Canada will soon surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths.

I predict that Canada will surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths sometime in April 2026.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We recently received the 2025 fourth quarter Ontario euthanasia report from the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. 

The report stated that in Ontario there were 5303 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up from 4944 in 2024, which represented a 7.2% increase. This was up from 4641 euthanasia deaths in 2023 which represented a 6.5% increase that year. 

This indicates that the growth in euthanasia deaths is increasing, not stabilizing.

The report indicated that all Ontario MAiD deaths, in 2025, were clinician administered (euthanasia). In jurisdictions that legalize both euthanasia and assisted suicide, nearly all of the deaths are euthanasia.

Health Canada released the Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada on November 28, 2025.

The 2024 report stated that there were 16,499 reported (MAiD) Canadian euthanasia deaths which was up by 6.9% from 15,427 in 2023.

Since Ontario represents 39% of Canada's population, I conservatively predict that the number of euthanasia deaths in Canada increased by 7% in 2025 and I estimate that there were approximately 17,650 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2025.

According to Health Canada, from legalization until December 31, 2024 there were 76,475 Canadian MAiD deaths. Based on my prediction that there were about 17,650 euthanasia deaths in 2025, I predict that there were around 94,125 MAiD deaths in Canada from legalization until December 31, 2025. 

I predict that Canada will surpass 100,000 euthanasia sometime in mid - late April 2026. 

From exception to expectation.

When Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, that we called MAiD to make us feel better about poisoning people to death, we were told that it would be for people who were terminally ill and suffering. We were sold killing as a last resort solution and we were assured that it would not be common but rather it would be an exception. There was nothing further from the truth.

Canada immediately experienced euthanasia deaths that did not fit the euthanasia sales pitch. In November 2016, only a few months after legalization, we were contacted about a woman who died by euthanasia in British Columbia, who may have only had a bladder infection. 

What made the case even more grievous was that the euthanasia doctor didn't bother to do any tests to determine whether or not the woman was actually dying and when the family expressed concern about the death approval, the euthanasia doctor waived the 10-day waiting period, killing the woman within 3 days.

More recently there have been several concerning euthanasia deaths that have been published by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. To list a few:

• A woman was killed by euthanasia after her husband requested it for her (Read). 
• A man sought euthanasia after experiencing hospital overcrowding (Read). 
• A man with an essential tremor, who was lonely died by euthanasia (Read).  
• Some euthanasia deaths were driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Read).
• Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion (Read).
• Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Read).

Other notable Ontario euthanasia data:

In 2025 final consent was waived in 250 Ontario euthanasia deaths. 

One of the outcomes of passing Bill C-7 in March 2021 was that the legislation allowed doctors to kill someone who was incapable of providing final consent, as long as the person had consented to be killed while still competent. 

Therefore 1 in 21 Ontario euthanasia deaths was done to someone who was not capable of providing final consent.

Organ donation after euthanasia:

The Ontario report indicated that in 2025 only 31 of the 5303 people who died by euthanasia also became an organ donor. Some might suggest that this is insignificant, but the circumstances for approving organ donation after euthanasia are limited. Many people with a terminal condition do not have healthy organs. Since only 30% of the euthanasia deaths take place in the hospital, it is very difficult to kill someone outside of a hospital and then retrieve their organs in time for donation purposes.

Euthanasia based on disability in Ontario.

For people who were approved to be killed by euthanasia and self-identified as having a disability, the disability was: 20.37% mobility, 11.47% pain related, 7.09% flexibility, 5.36% dexterity, 2.34% hearing, 1.28% memory. Other disabilities were listed but were less common.

The youngest person to be killed by euthanasia in 2025 was 20 years old while the oldest person was 108. The average age was 78.

More data will be released by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario and more data will be gathered from other provinces in the near future. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will keep you up-to-date on these developments.

“Farewell, Babylon Bee”

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader 

I encourage euthanasia opponents to develop a cursory knowledge of disability issues, such as disability rights laws, disability history, semantic trends in the disabled community etc. No one’s perfect, but striving to gain knowledge about disability and learning about what most disabled people consider to be respectful behavior fosters good will between euthanasia opponents in general and the disability rights advocates who are working on that issue. Showing respect for the experiences and needs of disabled people is also integral to linking euthanasia opposition to broader efforts to promote disabled people’s well-being.

A satirical publication that takes an anti-euthanasia position that has blatantly failed in this regard is the Babylon Bee.

Regardless of what I think about the Babylon Bee’s political orientation or its stories in general, I thought the story "Disaster As Canada Switches Suicide Prevention Hotline With Suicide Assistance Hotline” that a friend posted on their Facebook timeline was a brilliant commentary about the absurdity of Canada’s “MAiD” program. This is also not the only Babylon Bee story that I’ve enjoyed over the years.

But, recently the Babylon Bee has begun to feature horribly ableist stories that its editors think are trenchant commentaries on diversity and equity initiatives, like “Secret Service Beefs Up Trump’s Security With Squad of Blind Midgets,” “Meet The LAFD’s First Paraplegic Fireman,” “Powerful: This Broadway Production Called A Little Retarded Girl Up On Stage,” “Mark Cuban Inspires Thousands By Proving Even The Very Retarded Can Become Wealthy,” and “Delta Introduces New Short Plane For Special Needs Pilots.”

These articles use slurs and mockery that have been linked to ableist policies and behavior for decades. (I have discussed my own experiences with this kind of bullying here and here.) Given that the Babylon Bee is a Christian publication, I would have hoped that the editors would understand that such mockery harms disabled people spiritually; it alienates us from the support of our faith communities.

Moreover, the aforementioned stories by the Babylon Bee reinforce prejudiced ideas about disabled people’s suitability for employment and community integration that are creeping into the current harmful disability policies that I discuss in this blog post. Jokes about blind midgets and special needs pilots help create a culture in which unjust restrictions on disabled people’s employment and inclusion are regularized.

I think most people don’t have perfect disability rights literacy, especially if disability issues aren’t a regular part of their lives. In my opinion forgiveness is a good thing that is often forgotten in our bitterly divided political climate, and I think it’s valuable to extend grace for each other’s mistakes, whether they be in regard to ableism or something else. One can strive to educate without making judgments about the person’s character or cutting them off.

But I mentioned these stories to a devout Christian colleague of mine who has been involved in disability rights advocacy for decades. She said that she knew the lead editor of the Babylon Bee and would be having a chat with him about why these stories were harmful. Recently my friend told me that she had had that talk with the lead editor a while ago and he seemed to listen respectfully.

Yet just a few weeks ago the Babylon Bee published yet another joke about short buses.

Given that the lead editor of the Babylon Bee had that chat with my friend yet is determined to continue publishing jokes about short buses, I’ve decided that I will not read anything by the Babylon Bee or Not The Bee ever again. It’s one thing to make a few honest mistakes and another to wilfully do something harmful even after the people being hurt by it patiently ask you to stop.

And the harm of these jokes is fairly obvious. As I’ve mentioned, the Babylon Bee has repeatedly used the word “retarded” to mock people that the editors think are incompetent or foolish. The wilful use of that term is serious.

There are some semantic shifts in the disabled community that, while thoughtful, are not obvious to the average person. Or, the semantic shifts are legitimate responses to a term becoming associated with ableism, but deviations from those shifts do not, in my opinion, typically meet the threshold of wilful mockery. For instance, nowadays the term “special” is frowned on in the disabled community; the consensus is that the term “others” disabled people by communicating that our basic needs are “special.” But, that semantic development is fairly recent. The word “special” is still a common neutral descriptor of key disability programs, like Special Education and The Special Olympics. So in my opinion the impact of that term is ambiguous and it makes sense that people wouldn’t be aware of the disabled community’s objections to it.

The R word is different. “Special” is a disfavored term; the r word is a hate term, even if the people using it aren’t thinking hateful thoughts. The disabled community’s resistance to the term has been obvious for a very long time, so the Babylon Bee’s editors must be fully aware of that resistance. Using such terms and disability stereotypes when disabled people have politely explained why you should not do so constitutes conscious disregard for the perspectives of disabled people and those that love us. The editors and writers at the Babylon Bee are perfectly capable of expressing their political point of view without resorting to bigoted caricatures of people with disabilities, but they wilfully choose not to.

But disabled people don’t exist to help you prove how bravely politically incorrect you are, Babylon Bee. So I’m not reading your stuff anymore.

Author Note:

Here are some articles about disability in Christian communities that I think are relevant to the issues discussed in this blog post:

Humanize Podcast: Interview with Christian Disability Rights Advocate Melissa Ortiz

Joni and Friends:

How Your Church Can Include People with Disabilities

How to Remove Barriers to Accessibility in Your Church

https://joniandfriends.org/for-the-church/what-does-disability-mean/

Joni Eareckson Tada’s essay on ableism: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1maWSEJcRcdvERQpZ9WJ51IIM58kJqEZH/view?usp=drivesdk

Disability and Faith

Interview with disabled Christian author Stephanie Tate: https://disabilityandfaith.org/ableism-in-the-church-part-2/

Medical homicide as psychiatric treatment.

All or nothing: medical homicide as psychiatric treatment

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When medical homicide is debated, the question always revolves around a balance between the (alleged) needs of that small number, who wish to die, and those of larger society, to protect others from the dangers.

In Canada it was judicially decided (wrongly in my opinion) that an 'absolute' (or 'categorical') ban was not warranted ('Carter vs Canada').

Pro-death cultists are now attempting to replicate that reasoning in the case of medical homicide for mental disorders alone. But this case will be much more difficult to make. For two things have changed in the meantime:

1) Mental illness presents a completely different context from earlier assumptions surrounding end-of-life euthanasia.

And,

2) We now possess a decade of experience, of deep social harms which were largely unsuspected when 'Carter' was first decided.

As for the first point, psychiatric homicide runs afoul of the 'irremediable condition' requirement of Canadian euthanasia. For no one can determine when psychiatric disorders are incurable. Moreover, it also contravenes the basic understanding that euthanasia will (always) be the result of a fully voluntary, informed, and capable decision.

Death-cult apologists do not entirely contest these points. However, in keeping with their all-or-nothing "no categorical exclusion" playbook, they would like to state this question more narrowly: as whether any person, with any mental disorder, in any circumstance, might ever display proper decisional capacity (or irremediable condition).

Unfortunately, however, to frame the conversation in this way, involves pretending their adversaries actually believe otherwise. In the recent debate with Maid-in-Canada, for example, such was their immediate response to our central messaging, to the effect that the symptoms of mental illness often make that sort of choice impossible:

“He (Friesen) tries to soften this by saying that mental illness often makes that sort of choice impossible, but his position seems clear: he seems to believe it is self-evident that people with mental illnesses cannot make these kinds of serious decisions.”

And so it is that the authors create a completely fanciful portrait, of my thinking, which they may then reject as "categorically false.”

Sadly, MIC continue with this charade, also, in portraying the meaning of third party references. They notably use one (and only one) phrase, without context, to dismiss the very real capacity concerns shown by the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention:

“MAiD and suicide can, at least in principle, be distinguished”.

This snippet, they say, shows that CASP does not support my (supposed) denial of all decisional capacity among the mentally ill. However, let us explore the full thought of CASP on this crucial ‘overlap’ of medical homicide and common suicidality:

"there may be little to no overlap between MAiD and what we traditionally understand as suicide in those people seeking MAiD at the end of life. In contrast, the risk of overlap increases precipitously for those seeking MAiD for chronic, non-life threatening conditions and, in particular, for mental disorders."

Although we may disagree with the implied trivialization of medical homicide at the end of life, we strongly agree with the conclusion ultimately reached: that the serious (and generally admitted) capacity problem, of differentiating "rational" desires from common suicidality, creates a much larger potential, for social harm, when the subject is medical homicide for mental illness, than if that problem is considered in the original end-of-life context, or even that of "grievous and irremediable (physical) condition". Hence the rationale for a complete prohibition (in this more limited circumstance) becomes that much stronger also.

Practically speaking, this means that Bill C-218, for mental illness alone, stands a far greater chance of surviving constitutional challenge, than did previous law prohibiting all forms of consensual homicide.

But if that were not enough, let us consider the following, from the same source:

“Regarding the capacity for a patient to consent to MAiD, the very nature of mental disorders may impair the decision-making capacity of the patient. Those suffering from a mental disorder are routinely encouraged to avoid making major decisions while in the midst of their suffering. The decision of ending one’s life prematurely is enormous and grave and must not be made while in the throes of mental illness.”

There is not much ambiguity in the meaning of that paragraph.

The capacity/suicidality problem clearly constitutes an extremely serious motive for prohibiting the use of homicide as a treatment for mental illness.

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218

How Slovenia overturned their assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex, Alexander, Aleš, & Wesley

On January 21, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC-USA held a strategic meeting in Washington DC.

Aleš Primc, (second from the right) was a key organizer of the referendum campaign that overturned Slovenia's assisted suicide law.

Slovenia is the first country to legalize assisted suicide and then overturn the law through a referendum. On November 23, 2025 the Slovenian people voted 53.6% to overturn the assisted suicide law.

Aleš began his presentation by thanking (Alex Schadenberg) for helping them with advice, information and direction for the successful referendum campaign in Slovenia.

Aleš Primc

This is the message that Aleš shared.

The Slovenian government held a referendum in 2024 based on the concept of legalizing euthanasia. Slovenians passed the 2024 referendum by a 55 - 45% margin.

The Slovenian government then introduced a law to legalize poisoning by assisted suicide that passed in July 2025. 

Alés formed a group to gather signatures to enable a referendum to overturn that law. They needed 40,000 signatures, which is difficult considering Slovenia has only 2 million people. 

In Slovenia they do not collect signatures in the street, the people must go to the public office to sign in support of a referendum campaign. It was very hard to collect these signatures. We had 35 days to collect signatures and it took us until the final few days to get the signatures.

The polls showed that 30% of the people were planning to support the referendum.

Interview in Slovenia.

Aleš said that when Alex Schadenberg was in Slovenia in 2024, they learned that they had to develop their own language and their own arguments in order to win the campaign. Everything needed to be new. If they would speak the language used by the other side and react to their talking points they would not win the referendum.

The poison lobby framework was designed to manipulate people. They decided to go a different direction.

Aleš first wanted to say that they considered their victory to be a miracle.

It was important that they got all of the opposition political parties on their side as this legislation was pushed by the government. The opposition parties had political reason to support the campaign. Political parties have local structures that enabled them to collect the signatures and get out the vote.

It was important that the Churches recognized this referendum as their referendum. Not all of the Churches joined the campaign in the beginning, but once they got going they all joined.

It was important that the medical associations supported the campaign. These organizations didn't want to be involved directly with the campaign but it was very important that they were on our side. These groups didn't like that we used strong language and they wanted to use "nice" words, but they were on our side.

Most doctors do not want to participate in the "dirty job" of killing and they recognized that if some doctors participate that it would change medicine for everyone. They saw it as a law that created new obligations that were directly opposed to their professional ethics. If they didn't get them involved they may have only fought for conscientious objection, but they may have done very little.

When the referendum was approved, the structures within the medical association began to move on the issue.

At the same time, all of the Churches in Slovenia made a common statement supporting the referendum. This was important because it created a common position but it also changed the media response since the media will often attack the Catholic Church, but they couldn't because every christian and non-christian religious group supported the referendum.

The common statement made every religious group decide that this referendum was their referendum. As the referendum day approached more and more religious groups directly participated in the get-out-the vote campaign. It was incredible to see all of these groups becoming directly involved.

Another outcome of the common statement was that every religious group organized their own prayer.

Another development was the reaction of Croatians who viewed the referendum as their referendum because they knew that if Slovenia legally poisoned their citizens then Croatia would likely be next. Croatia is directly south of Slovenia.

The referendum became a common battle for all groups and we cooperated with them.

Language.

They decided to not use any words that are used by their opponents. They decided to do everything that is possible to win. They were not battling an idea, they were battling to win.

To win, they decided that they would only use their language. They never used the name of the law. The name of the law was designed to sell the law. They noticed in other countries, that groups will refer to legislation by it's name -- voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. They would have lost if they used the actual name.

Aleš always stated that this was the law that allows poisoning of the people. They decided that they would speak about poisoning people.

They asked - What is the intention of the poisoning lobby? The opposition frightened Slovenians by telling them that they would suffer. They wanted everyone to fear the last days of their life. They succeeded in their message through years of brainwashing people during the government debates.

Nobody in Slovenia, or the western world, wants to suffer. Fair enough, but the opposition message was ridiculous. So they decided to not speak about suffering. They did not speak about suffering because people were already brainwashed to fear death.

They did not speak about euthanasia or assisted suicide but poisoning.

When speaking about poisoning they did not need to speak about the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide because both involved poisoning. Speaking about prescribing or injecting doesn't help, with poisoning there is no difference. The person dies from being poisoned.

This law was about poisoning people and those who were promoting the law were the poisoning lobby. The intention of the law was to poison people. The law therefore established a framework whereby people could be poisoned.

It is a hard language and at first some people were hesitant to use this language. The Church and the doctors groups didn't use this language, but as the leader of the campaign it was important for Aleš to use this language.

The opposition were angry and almost terrified by the language. They constantly repeated that this is not poisoning. When they were doing interviews they spoke about this not being poisoning and  Aleš explained why it is poisoning, therefore they were speaking about poisoning.

They then stated that this is the pension, healthcare and social reform law. They stated that dead people don't need money from the government. Dead people don't need a pension, they don't need healthcare and they don't need social care.

When you are elderly and have an illness, the cheapest way for the government is to poison you.

In Slovenia they have socialized healthcare, but it is not a very good system. In Slovenia it will sometimes take two to four years to see a specialist. But the law called poisoning a healthcare right. 

The law allowed people to by poisoned to death in 20 days while people have to wait sometimes two to four years to see a specialist, but you can be poisoned to death in 20 days. They called this the government healthcare, pension and social reform law. People knew that this was true.

The government published a calculation of the cost to kill people by poisoning and the cost to provide healthcare, social services and pensions for people.

The government calculated that each poisoning will cost 3,000 to 5,000 euro but healthcare, social services and pension may cost 20,000 to 40,000 euro per month. They argued that this was why the government had legalized poisoning.

The group asked who gets the money that is saved from all the dead people? The government gets the money that iss saved from the people being poisoned to death.

Slovenians understood that if this law was not overturned that their lives were at risk. When Slovenians are sick they want to go to the doctor for healthcare not poisoning.

Slovenians said, I paid all of my life into the pension and healthcare system and never used anything and now when I'm older and would need healthcare or need a pension, after paying 30 - 40 years into the system, they will offer to kill me.

They succeeded in turning around the conversation.

When they had TV debates on the referendum the poisoning lobby said that it is not poisoning and they were lying. But they didn't speak about their talking points, they spoke about poisoning. It was important that they stuck to their talking points, even though the poisoning lobby tried to make them speak about other things.

They only had a few key talking points and they stuck to them. It is not easy on a TV show or debate to stick to your talking points but you have to do it. As soon as you start talking about their talking points you will not win.

Since Slovenia was not the first country to legalize therefore they didn't need to imagine what would happen. They presented actual evidence of what is happening in other countries, such as Canada.

It was very helpful that Alex Schadenberg regularly sent information and helped them during the campaign. The arguments and information was very important for them because if they didn't have information the other side could claim whatever they wanted, but they were able to use actual information and prove it.

Because of the regular information that they received, they led the "International" arguments campaign about what is happening in countries that have legalized.

They responded by saying, don't tell us that all of these things will not happen because this is what is happening, not only in one country, but also in the other countries that have legalized it. It was not that it may happen, but that it is happening right now.

It is important that you have real arguments not just potential arguments about imagined scenario's. They were careful to use actual facts.

Their arguments may seem simple but it was not easy to stick to their talking points because the media tried to pull them away from their talking points. It was very important to stick to the plan.

In Slovenia they proved that it was a good decision to stick to their talking points all of the time. They didn't let the poisoning lobby pull them away from their campaign.

Free online screening of the Life Worth Living film on March 4.

Register to watch the powerful Life Worth Living film on Wednesday March 4 at 2 pm (Eastern Time).

Register in advance for this online event: (Zoom registration link).

 

This is our third online screening of the Life Worth Living film. Our first two online screenings were incredibly successful and many people have asked us to have another screening.

We have also had multiple local screenings of Life Worth Living. 

Register in advance for this online event: (Zoom registration link).

Life Worth Living is a finalist at the Cannes World Film Festival and it is being considered by multiple film festivals.

Life Worth Living is 60 minutes long. After the completion of the broadcast we will have time for a discussion.

Life Worth Living features:

• Alicia Duncan, whose mother died by euthanasia with conditions based on mental health, 
• Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian military veteran. CEO, best selling Author of the book - Brass & Unity, TedX speaker and host of the Kelsi Sheren perspective.
  
• Roger Foley, a Canadian man living with a significant disability who has been pressured by hospital staff to request euthanasia.
• Dr David D'Souza, an Ontario pain specialist.
• Dr Catherine Ferrier, a Quebec Gerontologist and a leader of Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia, 
• Dr Will Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and leader of Euthanasia Resistance BC
• Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care,
• Alex Schadenberg, (myself), author, keynote speaker, International leader opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help:

1. Arrange to have Life Worth Living shown in your community. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca
2. You may want a speaker at the event to lead a discussion. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca
3. You can purchase the Life Worth Living film through www.lifeworthlivingfilm.com

Alberta announces (MAiD) euthanasia oversight bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Government Minister Joseph Schow

Alberta's Government House Leader Joseph Schow held a press conference on February 24, 2026 to announce Alberta legislative initiatives for the upcoming government session.

One of the Alberta initiatives will be a bill to regulate specific parts of the (MAiD) euthanasia law that apply to the oversight of the Alberta government.

Minister Schow stated in the press conference: begins at 7 minutes 27 seconds. (Link to the video)

We will protect vulnerable Albertans by regulating any medical assistance in dying performed in Alberta.

The federal government has rapidly expanded medical assistance in dying and even plans to make it available to those with mental health challenges as their sole underlying condition.

After opposition from Alberta and every other province this was paused until next year (March 17, 2027).

Our government is taking steps to protect vulnerable Albertans by prohibiting medical assistance in dying in Alberta for select groups including mature minors, individuals with a mental illness or disorder as their sole underlying condition, individuals making advance requests and adults without healthcare decision making capacity.

Other changes will increase oversight and regulate healthcare workers involved in referring, assessing or performing medical assistance in dying.

The press conference did not mention specifics concerning oversight and the regulation of healthcare workers, but Canadian provinces have the power to regulate (MAiD) within their jurisdiction.

Canada's federal government legalized euthanasia in June 2016 (Bill C-14) by creating an exception in the Criminal Code for homicide. The federal government further expanded the law in March 2021 (Bill C-7) by removing the requirement that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable by creating a two tier law 

 

How Euthanasia Is Rewriting the Ethics of Medicine

The following letter by Dr. Ramona Coelho was published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in February 2026.

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr. Coelho is a Family Physician; a Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Member of Medical Assistance in Dying Ontario (MAiD) Death Review Committee (MDRC).

 

Dear Editor,

Recent BMJ commentary has suggested that Canada’s assisted dying regime involves robust independent assessment and that coercion is not a meaningful concern[1], despite alarms raised by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[2] and government oversight reports[3]. A key question is whether introducing assisted dying into medicine is adversely altering clinical practice. Assisted dying is often framed as patient autonomy. Yet this framing minimizes how Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) reshapes clinical reasoning, professional responsibility, and interpretations of suffering. Under Canada’s Criminal Code, MAiD is exempt from homicide and assisted suicide offences[4]. Supporters argue this reflects compassionate care. However, legal authorization does not eliminate ethical complexity. Instead, it transfers these judgments into clinical decision-making, where legal categories do not easily align with clinical paradigms.

Societal discourse frequently describes MAiD as a last resort. Yet it has become a leading cause of death in Canada, reflecting normalization within clinical pathways rather than exceptional use[5]. MAiD is fundamentally different from other interventions. It is irreversible, cannot be titrated for benefit, and targets the person, not the disease-process[6].

Advocates often emphasize intolerable physical suffering. However, Canadian reports show that MAiD frequently arises from social and systemic harms rather than strictly medical pathology. Emotional distress, loneliness, fear of being a burden, and loss of independence are commonly reported drivers of MAiD requests[5]. These reflect profound social failures.

MAiD eligibility requires clinicians to assess whether illness is grievous and irremediable, whether death is reasonably foreseeable, and whether the patient has capacity and is acting voluntarily[4]. These judgments may shift clinical focus from treatment and advocacy toward procedural confirmation of eligibility for death.

Oversight reports have identified cases in which patients were deemed eligible not because treatments failed, but because treatment was refused or unavailable[3]. When lack of access to care is interpreted as irremediability, MAiD risks functioning as a response to system failure rather than disease progression.

Interpretations of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” vary among assessors. Some clinicians consider a five-year prognosis sufficient[7]. Others accept patient decisions to stop eating, drinking, or accepting treatment as evidence of foreseeable death[8]. In such contexts, deterioration can become self-fulfilling evidence of eligibility.

Capacity assessment also raises concerns. Reports describe assessments occurring under clinically questionable conditions, including fluctuating cognition, heavy sedation, or minimal psychiatric evaluation[3]. These cases illustrate how clinical norms shift when assisted dying becomes routine rather than exceptional.

Policy structure may also influence clinical behaviour. Canadian guidance encourages clinicians to discuss MAiD proactively and for objecting clinicians to provide referrals[9]. These systems can streamline access, and patients may be funnelled toward more permissive MAiD providers.

When assisted dying becomes a predictable endpoint for complex suffering, it narrows clinician tolerance for uncertainty and complexity. It weakens the obligation to remain with patients through suffering.

This is concerning in a health system with gaps in palliative care, community supports, and disability services. When social and medical supports are unavailable, assisted death may become a structurally shaped choice rather than a voluntary one.

Many MAiD providers act in good faith. The concern is not only individual intention, but that systems shape clinical behaviour. When death is offered alongside, and sometimes before, comprehensive care, medicine drifts from its commitment to healing and accompaniment through suffering.

Assisted dying does not simply end lives. It risks reshaping clinical priorities and professional identity. Medicine is built on the obligation to remain with patients through uncertainty. Compassion in medicine requires more than offering a path to death. Inserting assisted dying into medicine, especially with critical gaps in care, reshapes medicine in response to system failures rather than solving them.

References:
1) BMJ. Patients are coerced to live, rather than die – assisted dying around the world [video]. YouTube. 14 Feb 2026. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMydoyef3Yc&t=11s [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

2) Shannon D. UN committee rightly calls out Canada’s systemic devaluation of disability. Macdonald-Laurier Institute. 9 Jun 2025. Available: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/un-committee-rightly-calls-out-canadas-syste... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

3) Coelho R, Shannon D, Lemmens T. Safeguard failures in Canada’s MAiD system. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. Published Online First: 27 Jan 2026. doi: 10.1136/spcare-2025-006046

4) Canada Department of Justice. Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). 2023. Available: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

5) Coelho R. Disabled Canadians should never feel compelled to die: let’s give them the support they need to live. Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Jan 2026. Available: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/disabled-canadians-should-never-feel-compell... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

6) Chochinov HM, Fins JJ. Is Medical Assistance in Dying Part of Palliative Care? JAMA. 2024 Sep 11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.12088.

7) Pesut B, Thorne S, Sharp H, et al. Assessors’ decision-making regarding applicant eligibility for Track 2 medical assistance in dying in Canada: a qualitative study. CMAJ 2026;198:E1-E9. doi:10.1503/cmaj.251071.

8) Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers. The interpretation and role of “reasonably foreseeable” in MAiD practice. Feb 2022. Available: https://camapcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Interpretation-and... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

9) Health Canada. Model practice standard for medical assistance in dying (MAID). 2023. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-syst... [Accessed 24 Feb 2026].

Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho:

• Disabled Canadians should never be compelled to die (Link). 
• How euthanasia fails Canada's most vulnerable (Link).
• Shouldn't care come before euthanasia (Link). 
• Legislative and practise problems in Canada's MAiD regime (Link).

Spanish court approves euthanasia for a woman who became disabled after surviving a suicide.

Father attempted to prevent the euthanasia death of his daughter based on her mental health.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Reuters reported on February 20, 2026 that a woman who become disabled after an attempted suicide has been approved to be killed by euthanasia. The Reuters report states:

According to legal rulings, the woman, who is suffering from a psychiatric illness, attempted suicide several times by overdosing on medication before jumping from a fifth‑floor window in October 2022, an act that left her paraplegic and in chronic pain.

 

In July 2024, a specialised expert committee in her region, Catalonia, approved her request for euthanasia. The procedure was scheduled for August 2, 2024, but her father has blocked it ever since.

On Friday 20 February, Spain’s Constitutional Court rejected an appeal by her father to prevent the woman from ending her life by euthanasia.

The case will likely be referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

This case will determine if a person who needs treatment for mental health and suicidal ideation can be approved to be killed by euthanasia.

The woman qualified for euthanasia based on her physical disability. The Spanish law does not require the person to have a terminal diagnosis. Nonetheless, she became disabled from her attempted suicide that her father has argued was based on her mental health issues. 

Spanish euthanasia deaths increased by almost 30% in 2024.

The Spanish euthanasia report that was published in December 2025 indicated that 426 people were killed by euthanasia in Spain in 2024, a 27.5% increase from 334 people in 2023.

The total number of people who have been poisoned to death by euthanasia increased by almost 48% since 2022, the first full year after legalization.

Euthanasia is an act whereby a person who is deemed eligible is intentionally poisoned to death by a medical practitioner.

More articles on this topic:

• Spanish euthanasia deaths increase by 27.5% (Read). 
• Spanish courts will consider a second case challenging a euthanasia approval (Read).

Texas woman arrested for assisting her ex-husband's suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Caitlin McCormack reported for the New York Post on February 18 that Sarah Regmund was arrested in the suicide death of her ex-husband Joseph Cheffo. The report indicated that Regmund assisted the suicide of Cheffo by following and participating in how-to instructions from the Final Exit Network.

The Final Exit Network (FEN) provides information, advice and sometimes trained people to assist a suicide.

According to McCormack:

Joseph Cheffo was found dead in his home in Odessa, Texas on Feb. 13. Even though assisted suicide is illegal in the Lone Star State, his ex-wife and primary caretaker, Sarah Regmund, allegedly helped suffocate him with how-to instructions from the Final Exit Network, the Odessa American reported.

I will not describe the assisted suicide death, but McCormack reported:

During an interview with police, Regmund explained that she had been in touch with the Final Exit Network, whose founder authored the book found near Cheffo’s bed. She claimed that the nonprofit’s representatives showed Cheffo how to kill himself the same day he died, according to the Odessa American.

McCormack stated that it was not clear whether or not FEN members were present at the death. Regmund admitted to following the FEN instructions, to setting up the suicide, and waiting two hours before reporting the death.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will follow this case.

FEN have been involved in many known assisted suicide deaths.

In 2015, the Final Exit Network or FEN was found guilty, by a jury, of assisted suicide in the suicide of Doreen Dunn (57) in 2007, who was depressed but not terminally ill. The group was sentenced on August 24, 2015. FEN appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail. They argued the Minnesota assisted suicide statute violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution. 

After exhausting their appeals of the 2015 jury verdict, FEN filed a federal lawsuit in the Minnesota District Court in 2018 seeking to have the Minnesota assisted suicide law ruled unconstitutional on free speech grounds. The District Court dismissed the case in 2019 because it was simply a repeat of the state appellate case they had lost. Once a decision is final, you don’t get “overs” under the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In May 2021 FEN filed a federal lawsuit with the Minnesota District Court seeking to invalidate the assisted suicide statute on free speech grounds. The legal arguments were the same as those in the 2018 suit that was dismissed, but the facts are different. The case appears to have died in 2023.

John Celmer

FEN has been prosecuted in several assisted suicide deaths. In Georgia, FEN assisted the suicide of John Celmer, who was depressed after recovering from cancer. Susan Celmer, John's widow, testified against the Final Exit Network.

FEN assists the suicide of people at the most vulnerable time of their life. Larry Egbert, the former medical director for the Final Exit Network, lost his medical license in Maryland for assisting suicides.