer.

Groups throughout the US 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

 

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US at: www.prescriptionpoison.com  

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.

Québec physician urges France to reject euthanasia.

Last week, France's Senate rejected the euthanasia bill for the third time. France's constitution allows the National Assembly to bipass the opposition from the Senate and pass the euthanasia bill. The National Assembly has scheduled a vote on the euthanasia bill on July 15.

Dr Paul Saba

The following letter from Dr Paul Saba was sent (in French) to the members of France's National Assembly.

To the Honorable Members of the National Assembly,

As France debates the legalization of medical assistance in dying, as a family physician in Montreal, Canada, I would like to warn the French people against the risks of embarking on this path that Canada has been following since 2016.

Let me begin with a personal experience. Eight years ago, one of my patients, Jim (a pseudonym), came to see me for a cough, thinking he had a cold. I ordered a Chest X-Ray. According to the radiologist’s report, Jim appeared to have lung cancer. I sat down with Jim and told him, “We need to do a CT scan immediately. You need to see a specialist. We need to do a bronchoscopy…”

Jim replied, “Dr. Saba, I know you’re against assisted suicide, but you know what? I don’t necessarily agree with you. “If I'm going to die, if my time has come...” I replied, "No, no. You need to go through all the steps of the diagnostic process, because this is only a preliminary diagnosis. Even if it is lung cancer, it's a disease that can be treated today. There are new treatments available. It might not even be lung cancer.”

I spoke with the radiologist who had performed the lung CT scan; he told me, “We don’t know exactly what it is. It looks like lung cancer, but it could be lymphoma, which would be highly treatable. ”

Jim is an intelligent, well-informed man, an engineer, who thought he had a cold, only to be told he might have cancer. He could have resigned himself to medical assistance in dying before even knowing what it was, since Canadian law allows a person to refuse all the testing necessary to confirm the diagnosis. He could have lost hope when the situation was still full of hope.

The power to move people to give up is one of the dangerous and misleading aspects of medically assisted dying. However, I was able to get his attention and persuade him that the situation was hopeful and that he should get more tests and undergo treatment. Today eight years after diagnosis, investigations and treatment he is happy to be alive with no further evidence of disease. He was finally diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a condition that is highly curable with targeted medical treatment.

A recent Canadian study found that nearly one-third of patients diagnosed with “lung cancer” who died by assisted suicide did not have a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer. Furthermore, they were less likely to consult a radiation oncologist or medical oncologist and less likely to receive treatment. This is what happens when the door is opened to assisted dying.

Since 2016, more than 100,000 Canadians have undergone assisted death —many with years or even decades, to live. What was initially began as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people suffering from chronic illnesses, often with associated mental health issues (psychological distress). The numbers continue to rise each year (Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying). Quebec, the province where I practice medicine, has the highest rate of medical assistance in dying in Canada and the world, accounting for 7.6% of all deaths. (Québec MAiD data). 

In 2021, the law was expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, in addition to those suffering from terminal illnesses. Those with fragile health are also considered candidates for assisted death.

As a physician, I serve on a committee at one of Canada’s most prestigious medical centers, responsible for reviewing cases of medical assistance in dying. The majority of the cases I have reviewed involve people with medical conditions or disabilities, most of whom have associated psychological and social factors that strongly influence their decision to seek medical assistance in dying. These factors include social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain is the least common reason. My experience is corroborated by the recent Canadian report on medical assistance in dying. (Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying).  

Another of my patients, Rachel (a pseudonym), in her fifties, underwent a screening mammogram followed by a biopsy that confirmed a diagnosis of breast cancer, which was treated surgically. However, traces of tumor cells remained and were growing rapidly. She was advised to undergo chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but she refused out of fear of side effects. She had given up hope and had even stopped eating. Eventually, she was persuaded to undergo treatment, which she ultimately accepted. Rachel has recovered very well: there is no longer any trace of the tumor or metastases. She says that when you have cancer, it can drive you crazy and prevent you from making good decisions.

Ultimately, hope is one of the most powerful forces driving quality medical care. When I say hope is a powerful force for health, I mean that hope inspires us to be patient, to seeing processes through, and to regard every step as part of the great gift of being made for life. Assisted death destroys this hope and leads people to give up on life before their time. For these reasons, I ask you to vote against medical assistance in dying.

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

Death by Organ Donation pushed in Medical Journal.

This article was published by National Review online on July 9, 2026.

By Wesley J Smith

The legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia corrupts medical ethics and not just because killing patients or assisting their suicides is a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath. No: Transforming sick and disabled people into a killable caste also objectifies them as potential natural resources to be mined or harvested.

Hastened death and organ-harvesting have already been conjoined in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. (In the latter two countries, some cases have involved mentally ill patients.) The practice has been supported in prominent medical journals. It is not alarmism to note that the idea is gaining ever wider acceptance among the medical and bioethics intelligentsia. 

But killing and then harvesting doesn’t go far enough for some mainstream bioethicists. Where euthanasia is legal, they don’t see why organ procurement can’t also be the means of death for patients who want to donate. In other words, don’t just kill and then harvest; harvest to kill.

Oh, Wesley! That would never be allowed!

No? The proposal was just pushed with all due respect in the world’s most influential medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, written by three prominent bioethicist-physicians (two of whom are from Harvard: all bow).

First, the authors correctly note that the “dead donor rule” — the prime ethical directive in organ transplant medicine — requires that vital organ donors to be dead before organ retrieval (let’s not get into the brain death controversy here). Moreover, it forbids organ procurement from being the cause of death.

But with the increasing legalization of euthanasia, the bioethicists urge a dramatic loosening of that foundational legal requirement. Where lethal jabs — death by homicide — are legal, they want the organ-harvesting itself to be the cause of death, what they call “death by organ donation.” From “Contextualizing the Dead Donor Rule in an Era of Voluntary Euthanasia“:

Voluntary euthanasia relies on this lawful waiver of the right to life under defined safeguards. This reasoning extends to organ donation after euthanasia, in which a patient knowingly consents to a death that will be followed by organ procurement. Organ donation after euthanasia creates a rare opportunity to honor end-of-life autonomy, since patients can articulate their own goals, including how their death might serve others.

Notice that they don’t call for suicide prevention. Once people can be lawfully killed, treating them as so many organ farms follows logically. But what to do about that pesky dead donor rule? Killing for organs may violate it, the authors admit, but it is within the spirit of righteous ethics, so loosening the rule can be “contextualized”:

In the context of voluntary euthanasia, in which patients provide first-person consent, trust doesn’t need to rest entirely on temporal sequencing. Voluntary euthanasia’s aim of relieving suffering with a humane end-of-life process aligns with the DDR’s concern for minimizing harm. When properly safeguarded, death by organ donation violates the Death Requirement without necessarily violating its underlying spirit of trust preservation and protecting patients from harm.

Baloney. Killing for organs can quickly become the primary reason for granting someone’s request to die “as a plum to society” (as I predicted back in 1993). Knowledge of that option can also be a material influence on whether and when a despairing person asks for euthanasia.

For example, a 16-year-old Belgian girl with brain cancer asked to be killed in part so that her organs could be harvested. She was put into a 36-hour coma — not for her medical benefit but to conduct needed tissue tests and find suitable recipients. The bioethicists claim that respect for patient autonomy should permit killing for organs:

Although death by organ donation may be viewed as a departure from the DDR, shifting focus away from the temporal relationship to death determination, we interpret it as consistent with a historical pattern of recontextualization. In the setting of regulated voluntary euthanasia and organ donation after euthanasia, death by organ donation warrants open, transparent dialogue. Since patients requesting voluntary euthanasia can provide first-person consent and articulate their values, that option might offer a unique opportunity to respect their autonomous wishes by integrating donation into their end-of-life planning.

Well, why should that rationalization not apply also to any suicidal person? After all, if someone really wants to die, who are we to interfere with his or her “autonomous wishes” by setting parameters on what kind of suffering qualifies for death by organ donation? Besides, killing for organs would result in a better product:

Death by organ donation would enable cardiac donation, typically prohibited with DCD, and improve recipient outcomes by reducing warm ischemia time, thereby lowering primary graft-dysfunction rates to levels similar to those achieved with donation after brain death. In addition, it might substantially increase the donor pool, potentially saving many lives. Since death would be a chosen and inevitable outcome in these cases, enabling retrieval under ideal conditions represents a Pareto improvement: no one would be made worse off, and multiple lives might be saved.

The morality of our society would be much worse off. And so would the patients, because they would become objectified once consent was granted, even if the desire to donate is the reason for their request.

How respectable is this kill-to-harvest proposal becoming? It has been proposed before without much objection. It doesn’t get more prestigious than the NEJM. And it is now sufficiently mainstream for NPR to have featured one of the latest proposal’s authors, Dr. Robert D. Truog, in a respectful interview.

We live in very disturbing times.

France's Senate once again rejects euthanasia bill.

France's National Assembly will have a final vote on July 15

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's euthanasia bill was once again defeated on July 7 by France's Senate (third time) but based on France's constitution the euthanasia bill may still be passed into law by France's National Assembly on July 15.

We reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232.

We then reported on July 2 that France's Senate Social Affairs Committee proposed not to debate the euthanasia bill. There was logic to this proposal since the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate. 

We are thankful that France's Senate once again rejected the bill.

In the last few days there has been a scandal with Laurent Panifous, the Minister Delegate for Relations with Parliament, organizing a big euthanasia legalization party with government money, that has subsequently been cancelled.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee stated that this bill is like no other and using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

Sebastien Ostertag outlined the extent of France's euthanasia bill, that if passed would: 

• Catholic and otherwise Christian retirement homes and medical institutions will likely shut down since there is no conscience clause for religious institutions.
• Nurses and pharmacists can be forced to participate in euthanasia, since there is no conscience clause for them.
• Those who are poor and suffering may be pressured into death since access to palliative care isn't universal.
• The waiting/reflection period before death is only 48 hours.
• Estimates from France suggest that, based on France's population, 50,000 people could die every year from euthanasia.
• The family won't be able to ask the court to stop the decision to die.
• Proponents of the bill will likely push for further expansions, as in other jurisdictions, to allow children to be euthanized, people with mental illness and criminalizing those who try to dissuade someone from being killed.

Instead of competing with Canada's expansive and undefined killing by lethal poison law, France must examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject the bill. 

Québec legalized euthanasia in 2015 based on "exceptional circumstances". The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.