Wednesday, February 25, 2026

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).

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

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.

Monday, February 23, 2026

Welsh parliament to vote on assisted suicide bill.

The following message was sent from Care NOT Killing UK.

Gordon Macdonald CEO Care NOT Killing
On February 24, the Welsh Parliament (Senedd) will vote on whether Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill — if passed — would require the Welsh NHS to deliver medically assisted killing.

The Senedd cannot block the Bill outright.

But it can withhold “legislative consent.”

If consent is refused, assisted suicide in Wales would likely be restricted to private providers only — limiting its reach and protecting many vulnerable people from pressure to end their own lives.

While restricted provision is not the outcome we ultimately seek, it would significantly reduce the harm should the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill become law. Countless lives would be saved as assisted suicide wouldn’t become part of routine healthcare. It would also protect thousands of healthcare staff from potentially being indirectly involved in the process.

Wales has rejected assisted suicide before

In October 2024, the Senedd voted against legalising assisted dying: Against: 26
In favour: 19 - Abstentions: 9

Article - Great news: Welsh parliament rejects assisted suicide (Read).

Plaid Cymru’s Delyth Jewell, who voted against, warned:

“My fear with this motion — well, my terror, really — is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end.”
She expressed concern that people may feel pressured to end their lives because they lack adequate palliative care or fear being a burden. 

Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)

She is right to be concerned.

Hospice UK estimates that 1 in 4 people who could benefit from palliative or end-of-life care do not receive it — around 100,000 people each year.

Without guaranteed access to high-quality care, “choice” can quickly become pressure to succumb to an assisted death.

This time, the vote could go either way.

Tomorrow’s Motion presents MSs with an important opportunity to send a clear signal from Wales to Peers at Westminster that the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill is dangerous and should fall.

Serious Reasons Why the Bill Puts People at Risk:

1. Safeguards Too Weak to Prevent Coercion

(High risk of coercion or undue influence on people who are frail, isolated, disabled, poor, or feel like a burden)

2. Eligibility Will Likely Expand Over Time

(Children, people with a mental illness or disability could eventually be included, as has happened around the world where assisted suicide has been legalised)

3. “Terminal Illness” Defined Too Broadly

(The definition may include conditions that are not inherently fatal—e.g. diabetes)

4. High Court Safeguard Removed

(Replaced with ‘expert’ panels, drastically reducing independent oversight)

5. Doctors Allowed to Suggest Assisted Suicide Unprompted

(In Canada, this has led to patients being repeatedly offered MAID despite insisting they were NOT interested)

6. Depression and Coercion May Go Undetected

(Studies show clinicians frequently miss depression in medically ill patients. Doctors only need to be satisfied “on the balance of probability” that a request is voluntary.)

7. No Clear Protocol for Lethal Drugs

(Drugs are not specified, and evidence from other jurisdictions suggests a potential for distressing deaths)

8. Capacity Safeguards for Disabled People Miss The Point

(How can individuals – e.g. with autism or a mental disorder – truly make a “clear, settled and informed” decision)

9. Conscience Protections for NHS Staff Are Weak

(Although doctors are not compelled to participate directly, they will likely be obliged to refer patients to assisted suicide services, so they will still be involved)

10. Palliative Care Gaps Remain Unaddressed

The Bill comes before improving palliative care services. Without guaranteed access to high-quality end-of-life care, many will feel ‘forced’ to ‘choose’ an assisted death)

11. Hospices Could Be Forced to Facilitate Assisted Death

(They would have no right to refuse to facilitate assisted suicide. Amendments seeking to give institutions an opt-out were rejected. This could mean: Hospices being required to allow assisted deaths on their premises. 

Public funding being threatened if they refuse

In addition, religious institutions may be forced to participate or face severe penalties.

Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)

Medical Homicide as psychiatric treatment.

Gordon Friesen
Elegy for "Conversation"

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada is now facing the imminent arrival of homicide, practiced as psychiatric treatment. The legal authority has already been granted. The effective starting date is March 17, 2027.

The legislation to extend medical homicide (MAiD) to people with psychiatric conditions alone, was passed on March 17, 2021 (Bill C-7) but the implementation has been delayed now until March 17, 2027.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs you to contact your Member of Parliament to support Bill C-218 (Read).

For the benefit of international readers, this grotesque reality results from removing the eligibility requirement of ‘terminal condition’. For if medical homicide is extended to any ‘grievous and irremediable’ circumstance (and if we accept, literally, the equivalence of somatic and psychological complaints) then it appears inevitable that medical homicide must be authorized for mental illness alone.

We should also note that the Canadian removal of ‘terminal condition’ resulted, not from spontaneous legislation, but in response to a fairness-based judicial decision, which was rendered in favor of a non-terminal plaintiff, seeking access to medical homicide.

For exterior observers thinking two steps ahead, therefore:

Preventing homicide as psychiatric treatment (and thus avoiding the medical execution of a chronically suicidal child, or other dear one) provides one more excellent reason for refusing any form, whatsoever, of medical homicide.

As if that were not enough, however, medical homicide for the mentally ill (and particularly for those suffering from mental illness alone) threatens the universally assumed certitude of fully informed, capable and uncoerced choice --for the symptoms of mental illness often make that sort of choice impossible. Its permission, therefore, favors that of other blossoms in the poisonous bouquet of incapable medical homicide, which also includes: advance requests for demented seniors, mature minors (on their own authority), infanticide, and children up to 12 years (with parental consent).

Ironically, nonetheless, this battle against medical homicide, for psychiatric disorder, also provides us with an opportunity to defend the capacity barrier, itself, not for these patients only, but for all other incapable categories as well.

Lastly, this ready-made assault, on the myth of medical homicide as a free and capable choice, provides a promising means of weakening political support for medical homicide more generally. We at EPC, with our allies around the world, are committed to fully changing cultural attitudes towards killing.

As many are aware, there is now an active legal opporunity with Bill C-218, whose intent is to specifically stop medical homicide for mental illness alone. We have deliberately placed capacity concerns prominently in the messaging surrounding our support of this Bill.

Unsurprisingly, that focus (and the threat it poses to their own agenda) has been noticed by different defenders of so-called 'medical assistance in dying'. In particular, the authors of a little known blog, named ‘Maid in Canada’, published a critique of one of our Parliamentary Press Gallery conferences held in support of Bill C-218. When contacted, they graciously agreed to publicly debate the subject over a period of six weeks.

As the reader may know, the dynamic duo from MIC have since returned to their on-line club house. However, they were kind enough to leave, in their wake, a public record of their reasons (and methods) opposing our campaign. And from this, we have the opportunity of making further improvements.

Beginning next week, I will sort through that exchange, separating the grain from the chaff. The goal will not be to prove ourselves right (in the past) but to sharpen our persuasive tools, as this crucial contest surrounding psychiatric homicide, and Bill C-218, moves forward.

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

Previous articles: 

Prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness in Canada. Guide to supporting Bill C-218.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In March 2021, the Canadian government expanded the euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7. One of the expansions in the law  permitted euthanasia for a mental illness alone. The government approved euthanasia for mental illness alone with a two-year moratorium to provide time to prepare for the change.

The government delayed the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone twice and in 2024 the government delayed its implementation until March 17, 2027.

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone. 

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

Bill C-218 received it's first hour of debate on December 5 and it's second hour of debate is currently scheduled for Thursday, March 26 and the vote is currently scheduled for April 15, 2026.

There are several effective ways you help get Bill C-218 passed:

  1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
  2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
  3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to info@epcc.ca.
  4. Contact your Member of Parliament and share your story or share your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
  5. Often it is easier and more efffective to call your Member of Parliament. The phone numbers are part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
  6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).
Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC on October 30 with new polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:
At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.
To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:
  • Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with that issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
  • Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
  • Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact the Member of Parliament.
More information on Bill C-218.

Saturday, February 21, 2026

MAiDed In A Funeral Home

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on February 20, 2026.

He Paid for the Drugs That Ended His Life

By Kelsi Sheren

Kiano flew from Ontario to BC to end his life with (MAID) euthanasia. The Dr. Who ended his life not only did it after another Ontario Dr, Dr. Tepper, wouldn’t kill him at MAIDHOUSE after his mother went to the media to stop the death.

Ellen[Wiebe] has a record of dancing on the line of “acceptable” MAID deaths.

“On Oct. 27, 2024 a British Columbia judge intervened to prevent Dr. Ellen Wiebe, or any other doctor, from causing the death of a mentally ill Alberta woman. Justice Simon Coval granted a 30-day injunction to the woman’s common-law partner, one day before her death was scheduled to take place at Wiebe’s Vancouver clinic. A civil claim alleges Wiebe approved the woman’s request for MAID after a single Zoom meeting and without consulting her doctors. Wiebe declined to comment when contacted by National Post.”

On December 11, 2025, pharmacy records show that 26-year-old Kiano Vafaeian filled a series of prescriptions at Macdonald’s Prescriptions Ltd. in Vancouver.

The prescriber listed on each receipt: Dr. Ellen Wiebe. The most prolific MAID “PROVIDER” in the country.

The NON FDA APPROVED FOR KILLING DRUGS dispensed were:

• Midazolam injection
• Propofol injection
• Rocuronium bromide injection
• Bupivacaine injection
• A line item labeled “1 MAID”

The drugs

Each receipt lists a “Patient Pays” amount. In total, the records show hundreds of dollars paid directly by the patient on top of the flight he took across the country and $300-495 he paid KORU funeral home to be killed there.

This combination of drugs is consistent with a standard intravenous Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) protocol in Canada. Midazolam is used to sedate. Propofol induces deep anesthesia. Rocuronium causes paralysis and respiratory arrest. Bupivacaine may be used in certain protocols. The medications are administered by a physician once legal eligibility criteria are met.

Nineteen days later, on December 30, 2025, Kiano Vafaeian died under Canada’s assisted dying death regime, but not at Ellen’s Willow Clinic location in Vancouver where normally she ends their life. This time it was much, much darker.

Kiano took himself, by himself to a FUNERAL HOME where he met Ellen. Koru Cremation in Vancouver to be exact. According to official documentation, the location of death was Koru Cremation in Vancouver — a funeral home.

The receipts raise a stark and uncomfortable reality: the medications used in assisted death are prescribed, dispensed, and financially transacted like any other pharmaceutical product. The documentation shows the patient paid for the prescriptions issued in his name.

Under Canadian law, MAID is a legal medical procedure if strict eligibility criteria are met. Mental illness alone is not currently sufficient to qualify. A patient must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, be in an advanced state of irreversible decline, experience intolerable suffering, and possess decision-making capacity.

Kiano’s mother has publicly alleged that approval for MAID was based primarily on mental illness. Dr. Wiebe has publicly stated she has never approved a patient who did not meet all legal criteria.

Those are two conflicting narratives, pro death and pro life.

The receipts do not answer whether the legal criteria were properly applied. They do not reveal the assessment process. They do not explain how eligibility was determined.

What they do show is this. A 26-year-old young man with mental health issues and diabetes flew himself to a different province away from his family, obtained and paid for the medications used to kill him.

That fact alone forces a deeper question about the structure of Canada’s assisted dying system. When assisted death becomes a prescription, dispensed with a receipt and a debit transaction, what does that say about how the system conceptualizes suffering, autonomy, and medical responsibility?

Supporters and cowards call it “compassion and choice.”

People with two eyes and a brain call it abandonment and normalization of state sanctioned killing.

The documentation does not resolve that moral divide but it puts a clear line in the sand. It does make one thing undeniably clear. This was not an abstract policy debate, this was the killing of a 26-year-old young man who deserved real help, REAL healthcare and a system that wouldn’t let him fall through the cracks.

But what he got was a Dr who knows how to work the system, drugs that are NOT FDA approved for killing and a system who valued him more dead than alive.

It was a set of prescriptions.
A named physician.
A pharmacy counter.
A transaction.

And a young man who did not live to see the new year.

I called KORU to see if this was an option, unbelievably shocked how easy and dark it sounded “a provision” This is the dark country of Canada.

This appeared on Kelsi Sheren’s Substack and reposted with permission.

Friday, February 20, 2026

Ottawa "mercy Killing" court decision reminds me of the Netherlands Postma decision.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Hébert & Rutherford
Nicholas Kohler reported for the Ottawa Citizen on February 17, concerning the "sentencing" of Philippe Hébert who killed his partner Richard Rutherford, that:
Philippe Hébert will serve no time in prison following his guilty plea to manslaughter in the homicide of his husband and partner for over 40 years, Richard Rutherford, a judge has ruled.

Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips sentenced Hébert, 73, to two years less a day, to be served under house arrest at the home Hébert shared for decades with Rutherford in Ottawa’s east end.
David Fraser reported for CBC news on February 17 that:
Philippe Hébert, 74, killed his husband of 40 years, Richard Rutherford, on April 15, 2022, inside the Smyth Road home the couple shared. Rutherford was 87 and suffering from multiple health problems including a recent cancer diagnosis.
Fraser also reported that:
Last September, on the eve of his murder trial, Hébert pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Crown prosecutors argued he should go to prison for six years, while his defence asked for two years.
So even though the original charge of second degree murder was lessened to manslaughter based on a plea bargain, Justice Phillips essentially gave Hébert no sentence (house arrest) for killing Rutherford.

Fraser reported Justice Philips reason for his decision.
Phillips said despite the killing being "close to murder," Hébert was honouring the "last wish" of his husband and friend. Rutherford had the mental capacity to make that decision, and given his medical condition it was understandable, the judge said.
Nobody questions that there were mitigating factors in this case but creating a precedent that one person can kill another person with a serious illness, and only receive a suspended sentence opens the door to further "mercy killings." In fact this decision indicates that legalizing euthanasia in Canada has eroded the willingness of judges to penalize someone who has murdered a sick friend or relative.

This decision reminds me of the Netherlands euthanasia court case, that eventually led to euthanasia being legalized. The Postma case concerned Geertruida Postma, a physician, who killed her mother in November 1971. Her mother was living with significant health conditions including a cerebral hemorrhage, she was partly paralyzed, could hardly speak, had pneumonia and was deaf.

Time Magazine reported that when asked in the court whether her mother's suffering was unbearable, Dr. Postma responded:
“No, it was not unbearable. Her physical suffering was serious, no more. But the mental suffering became unbearable.” That “was most important to me. Now, after all these months, I am convinced I should have done it much earlier.”
I hope that the Hébert decision has not opened the door to people in close relationships killing based on "mercy" without fear of serious legal repercussions.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

MAiD in Canada’s Debate Style Is Steeped in Snootiness

Meghan Schrader
By Meghan Schrader

In his comments on my recent blog post, “Disability Opposition to MAiD: Some Clear, Accurate Data,” Paul Magennis of MAiD in Canada contends that my tone “vilifies” “MAiD” supporters like himself. Although I’ve acknowledged that many Oregon model supporters act in good faith, I concur that some of my writing, particularly about Canada-like “MAiD” programs, is harsh. It’s meant to resist the dehumanization of disabled people by countering society’s pattern of sanitizing disabled people’s wrongful deaths.

But if my rhetoric periodically has issues with “hostility,” MAiD in Canada’s rhetoric often has an issue with snootiness.

For instance, on December 10th, 2025, Maggenis and Carlson responded to Gordon Friesen’s article, “Medical Homicide Is Discriminatory Oppression For the Sick and Disabled," by writing this on Facebook:
“He attempts to use graduate-level vocabulary and long, winding sentences to deliver grade-nine level reasoning. The result is a convoluted, artificially complex style that imitates academic philosophy without actually doing the work.”
I do not share this assessment of Frieson’s blog post, but beyond that, it strikes me that this statement is arrogant and snide, so it was actually really nice of Gordon to have a debate with them.

Magennis and Carlson’s tone communicates an attitude of, “if only you silly, paranoid rubes were as smart as us, then you would understand how wonderful our ideology is.” Their assertions carry the implication: “Get a PH.D and publish some peer-reviewed research; then your opinion will matter.” Well, not everyone has the opportunity to earn a PH.D. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to edit their writing and arguments until they are perfect. This is especially true for persons with disabilities whose lifestyle choices are limited by systemic ableism. Yet those people’s opinions about “MAiD” matter just as much as any bioethics scholar’s.

It makes sense that if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and MAiD in Canada are going to write about one another, that it would be a formal debate. Nevertheless, many of MAiD in Canada’s statements have a sardonic, pretentious tone. Often their assertions suggest that any good faith wish for a debate on their part is intertwined with a desire to prove how intellectually and ethically superior they think they are.