Temporary injunction protects conscience rights for some Illinois doctors.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Disability leaders opposing assisted suicide

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

On August 13, 2026 we reported that a group of Illinois physicians, a Catholic bishop and a faith-based nursing home filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Illinois’ assisted suicide law before it goes into effect.

On August 24, 2026 Molly Sweeney reported for WCIA news that Illinois agreed to a temporary order pausing assisted suicide law for certain hospitals and doctors. Sweeney wrote:

With the temporary injunction, Catholic hospitals under the authority of the Diocese of Springfield, the Lutheran Care Center in Altamont and the four Catholic doctors named in the lawsuit will not be required to comply with the new state law while similar cases are resolved in the appeals court.

The Thomas More Society, the legal group that took the case, stated in their Press Release on August 24 that:

In the near term, the order means that when the law takes effect on September 12, the named plaintiffs may keep serving their patients according to conscience. Illinois cannot force them to tout the alleged “benefits” of assisted suicide, refer patients to someone willing to prescribe lethal drugs, log those requests in a way that triggers the state’s suicide “qualification” process, avoid engaging in whatever the state decides is “misinformation” about suicide, or falsify death certificates to conceal how a patient died. Nor may the state pursue the penalties the law otherwise threatens for refusing: fines of up to $10,000 per violation, loss of licensure, and criminal prosecution.

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society also stated that:

“We will not rest until Illinois’s immoral and coercive assisted suicide mandate is struck down for good, and every doctor and health care ministry in the state is free to heal without fear of the State’s deadly agenda,”

The decision was entered by U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama on August 21, 2026. (Link to the decision).

Legalization of Euthanasia in France: conscientious objection and the impartiality of judges

By Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM and a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition board member.

Previous article: France legalized euthanasia. What's next (Link).

Odile Marcotte

After the National Assembly of France adopted the law on “aid in dying,” (Article Link) five people or groups asked the Constitutional Council (the French equivalent of the Supreme Court of Canada) to state whether this law was constitutional or not.

In its decision published on August 14, 2026, the Constitutional Council did not reject the law or any part of it but asked for three changes (Link to the article in the Le Point magazine) (Link to the decision). 

The first concerned adults under guardianship, that is, those subject to a guardianship arrangement, who, under the initial version of the law, could request and obtain assisted dying without the guardian being consulted. The Council holds that the guardian must be consulted in such cases (see paragraph 121 of the decision). 

It also holds that pharmacists have the right to conscientious objection, that is, the right to refuse to prepare and provide the lethal substances used in the assisted dying procedure (see paragraph 166). 

Finally, the Council holds that institutions themselves (and not just individuals) have the right to refuse to perform assisted suicide or euthanasia if these practices conflict with their mission or purpose (see paragraph 188). An institution’s refusal, however, “can only be invoked if other institutions are able to meet local needs,” which greatly restricts the institutions’ freedom of conscience.

From our point of view this last point is especially interesting, since certain Canadian provinces (notably Quebec) require every hospice to include euthanasia in its “range of care.” The Maison Saint-Raphaël, for example, which is located near several Montreal hospitals, was compelled to do so. The intolerance displayed by the drafters of the first version of the French law, which did not recognize any freedom of conscience for institutions, has been sharply criticized by several authors, who call for genuine pluralism in the field of end-of-life care (Link to an article on conscience rights). 

Quebec and Canada are in great need of this pluralism! Furthermore, before the Constitutional Council issued its ruling, Ms. Nazila Ghanea, a professor at the University of Oxford and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, reminded the French government and the Constitutional Council of their obligation to respect the freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals and institutions providing end-of-life care (Link to article). Of course Ms. Ghanea could make a similar statement regarding the Canadian situation if someone brought to her attention the legislation of the federal and provincial governments of Canada, particularly the burden on Quebec hospices to provide euthanasia.

Another important issue is the impartiality of the judges or “wise men,” as members of the Constitutional Council are called. In fact, some members of the Council had already expressed their support for the legalization of euthanasia in one way or another, and the Council received recusal requests targeting two of its members. These requests were rejected by the Council for reasons that were heavily criticized by some legal experts (Article on impartiality). The issue of the impartiality of judges also arises in Canada.

Training and promotion of (MAiD) euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was speaking to an Ontario nurse who works in palliative care. The nurse said that she recently participated in a required (MAiD) euthanasia training session. The training session didn't force the nurses to participate in the act, but the session promoted participation in euthanasia and explained how to do euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the killing of a person upon request. It is done by injecting the person with poison drugs that paralyze and put the person into coma and then prevents the lungs from breathing, which causes death.

The nurse said that she was surprised to learn, at the session, that Canadians who are not terminally ill, could be killed by (MAiD) euthanasia.

The nurse stated that she completely opposes euthanasia and would not participate in euthanasia, nonetheless, she was required to attend the "MAiD" training session.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people.

Normalizing killing.

Normalization is a process that reduces the natural opposition to killing. Throughout human history when a society decides that it is OK to kill a certain class of people, that process starts with propaganda and is followed by a normalization process.

Euthanasia training sessions are designed to increase the number of willing killers as well as to normalize the act.

Selling euthanasia.

We have received many calls from supporters who are shocked when a doctor or nurse asks them if they want (MAiD) euthanasia, an act that they would never consider. 

Often the person is asked if they want to be killed many times, even after saying NO the first time. One supporter called and said that her husband was asked 5 times.

Asking patients if they want to be killed by euthanasia is another normalization technique as it creates the impression that euthanasia is the same as any other medical procedure and it is a way of selling euthanasia.

What was sold to the culture as being a free choice, is now being sold to the public as the choice. But to sell killing to the public society avoids the reality, that euthanasia is about killing people. 

It is not compassionate, it is not about freedom, and for many it is not about choice, it is about killing and it is often an abandonment of a person in need.

Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition if you have felt "pressured" or "coerced" to consider euthanasia or if you are a medical professional who has felt pressured to participate in killing.

Your story is important, not only to inform the public, but also to give others permission to also tell their story. Change will only come after

A deeper dive into the California assisted suicide data.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On August 18 I published the article: California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data which explained the 2025 California assisted suicide report data, uncovering shoddy reporting and missing data in the California assisted suicide reports.

The article reported that the 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1,235 reported assisted suicide deaths which is up by 11% from 1,113 in 2024 and 1839 poison prescriptions written in 2025 which was up by almost 8% from 1710 poison prescriptions in 2024.

*Based on incomplete data in previous California assisted suicide reports, I predict that the actual 2025 data is around 1975 poison prescriptions and 1330 assisted suicide deaths.

Let's examine the incomplete data in the report.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written and 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and states that there were 1710 poison prescriptions written and 1,113 reported assisted suicide deaths.

Therefore the 2025 report increased the number of 2024 poison prescriptions by (119) 7.5% and the number of reported assisted suicide deaths by (81) almost 8%. 

Based on the 2024 data, you can understand why I am predicting that the 2026 California assisted suicide report will indicate that in 2025 there were approximately 1975 poison prescriptions written and 1330 assisted suicide deaths in 2025. This data does not include the people who received a poison prescription and whose ingestion status is unknown.

Reasons for data inaccuracy in the report.

The 2025 report indicates that there were 380 people who received the lethal poison but whose ingestion status was unknown. When the ingestion status is unknown, they know that the person received the lethal prescription, but they do not know if the person died or how they died. The 380 people, whose ingestion status was unknown, could have died by assisted suicide with no report being filed.

The 2025 report acknowledges that the data discrepencies and states the following:

Note that cumulative counts reported above do not match prior reports. These differences arise from several factors including: 

• the timing of forms received; 

• the registration of deaths; and, 

• the inclusion of duplicate records in prior reports, which have been removed.

There are problems with the timing of forms received and with the registration of deaths, but the removal of duplicate reports, does not explain how the 2025 report increased the numbers from previous years as removing duplicate reports would decrease the numbers.

Let's examine the 2021 assisted suicide death data. The 2025 report states that 3 more 2021 poison prescriptions were uncovered in 2025 and 2 more assisted suicide deaths. These three poison prescriptions and 2 assisted suicide deaths were found 4 years late. Where were these reports?

Further to that there are intentional euthanasia deaths in California, but just not reported. A supporter of ours sent us the following private message:

California is MUCH further down the road than the public understands. In 2024 I was in a 'recovery' nursing home/hospice in Sacramento. I was in for congestive heart failure (CHF). I was personally pressured, as was my family, to be compassionate and face an objective reality: "He is incurable and about to die" My death at their hand would NOT have been reported. CHF would be listed as the cause. THAT is the law and practice in California.

Other issues from the report.

The report indicates that 94.3% of the people who are approved for assisted suicide are receiving hospice and/or palliative care. This is a bold statement considering the fact that the assisted suicide doctors are encouraged to enroll assisted suicide requesters into palliative care.

It is one thing to be enrolled in hospice and/or palliative care. It is another thing to be receiving hospice and/or palliative care. In other words, the death lobby wants it to appear that nearly everyone who died by assisted suicide was also being cared for by hospice and/or palliative care.

There needs to be an independent study conducted by a doctoral student who is honestly attempting to uncover the real data. It is very likely that there is a large number of unreported assisted suicide deaths in California.

Assisted suicide is for the privileged.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in January 2026 that California has the most diverse population in the US. The January 2026 report stated that in July 2025:

No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of the state population: 41% of Californians are Latino, 34% are white, 17% are Asian American or Pacific Islander, 5% are Black, 3% are multiracial, and less than 1% are Native American or Alaska Natives, according to US Census Bureau estimates.

The 2025 California asssisted suicide report indicated that those who died by assisted suicide:

• 85.5% of the people were White, 
• 6.4% of the people were Asian, 
• 5.5% of the people were Latino, 
• 1.2% of the people where Black,
• 1% were Multiracial, and
• none of the people were Native American.

White people are predominantly dying by assisted suicide even though they represent only 34% of California's population.

The Public Policy Institute of California published in February 2026 that 35 - 37% of Californians have a University degree and yet the California assisted suicide report indicates that more than 52% of the assisted suicide deaths are people with a University degree.

The California assisted suicide reports have missing data and under-reporting is very likely and yet assisted suicide is a life and death issue. 

People have the right to know the assisted suicide reality in California and everywhere. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition calls on the California Department of Public Health to carry out an independent, in depth research project which would:

• do a large survey of how people in California are dying,
• examine the large number of cases where the person received the assisted suicide prescription, but whose ingestion status is unknown,
• examine more closely the reality of why people are asking for death by assisted suicide.

It is likely that an independent study would uncover unreported assisted suicide deaths and similar to the Netherlands, it is likely that the report would uncover that euthanasia (homicide) deaths are also happening in California.

Euthanasia is 'Medical Homicide' not Medical Assistance in Dying.

Gordon Friesen

Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Why euthanasia and assisted suicide are properly spoken of as ‘medical homicide’ , not ‘medical assistance in dying’

It is a great advantage to use the plain language of common speech. For simple words, themselves, enable us to clarify our thoughts, and to communicate those thoughts effectively to others.

One obstacle, for example, to building a unified worldwide campaign in opposition to medical homicide, springs from a misunderstanding of the essential unity between ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’. In the US, in particular, medical homicide promoters routinely claim that foreign experience with ‘euthanasia’ does not matter, because they are only trying to install ‘assisted suicide’.

Indeed, this distinction makes intuitive sense to us, because we see a real difference between ordinary ‘suicide’ (where people kill themselves), and ‘homicide’ (where they are killed by others). However, to think in this way is to misunderstand what it means for suicide and homicide to be treated as truly ‘medical’ acts. For when coherently observed from a medical perspective, there is actually no fundamental difference between them.

Medicine is an art, which is practiced according to well established rules. First the doctor makes a diagnosis. Then he (or she) will propose clinically indicated treatment. And so it is --that although all patients are free to make whatever demands or suggestions they may desire-- real choices are always limited to those measures which are actually endorsed by their physicians.

Beyond any ambiguity, therefore: physicians (not patients) bear full responsibility for any treatment proposed, prescribed or provided.

Furthermore (and again from a strictly medical perspective) it is irrelevant whether physician prescribed, pharmaceutical remedies are administered orally, or by injection. The doctor is equally responsible for both.

Hence, although administration methods may differ, the poisons necessary for medical homicide are always administered under doctor authority. And thus, when American promoters of medical homicide make a great show of limiting their legislative proposals to ‘self-ingestion’ only, the implied assertion --that patients are autonomously killing themselves (as opposed to being killed by their doctors)-- is simply unjustified. From a medical viewpoint: it is definitely doctors killing their patients, in all cases.

But these facts can only be easily conveyed when we use proper vocabulary.

To speak rationally about our subject, at all, we must always have the courage to plainly speak of ‘killing’ (not ‘assistance in dying’). However, even the term ‘killing’ is not specific enough.

‘Homicide’ is the only word in the English language which uniquely denotes the taking of human life (whether that homicide be considered culpable or non-culpable). Building from that base, the phrase 'medical homicide’, precisely denotes the killing of any person, in any fashion, for medical purposes. It is not pejorative. It is accurate. And as we have seen, it may correctly be used to denote both medically assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Unfortunately, however, just as clear thinking is enabled by clear language: vague language breeds confusion. The clarity achieved above is only possible when we honestly look at the meaning of those plain words ‘suicide’ and ‘homicide’ and then see how they are modified by adding the crucial term ‘medical’.

Most mischievously, this crucial question (of who is killing who) can never be elucidated using the artificial vocabulary of conventional debate, because politically imposed euphemisms like ‘medical aid in dying’ are designed to avoid any reference to ‘killing’ at all; and with a simple wave of that magic linguistic wand, both ‘suicide’ and ‘homicide’ are deemed to disappear.

It is under the banner of this misleading vocabulary that death friendly physicians are now busily normalizing their macabre practice --one way or another-- through the standard professional sequence of diagnosis, proposal and prescription. And in the meantime (with a complete, and oblivious contempt for truth), the promoters of new legislation continue to propose both euthanasia and assisted suicide as ‘medical aid in dying’ , but they still rely upon public gullibility to pretend that the two are completely different.

‘Medical homicide’, I believe, is the term perfectly adapted to dispel these myths, and thus, the perfect term to sustain a meaningful, unified and stable conversation, across borders, and over time.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal, August 21, 2026

Previous similar articles:

• Medical Homicide as Psychiatric Treatment (Link).
• Medical Homicide is a discriminatory oppression for the sick and disabled (Link).

British Medical Association Requires Doctors to Help Patients Commit Suicide by Dehyrdration.

This article was published by National Review online on August 19, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

The subtitle of the revised and updated version of my book criticizing utilitarian bioethics, Culture of Death, is, “The Age of ‘Do Harm’ Medicine.” Helping patients kill themselves by self-starvation and dehydration — known in euthanasia parlance as VSED (for voluntary stopping eating and drinking) — certainly fits that designation.

Two major medical associations now have endorsed doctors assisting in such suicides by palliating the painful symptoms to help patients go all the way to death. The first was the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) in 2023. This is especially notable because the organization shamefully went “neutral” on the legalization of assisted suicide, despite that action being the antithesis of the hospice philosophy enunciated by the great medical humanitarian Dame Cecily Saunders. The AAHPM’s journal also published a piece recently endorsing intentionally undernourishing dementia patients under certain conditions (MCF, or “minimal comfort feeding”) — VSED in slow motion, if you will.

Now, another “do harm” shoe has dropped. The British Medical Association has issued an ethical guidance that requires practitioners to participate in VSED when asked to do so by a patient. While the AAHPM guidance assumes that the act will only be done by terminally ill or seriously ill or disabled patients, the BMA guidance notably acknowledges that even those not in ill health can kill themselves in this slow manner — and that doctors must further the suicide palliatively. From the guidance (my emphasis):

We start from a position of understanding that: – patients with capacity are entitled to make decisions about treatment refusals and about their nutrition and hydration, including to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten their death;– there is no requirement in the law that a patient needs to be ill or at the end of life to decide to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten their death.

All doctors so requested are expected by the BMA to participate in VSED by assessing patients and easing symptoms; indeed, the guidance asserts that it is an ethical duty for doctors to be complicit in such suicides:

When an adult patient has made the decision to elect to VSED, the doctor’s initial responsibility is to assess the patient to check that: (1) the patient has the capacity to make the decision; (2) the patient’s decision is not a symptom of a mental disorder; and (3) the patient’s decision is being made free from coercion.

If the three criteria above are fulfilled, doctors have a professional duty to provide palliative care and symptom relief to their patient. The doctor’s role is not to consider whether the patient’s decision is rational, reasonable, or sensible. It is not for doctors to decide whether the patient should be permitted to end their life in this way. [Emphasis added.]

It’s one thing to say doctors can’t stop a suicidal patient from self-starvation — although one would think that suicide prevention would be on the table of which there is no mention in the guidance. But it is quite another to require doctors’ participation in such suicides.

A stunted conscientious objection clause is endorsed, but it is an essentially meaningless protection, with complicity in the preparation process still required.

Doctors cannot exercise a conscientious objection to seeing or having an initial consultation with their patient. However, some doctors may wish to exercise a conscientious objection to carrying out the detailed assessments (see section 3) and/or providing symptom relief, such as analgesics or palliative sedation (see section 4). Doctors exercising a conscientious objection must follow professional guidance and ensure that there is someone else available to take over the detailed assessments and the patient’s care without delay or detriment to the patient. This means that, with the patient’s consent, doctors must pass on their assessment and care to another doctor who is willing to provide that support. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, forced procurement of another doctor who is willing to help the patient commit suicide. And if the patient says no or another doctor can’t be found? It would seem that the original physician would have no choice but to provide whatever support is required to get the patient dead.

Suicide nihilism is exerting an ever-stronger gravitational pull in the West, with doctors increasingly expected to wield their expertise as so many death order-takers. The AAHPM’s and BMA’s blessing of physician participation in VSED deepens that darkness and strengthens the culture of death.

California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data.

Alex Schadenberg

The California assisted suicide report does not prove that all assisted suicide deaths are voluntary or self-administered.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2025 California assisted suicide report that was released in July 2026 indicates that there were 1235 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which was up by 11% from 1113 in 2024.

The assisted suicide death reporting problems are getting worse in California.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and stated that there were 1113 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. That is a increase of 81 deaths. 

 

Based on the reporting problems in the 2024 report, I predicted, last year, that there were likely 1100 assisted suicide deaths in 2024, but the real number is worse (1113) and in fact there were likely many more.

Let's look at the shoddy 2023 California assisted suicide data.

The 2023 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 884 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was bad enough, but the 2024 California assisted suicide report updated the 2023 data and reported 969 assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was a difference of 85 assisted suicide deaths representing an approxmate 9% difference.

But it doesn't stop there. The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that there were 983 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That means two years after publishing the 2023 report the California Department of Health found 14 more 2023 assisted suicide deaths or 99 more deaths since 2023.

Now let's look at the shoddy 2022 data.

The 2022 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 853 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2023 report updated the 2022 report and stated that there were 890 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 896 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. But even worse, the 2025 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 899 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022.

I think there are reasons why the California assisted suicide reports are so flawed.

The data indicates that there are a huge number of people who received the lethal poison prescriptions that were unaccounted for in the previous reports.

The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that 1839 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1710 in 2024 and 1418 in 2023.

But the 2024 report indicates that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1409 in 2023 and 1332 in 2022.

That means that the 2024 report did not account for 119 poison prescriptions that the 2025 report uncovered from 2024, even though the assisted suicide report is published more than 6 months after the year end. 

What is even worse is that the 2025 report indicated that there were 1418 poison prescriptions in 2023 even though the 2024 report indicated that there were 1409.

How did the California Department of Health stumble on 9 more assisted suicide prescriptions and possible deaths two years after they happened?

But there is more.

 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1839 poison prescriptions written, 1159 people died from those poison prescriptions, 76 people died from poison prescriptions from previous years, 300 people died from natural causes and 380 people received the poison prescription but their ingestion status is unknown.

How many of the 380 people who received a poison prescription in 2025 and whose ingestion status is unknown actually died by assisted suicide?

The California Department of Health has no idea if these 380 people died, and if they died did they die by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.

This problem is not new. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that 388 people who received the poison prescription in 2024, their ingestion status was unknown. Many of the 388 show up as assisted suicide deaths in 2025 but the majority of them remain unknown. Did they also die by assisted suicide?

Here is what you need to know.

Based on the California Department of Health assisted suicide reporting problems, there were likely at least 1350 California assisted suicide deaths in 2025 and close to 2000 poison prescriptions written in 2025.

It is also likely that there are unreported assisted suicide deaths in California and further to that the problem with the assisted suicide reports continues.

 

Why are the reporting problems important?

 

The media will suggest that there was only an 11% increase in assisted suicide deaths in California with 1113 in 2024 and 1235 in 2025. 

 

But based on the reporting problems there were likely at least 1350 assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which is greater than a 21% increase.

 

Further to that, a large percentage of people who receive the poison prescription, the California Department of Health has no idea if they died by assisted suicide or died a natural death. There could be another large group of Californians who died by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.  

Further to that, there is no proof in the California assisted suicide reports that all of the assisted suicide deaths were voluntary or self-administered.

I would suggest that a doctoral student could earn a doctorate by doing a deep dive into the real assisted suicide data in California. 

 

In the next few days I will provide a deeper dive into the California 2025 report. 

Free online film screening of Prescription Poison on August 27.

Register for the free online screening of Prescription Poison: Averting Assisted Suicide in America 

Thursday, August 27 at: 2 pm (Eastern Time) / 11 am (Pacific Time).

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

Topic: Prescription Poison - Averting Assisted Suicide in America

Thursday Aug 27, 2026 2 PM Eastern Time/11 am Pacific 

Time. Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link). 

Prescription Poison is 43 minutes and will be followed by a discussion.

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

Prescription Poison seeks to 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.

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US (download) or $15 DVD at: Prescriptionpoison.com

Watch the Prescription Poison Trailer:

Topic: Prescription Poison - Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

Thursday, Aug 27, 2026 2 pm Eastern Time/11 am Pacific Time.

Register in advance for this meeting: (Registration Link).

Support Alex's half-marathon fundraising run by donating to CCC and/or EPC

Alex Schadenberg and Marcel Lemmen are running a half-marathon on September 27, 2026 to raise money for the Compassionate Community Charity (CCC) and/or the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

This is the seventh consecutive year that Alex and Marcel are running the half-marathon fund-raiser for CCC and EPC.

The total money raised for CCC from the previous 6 half-marathon runs combined has been almost $90,000. 

Donations from the half-marathon (21.1 km) run are very much appreciated. 

 

The Compassionate Community Care (CCC) charity operates a help-line, a training program for visiting seniors, an advocacy training program and a calling service for lonely seniors.

Charitable donations can be made to Compassionate Community Care at: (Donation Link).

 

You may also consider donating to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

 
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition informs, educates, and supports opposition to killing by euthanasia and assisted suicide and endorses proper care for people in need.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, which is not a charity, at: (Donation Link).

Family files euthanasia (MAiD) complaint to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brigitte with her grand daughter.

On July 22, 2026 I contacted Brigitte Stegemann's family and received permission to republish the facebook posting concerning the death of Brigitte.

Kelsi Sheren has confirmed that Brigitte was killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on questionable competency and consent by Dr Catherine Louise Koester.

There were several issues that should be considered infractions of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Sheren reported on August 17 that family has filed a complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario in the death of their grand-mother.

Sheren outlined the complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario:

Brigitte — GG’s granddaughter, namesake, twelve-year caregiver, Power of Attorney for personal care — has formally requested an investigation by the MAiD Death Review Team into the death of July 10 at The Pearl in Cannifton, Ontario, licensed to Pearl Care Homes Inc. and formerly E.J. McQuigge Lodge.

These are their reasons, below, along with the original email.

Capacity. Documented cognitive disorientation during the assessment, in which GG could not recall basic facts about her own family. You read what that looked like: the second-youngest of fourteen children telling the assessing physician she had no siblings, then breaking down in confusion, while her family corrected the majority of her answers out loud.

The Power of Attorney, bypassed. Staff initiated private MAiD discussions and completed and witnessed the application paperwork in secret, while the advocate was out of the country for ten days.

No final express consent. The procedure went ahead on the morning of July 10 while GG stayed completely silent and never gave the verbal confirmation the family had been promised, strictly and repeatedly, would be required.

They are asking the Chief Coroner to examine the attending clinician’s compliance, and the conduct of the home’s staff, under the Coroners Act and the Criminal Code.

Kelsi Sheren further explains what the complaint concerns:

Now put the three allegations against that MAID narrative. A capacity finding on a woman who couldn’t name her siblings. Paperwork the home’s manager filled out herself. A death that proceeded through silence.

The death certificate and its stated cause. Both eligibility assessments the law requires, and the identity of whoever performed the second one. The signed request, its date, its witness. The full medication administration record and any waiver of final consent, which remains the whole case: either the procedure went ahead without the express consent the law demands, or a waiver exists that nobody mentioned to the family, including while assuring them of the safeguard it would have cancelled.

This case will determine if Ontario's death system has any oversight. Sheren states:

The granddaughter asked the home for the records. She was refused, repeatedly.

GG told the people offering her death that her faith said no. Nine weeks later she had an appointment. When the last safeguard came she met it with silence, and the family who’d been promised silence would stop it watched it not stop.

Her granddaughter has now done every single thing this system asks of a family that believes something went wrong. Kept the records. Built the timeline. Filed with the coroner. Named the doctor.

What happens next isn’t a test of this family. It’s a test of whether Canadian oversight of assisted death can do anything at all when someone walks in with a timeline, a Power of Attorney, and a name.

Kelsi Sheren contacted Dr Catherine Louise Koester and The Pearl for their response and has received no response. 

If your family has experienced a MAiD death you believe was non-compliant or coerced, in Canada or elsewhere, contact me confidentially at coaching@kelsisheren.com. Anonymity is guaranteed unless you choose otherwise, and nothing you share is published without your consent.

Links to the articles on the death of Brigitte (GG) Stegemann

• The family filed. Here's the name. Dr. Kate Koester (Link).
• The last ten days of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann (Link).
• Our Families Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying (Link).

Disability groups: Open letter opposing assisted suicide

To Prime Minister Andy Burnham and MPs 
(Link to the Open Letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham)

We are writing to call for a halt to the legislative process around assisted dying until disabled and terminally ill people have as much support to live as this bill would provide for us to die.

We are a group of disabled and terminally ill people who agree that the status quo cannot continue. But we believe that the only safe way to reduce suffering at the end of life is to reform the social and palliative care systems before any move is made towards a programme of assisted suicide.

Throughout history, disabled people’s lives have been consistently devalued, and we still experience this in the present on a daily basis. We are constantly fed the narrative that we are burdens, benefit scroungers and that it’s better to be dead than disabled. Not only do some of us internalise these messages, so do many of the people we encounter or rely on for support. Many disabled people have been made to consider suicide — not by the impact of our conditions, but the social context we live in.

Before we can talk about choosing to die, we need real autonomy over how we live our lives. At the moment, sick and disabled people, including terminally ill people, are denied choice over the most basic of things: our ability to get out of bed, wash, eat, leave our houses or manage our pain. This creates a coercive environment where people will choose an earlier death simply because they are being failed by society. Put simply, introducing assisted dying in these circumstances will put sick and disabled people’s lives at risk.

The prime minister is right: we must reform the care system before this bill can be considered and disabled people must be included in the conversation.

We are calling for you to vote No on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and then work with disabled people and our organisations to: Fully fund palliative care to ensure comprehensive and compassionate care is available to everyone who needs it, ensuring no one feels pressured to end their lives simply because they are not receiving the medical help they deserve;

Abolish the social care savings threshold for working-age social care users, so we can save for essentials and major life milestones such as a vehicle or home downpayment without risking our support, and are at less risk of financial coercion. End financial penalties and benefit reductions for disabled people who live with a partner, protecting financial independence and making it easier for those in coercive or abusive relationships to leave safely.

Equalise pay between social care and the NHS, thereby reducing staffing shortages and ensuring sick and disabled people receive professional care from well-trained care workers, vastly reducing suffering during and at the end of life; and
⁠Form a taskforce on independent and supported living, led by disabled people, and set out a time scale for implementing its recommendations within six months of its first report, so that we can move towards a society where terminally ill and disabled people have choices in all areas and stages of life, as well as at the end of it.

We understand the flaws in the current system. No one wants any terminally ill person to suffer unnecessarily at death. But we must protect the lives and rights of disabled and terminally ill people in life. We urge you to hear our voices, understand our fears and work with us to create a system that is safe for all: one that assists us to live.

Sincerely

Lucy Webster, Anna Landre, Jamie Hale, Kyla Harris, and Rensa Gaunt on behalf of The Assist Us To Live campaign 

Lucy Webster, Journalist and Advocate / Assist Us To Live

Anna Landre, Marshall Scholar, University College London / Assist Us To Live

Jamie Hale, Artistic and Executive Director, CRIPtic Arts / Assist Us To Live

Kyla Harris, Filmmaker / Assist Us To Live

Rensa Gaunt, Campaigner / Assist Us To Live

Liz Carr, Actor and Member, Not Dead Yet

Ruth Madeley, Actor

Baroness Jane Campbell of Surbiton, Member, House of Lords and Convenor, Not Dead Yet UK

Rosie Jones, Comedian

Samantha Baines, Actress and Broadcaster

Mat Fraser, Actor and Writer

Sophie Morgan, TV Presenter

Andrew Miller MBE, Cultural consultant & Broadcaster

Samantha Renke, Broadcaster

Mik Scarlet Wallace, Broadcaster and Co-CEO, Phab

Kamran Mallick, CEO, Disability Rights UK

Tracey Lazard, CEO, Inclusion London

Adam Gabsi, Chair, Inclusion London

Ellen Jones, Author

Cherylee Houston, Actor

Victoria Jenkins, Designer

Dr. Nora Groce, Professor, University College London

Dr. Eben Kirksey, Professor of Anthropology, University of Oxford

Catherine Holloway, Professor, University College London and Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub

Dr. Victoria Austin, Professor, University College London

Dr. Maria Kett, Professor, University College London

Natalie Kane, Curator, V&A and Deputy Leader of Lambeth Council, Green Party

Arthur Hughes, Actor

Rick Burgess, Care in Crisis Coalition and DPO Forum Co-Chair

Sarabajaya Kumar, Associate Professor, University College London and Director, Impatience Ltd.

Tracey Jannaway, Director, Independent Living Alternatives

Colin Brummage, CEO, Camden Disability Action

Rachel Charlton-Dailey, Journalist and Author

Cathy Reay, Writer and Journalist

Damian Joseph Bridgeman, Disability Task Force, Welsh Government and Chief Executive, Bridgeman Community Foundation

Selina Mills, Writer and Broadcaster

Shani Dhanda, Accessibility Specialist

Hannah Barham-Brown, NHS GP

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, Care Not Killing

Rachel Gadsden, Artist and Director

Tamm Reynolds, Artist

Dr. David Turner, Professor, Swansea University

Dermot Devlin, DPAC Northern Ireland

David Jones, Professor of Bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham

Peter Gay, Director, Disability Advice Service Lambeth (dasl)

Dr. Kevin Yuill, Professor Emeritus, University of Sunderland

Doug Paulley, Reasonable Access

Natalya Dell, Trustee, Reasonable Access

Tanya Motie, Former TV Executive

Aisling O’Connor, Co-founder and CEO, The Rosie Jones Foundation

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Campaigner

Dr. Amy Kavanagh, Activist

Dr. Louise Hickman, University of Cambridge

Jess Thom, Artistic Director, Touretteshero

Iyiola Olafimihan, Non-Executive Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub and Justice and Campaigns Lead, Alliance for Inclusive Education

Dan Edge, Actor and Access Coordinator

James Moore, Journalist

Natalie Amber, Actor

Elle McNicoll, Writer

Dr. Rob George, Professor, King’s College London

Eleanor Lisney, Director, Sisters of Frida

Jillian Nystedt

Ella Glendining, Filmmaker

Andrew Clark, Chair of Trustees, BuDS Disability Service

Wednesday Holmes, Illustrator and Author

CJ DeBarra, Author and Journalist

Simon Ford, Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Penny Pepper, Writer and Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Carrie-Ann Lightley, Writer

Lou Chandler, Content creator

Isaac Harvey, Disability Advocate

Dr. Calum Miller

Angie Airlie, CEO, Stay Safe East

Clare-Louise English, Director

Dr. Ros Jones, Paediatrician