We must be willing to say the truth and put it into action.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have been travelling and speaking over the past few weeks giving me the opportunity to speak to many people about euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This week I have had events in British Columbia, last week I was in Ontario and Saskatchewan, the week before I was in Michigan and before that I was in Alberta while at the same time I have had several more presentations in Ontario.

The Canadian presentations primarily include the showing of the Life Worth Living film and then leading a discussion after the film. Order and show the Life Worth Living film (Purchase Link).

The American presentations primarily include showing the Prescription Poison film and then leading a discussion afterwards. Order and show the Prescription Poison film (Purchase Link).

The primary message is that we must be willing to say what euthanasia and assisted suicide actually are. We must be willing to say that we oppose killing people and that we support caring for people.

Another primary message is that we need to care for people. People are not asking to be killed by lethal poison because they want to exercise their "freedom" but rather people are "asking" to be killed because they are living with a difficult health condition, they often feel lonely or abandoned, they often fear possible future suffering and they often believe that their life has lost meaning, value and purpose.

These are human realities that are solved by caring for the other. Killing is not about freedom, choice or autonomy. Killing is about abandonment of people in their time of need.

This is why the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition works with Compassionate Community Care (CCC). CCC is a charity that focuses on the real issues of being with, advocating for, and caring for people in their time of need.

We need more people and groups who are willing to care for others, to organize people in their communities to be with people who are living with life limiting and terminal conditions. 

Long-term cultural change can only be accomplished by caring for others and rejecting killing.

 

People regularly ask about how they can protect themselves and their family. Many years ago the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition created the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care. 

The clear language in the EPC Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care is designed to protect her life.

During the presentations I am being asked about the political realities. 

We need a real cultural shift. Politics changes based on trends but big political waves can lead to immediate change. Those changes may, a few years later, revert back, after another wave. 

Politics is important, but instead of only focusing on politics we must focus on what it is that we oppose and what we support. 

The time has come to go back to the basics.

All of the peripheral issues are important but we oppose killing people and we believe in caring for others in their time of need. 

Change will come when the culture changes and culture change requires a consistent honest straight forward and caring approach.

We must be willing to say the truth and put that truth action.

Orthodox Statement on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The following is the statement of the Orthodox Church in America on Euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Link to the Statement). 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a secular organization but for the sake of the adherents to the Orthodox Christian faith and those who are interested in the Orthodox Christian perspective we are re-publishing this statement.

A Christian Ending to Our Life

A Pastoral Letter of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

To the Venerable Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America:

Beloved children in the Lord,

At every Divine Liturgy we ask the Lord for “a Christian ending to our life, painless, blameless, and peaceful, and a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ.” We have prayed these words more times than we can count. We ask you now to hear them again, because the world around us has begun to offer a very different kind of ending.

In Canada, where many of our parishes live and serve, and in a growing number of American states, the law now permits physicians to prescribe, and in some places to administer, lethal drugs to the sick at their request. Whether it is called “medical assistance in dying,” “death with dignity,” physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, it is increasingly presented to the sick and their families as an act of mercy. Many of you have asked us for guidance: clinicians who face these questions in their daily work, and families who have faced them at the bedside of someone they love.

We write to you first as pastors. Each of us has stood beside hospital beds and open graves. We have buried the elderly after long illness, and children whose lives had scarcely begun. We have stood with families whose grief seemed too heavy for any heart to carry. We do not speak of suffering from a distance. But we have also seen, again and again, that the hour of death can be filled with prayer, with reconciliation, and even with joy, and that no one who suffers need suffer alone.

What we offer here is not a new teaching. It is what the Church has received from her Lord, and what this Holy Synod affirmed in 1992: that every human person, “young and old, sick and healthy, rich and poor, powerful and weak,” is “eternally precious in God’s sight.”

I. Our Life Is Not Our Own

Our life is not something we possess but something we continually receive from God, who breathed into us the breath of life (Gen 2:7). “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom 14:7–8).

The dignity of a human person does not rest on strength, independence, or usefulness. It rests on the image of God, which is no less present in one who lies dying than in one who is in the fullness of health. This matters greatly today, for many who ask for an assisted death do so less because of pain than because they fear losing their independence, becoming a burden, or no longer being able to do the things that gave their lives meaning. These fears are real, and we do not dismiss them. But the Gospel answers them: a person’s worth is not measured by what he can still do.

One of us remembers visiting a young girl whose illness was slowly taking from her the music she loved, until she could no longer sing or play. She was not bitter. Shortly before her death she wrote of the snow falling outside her window, and of how beautiful it was. Her joy did not come from her suffering, and it did not make her suffering good. It came from God, who was with her in it, and it taught everyone who knew her what a human life is worth.

II. God Does Not Will Our Suffering

“For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living” (Wis 1:13). The Church does not teach that suffering is good in itself, nor that God sends illness as a punishment. When the friends of Job insisted that his afflictions must be the penalty for some hidden sin, it was they whom God rebuked (Job 42:7). When the Lord walked among us, He healed every sickness and every disease, and at the tomb of His friend Lazarus, “Jesus wept” (Jn 11:35). God does not will the suffering of men. To relieve pain is therefore to share in Christ’s own work, and to ask for such relief is no failure of faith.

Yet there are sufferings that cannot be taken away, and it is precisely there that Christ meets us. He did not remain outside our pain; He took it upon Himself, even to the Cross, so that it might become a place where God is found. The Apostle Paul, who three times asked to be delivered from his affliction, heard the Lord answer: “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Whatever good comes to us in suffering comes not from the suffering itself but from the grace of God, received in patience and prayer.

Nor is it faithless to grow weary of life. The Prophet Elijah lay down under a juniper tree and said, “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life” (1 Kings 19:4). God did not rebuke him. He sent His angel with bread and water, saying, “Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee” (1 Kings 19:7). Job cursed the day of his birth, yet refused the counsel to “curse God, and die” (Job 2:9–10). The longing for death, the fear of pain, and the dread of dependence are to be brought honestly to God in prayer and shared with one’s priest and physicians, not acted upon. God answers them, as He answered Elijah, with nourishment and with His presence, very often through the hands of His people.

III. What the Church Cannot Bless

In physician-assisted suicide, a clinician provides lethal drugs so that a patient may end his own life. In euthanasia, a clinician administers them for the purpose of causing death. The term “medical assistance in dying” is used in civil law for one or both. The Church looks not to the name given to an act but to what the act is. In each case, death itself is deliberately brought about as the remedy for suffering.

The commandment of God is plain: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13). “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life” (Deut 30:19). The deliberate taking of one’s own life, and the taking of another’s life at his request, are contrary to the Gospel of Christ, who came “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10). With our brother bishops of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, we affirm that the Church “cannot and does not condone any form of euthanasia.” Assisted suicide, by whatever name it is known, cannot be blessed by the Church in any way.

We speak here of acts, not of the hearts of those who suffer. Many who ask for death do so in pain, in fear, in exhaustion, or in the grip of despondency, and the judgment of the heart belongs to God alone. But the Church must speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), for to call death a healing would be to abandon the sick at the very moment they most need the hope of Christ.

IV. What the Church Blesses

“Honour a physician … for the Lord hath created him” (Sir 38:1). The care of the sick has always been the Church’s own work, from St. Basil’s house for the sick at Caesarea to St. Herman nursing the dying of Kodiak.

The relief of pain. Because we pray for a painless end, the Church blesses the careful use of medicines to relieve pain, breathlessness, anxiety, and every other distress of the dying, given in proportion to the patient’s need. The purpose of such care is to relieve the sufferer, not to end his life, and that purpose makes it entirely different from euthanasia, even at the very end.

The limits of treatment. In 1992 this Holy Synod called the faithful to find “the ‘royal path’ between providing all necessary healing measures and merely prolonging the biological functioning of organs.” When a treatment no longer offers reasonable hope of benefit, or its burdens have become disproportionate to that hope, it may be withheld or withdrawn, and the illness allowed to take its course. Death is then not chosen but accepted from the hand of God. Such decisions should be made prayerfully, with physicians, with the family, and whenever possible with one’s priest.

Care that never ceases. A treatment may end; care never does. The dying are to be kept clean and comfortable, their lips moistened, their hands held. They are to be read the Scriptures and the prayers they love, and given every opportunity for Confession, Holy Unction, and Holy Communion. The Church provides her own service at the parting of the soul from the body, so that no one need depart this life alone. Hospice and palliative care, faithfully practiced, are works of mercy of this very kind, and we commend them to you.

Preparing for our own death. We encourage every adult, while in health, to prepare an advance directive and to name a trusted person to speak for him should he become unable. This is an act of love toward one’s family and a fulfillment of the ancient counsel to remember one’s death. The directive of the ever-memorable Archimandrite Roman (Braga), appended to this letter, shows how an Orthodox Christian may do so.

V. To Those Who Suffer, and to Those Who Love Them

To you who are sick and approaching death: you are not a burden to the Body of Christ. “Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it” (1 Cor 12:26). When others care for you, you are not taking from them; you are giving them Christ to serve, for He said, “I was sick, and ye visited me” (Mt 25:36). Do not be afraid to ask for relief from pain, and do not be ashamed to tell your physician and your priest what you fear. Ask for the Holy Mysteries often. Your prayers from the sickbed are heard, and your patience is precious to God.

To you who care for them: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Look to the Mother of God, who stood by the Cross of her Son (Jn 19:25). She could not take away His suffering, but she did not leave Him. Stay near your sick. Weep with them, pray with them, and call the priest early rather than late. If someone you love asks for an assisted death, do not abandon them. Tell them the truth with tenderness, seek out every help for their pain and fear, and bring them to their pastor.

To you who mourn: allow yourselves to grieve, as Christ Himself wept. Death is a separation: of the soul from the body, and of our loved ones from our company. But it is not a separation from the love of God. If you have lost someone through an assisted death, the Church grieves with you. Commend your beloved to the boundless mercy of God, who alone knows the heart, and continue to pray for them. Bring your sorrow, and any burden of conscience, to your spiritual father. You have not been forgotten by the Church.

VI. Pastoral Directives

For all the faithful

1. Orthodox Christians may not request, prescribe, dispense, administer, or procure the means of assisted suicide or euthanasia, nor counsel, encourage, or approve such an act. To do so is a grave sin, to be brought to God in repentance and confession. Compassionate presence to a suffering person is not, in itself, approval of the act.

2. All efforts to heal, to relieve pain and distress, and to comfort the sick are to be supported, including palliative and hospice care. A treatment that no longer offers reasonable benefit, or whose burdens are disproportionate, may be withheld or withdrawn after prayerful discernment.

3. Where assisted death is legal, the faithful should ask hospice and palliative-care providers directly about their practice and, whenever possible, choose those who will respect their Orthodox faith.

For pastors

4. Pastors are to teach clearly the Church’s understanding of life, suffering, and death set forth in this letter, to visit the sick and the dying faithfully, and to prepare their flocks for a Christian ending through Confession, Holy Unction, and Holy Communion.
5. When one of the faithful asks about an assisted death, the pastor is to listen before he speaks, to seek out the sources of the request (pain, fear, despondency, loneliness, the sense of being a burden), and to help the person obtain medical, palliative, psychological, and social help, together with prayer and the presence of the Christian community.
6. A priest may not bless, arrange, or facilitate an assisted death. Questions concerning pastoral care are to be referred to the diocesan bishop.
7. Funeral and memorial services for those who have died by assisted suicide or euthanasia are left to the discernment of the diocesan bishop, as is the practice in cases of suicide. The bishop will weigh both the state of the departed and the needs of the bereaved, in accordance with the holy canons and the 2022 statement of the Assembly of Bishops.

For those in the healing professions

8. Orthodox physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other clinicians are not to take part in causing a patient’s death. The Church honors their vocation to heal and to accompany the sick, and she stands with them when they must refuse on grounds of conscience. Where questions arise about cooperation within institutions that practice assisted death, they should seek pastoral guidance.

VII. Our Witness

We ask those who govern us to ensure that no one who is elderly, disabled, or dying is ever led to believe that death is expected of him; that palliative care and support for family caregivers are available to all, “regardless of … social status, or financial condition,” as this Synod affirmed in 1992; and that clinicians who decline to take part in causing death are protected in law and in practice.

Our most eloquent witness, however, will be not our words but our works. We call upon our parishes, monasteries, and institutions to strengthen their ministries to the sick and the dying: visiting the homebound, supporting and relieving those who care for them, training clergy and laity in the care of the dying, and, where the Lord provides the means, offering Orthodox houses of care for those at the end of life.

Conclusion

Our earthly sojourn is given to us to prepare for the moment of our death, which is our passage into eternal life. But there are not two kinds of life, an earthly one and a heavenly one. There is only one life, the life of Christ, given to us not only in the age to come but already here below, even in the midst of great difficulties. It is this life that we wish for every one of you, to the very last breath.

Let us therefore care for one another to the end. Let us relieve every pain we can relieve, and sit beside every pain we cannot. Let us prepare ourselves, in the days of our health, for the hour of our departure. And let us continue to ask of the Lord, with all His Church, “a Christian ending to our life, painless, blameless, and peaceful, and a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ.”

“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38–39).
Appendix: The Advance Directive of Archimandrite Roman (Braga) (1922–2015)

I am an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox priest. I make this statement of my wishes a part of my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. If I am not competent to make my own health care decisions, I state that I want all decisions about my medical care to be made in accordance with this document and my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.

Orthodox Christians believe that in death life is transformed by the power of Christ’s death and resurrection into eternal life. Because of this belief, it is not always necessary to use every possible means to resist death. I ask that if I become terminally ill that I be fully informed of this fact so that I can prepare myself spiritually and emotionally for my eternal destiny with God.

If I am not competent to make my own health care decisions, I direct that the following be done for me. I direct that my advocate (and any agent, surrogate or health care provider) carry out my wishes expressed here and that I be cared for in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Christian faith.

If I am dying or in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state and there is no hope for recovery, I direct that no death delaying treatment be started or continued for the sole purpose of prolonging my life. I direct that I be given medications and treatments to relieve pain even if this results in shortening my life, but not for the purpose of ending my life.

I ask that I be cared for by my Christian community, family, friends and health care providers in a dignified and compassionate manner. Please keep my mouth and lips moist, please touch and comfort me and please read my favorite prayers and passages from the Bible to me. Please ensure that I am given the opportunity to receive the Sacraments. I ask my Christian community, friends, and family to join me in prayer as I prepare for death and that they continue to pray for me after my death. Please care for me in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Christian faith.

I direct that after my death my body be handled in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Church. If I have donated any of my organs or if there is an autopsy performed on my body, it should be done in a manner that will best prepare my body for an Orthodox Christian funeral and burial. I ask that I be buried in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Church.

Companions of Hope - Seniors Calling Training Program.

You are invited!
Learn how to be an effective companion with Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of CCC, and special guest Adrienne Witol.

This training session is available to everyone and is part of "Companions in Hope" Vancouver BC seniors calling service that connects volunteers with adults aged 55+ in need of companionship through phone-based support. 

This is a free event, everyone is welcome to attend on Saturday, November 7, 2026 from 11 AM - 1PM Pacific Time / 1 PM  -3 PM (Eastern Time).

Link to register: (Registration Link) 

This program is organized for Seniors in Vancouver but the training is open and applicable to everyone.

Join the online training session as part of “Companions in Hope,” seniors calling service that connects volunteers with adults aged 55+ in need of companionship through phone-based support. (Information Link).

Your instructors will be Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care and in the second half special guest Adrienne Witol will speak on a the well-being of seniors. 

Link to register: (Registration Link) 

11% of Canadians know someone who was offered euthanasia for a treatable medical condition.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent Leger poll of 1510 randomly selected Canadians found, among other things, that 11% of Canadians knew someone who was offered (MAiD) euthanasia. The question was one of 11 questions. This question asked:

Have you or someone you know been offered MAiD for a condition they felt was treatable?

This question was important as it focused on people with treatable conditions being offered euthanasia.

Tamara Jansen

Tamara Jansen's speech on Bill C-218 on September 23rd discussed the death of Kiano Vafaeian (26) who lived with mental illness and was killed by (MAiD) euthanasia on December 30, 2025. Tamara said:

And when I heard Kiano's story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother.

In 2023 he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying but wanted to live. But the medical staff at Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life.

While laying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward he was asked, not once, not twice, not three, four, or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAiD!

They were relentless.

They pressed him saying that they didn’t think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had the will to live.

So that final time he gave them a big Hell No!

I’m very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life…..for having the courage and commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was only for another 8 or 10 months.

He had time to mend fences, make friends with the staff at Hospice, say goodbye to his family.

Tamara Jansen's personal story about her brother is unfortunately a familiar story for Canadians. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition regularly receives calls from supporters with similar stories.

A woman called EPC on behalf of her elderly Aunt who was receiving treatment in a London Ontario hospital.

The woman told me that her Aunt was asked twice, in a persuasive manner, if she wanted euthanasia. Both times she said NO.

The Aunt was very distressed because the person in the bed next to her said Yes to euthanasia after the MAiD team sold euthanasia as a beautiful death and made the person, who was not asking for euthanasia, fear that she would otherwise have a terrible death.

The Aunt was concerned that the MAiD team might do the same to her, when she was going through a difficult time and she wanted to know if there was anything that could be done to stop the MAiD team from asking her about MAiD.

We told the woman to order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for her Aunt. The clear language in the EPC Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care is designed to protect her life.

EPC sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 + taxes. Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney (Order Link) or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

We asked if they wanted our new Do not ask me about euthanasia. I am not interested card.  

 

EPC will send this card with any donation amount (Donation Link) or by emailing us at info@epcc.ca.

EPC will also send you the Do Not Kill Me. I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide card upon request. Just email us at: info@epcc.ca.

MAiD teams are selling euthanasia at the bedside. This is a form of coercion.

Euthanasia is medical homicide.

Preventing Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide Symposium - November 14.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition & Physicians for Compassionate Care

Register for our online Symposium on Saturday, November 14 

From (10 am to 2 pm Eastern Time)

Register for free in advance for the event: (Registration Link)

Speakers:

Wesley J Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley is a contributor to The Corner at National Review and is the author of more than 14 books, in recent years focusing exclusively on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley’s most recent book is his updated and revised Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement.

• The importance of language and ideas in the assisted suicide debate.

Alex Schadenberg, has been the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition since 1999. He has been published world-wide, including published several books, co-produced five video's and the EPC blog is the most complete location for research on euthanasia and assisted suicide. (epcblog.org) Alex has done speaking tours, spoken at conferences throughout North America and several European countries.

• Canada's euthanasia law and a post mid-term US election assessment.

Dr Sharon Quick, President, Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation. Dr Quick is a retired pediatric anesthesiologist/critical care physician. Dr Quick will be making two presentations.

• Pain and symptom management.
• How the lethal poison cocktails works?

Gordon Friesen: President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Gordon lives in Montréal QC and has actively opposed medical homicide for many years.

Gordon will soon publish the book - Medical Homicide: The Poison and its Antidote.

• Medical Homicide: The Poison and its Antidote.

Register for free in advance for the event: (Registration Link).

Canada's allows people who are not dying to be killed by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's euthanasia law allows people to be killed by euthanasia:

• Even when they do not have a terminal condition, 
• If they have a terminal condition they can be approved and killed on the same day, 
• It permits euthanasia for people who have a treatable condition but are refusing treatment,
• It permits people who are motivated to die, based on a mental illness (disorder) if they have another medical condition,
• It permits euthanasia of people who are incompetent, if the person had previously been approved to be killed by euthanasia.
• and more.

At a recent presentation, a woman challenged the information that was provided. She insisted that "she had done her research" and that MAiD (euthanasia) was only being done to people with terminal illnesses, that there is a 10-day waiting period, and that euthanasia was prohibited for people with mental illnesses.

She insisted that the facts were being exaggerated.

EPC opposes all euthanasia and assisted suicide. We oppose killing people. But my response to this person is - "I wish you were right."

If euthanasia were limited to terminally ill people, or if there was still a 10-day waiting period or if mental health concerns prevented a person from being killed by euthanasia, at least there would be fewer deaths.

Canadian euthanasia facts.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered Canada's parliament to legalize a limited form of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Carter decision (2015). The Carter decision was an activist decision that used imprecise language to allow medical professionals in Canada to kill people. At that time I stated:

Will abuse of the law occur? How could it not? The Supreme Court states that the person must have “a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability).” This is an incredibly subjective statement. Many people have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. Indeed, under this definition people with a significant disability may now feel pressured, by friends or the medical system to "choose" euthanasia.

Sometimes I wish that I was wrong. In this case history has proved me to be right.

Bill C-14 became law on June 17, 2016 legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Bill C-14 created an exception in the Criminal Code for medical and nurse practitioners. The original euthanasia law, more accurately described as medical homicide, permitted physicians and nurse practitioners to kill a person, if the person was competent adult who was capable of consenting, who asked to be killed, was over the age of 18 and "suffering" in a manner that the person found to be unacceptable and their natural death was reasonably foreseeable. The law did not define the phrase "natural death is reasonably foreseeable". Bill C-14 did include a 10-day waiting period but the doctor or nurse practitioner could waive the 10-day waiting period

In June 2016 I was very concerned about the fact that Bill C-14 provided full legal immunity to physicians and nurse practitioners who participate in euthanasia. There was and is no possible way to prosecute a doctor, even in the most egregious circumstances.

Soon after legalization there were court cases launched, the first in British Columbia and the second one in Québec to challenge the requirement that a person's natural death must be reasonably foreseeable.

In September 2019, during the federal election, The Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouin struck down the requirement that a person be terminally ill before they qualify for euthanasia in Canada in the Truchon decision. The federal and Québec governments did not appeal the Truchon lower court decision therefore enabling the decision to become a precedent in Québec.

It must be noted that Justice Baudouin who promulgated the Truchon decision, should have recused herself from the case since she was intimitely connected to the euthanasia lobby. Remember, Truchon is a Québec lower court decision and is technically only a precedent in Québec.

The Truchon decision led to the federal government passing Bill C-7 on March 17, 2021. Bill C-7 went beyond the requirements set-out in the Truchon decision in several ways.

1. Bill C-7 removed the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for euthanasia enabling people who are not terminally ill to be killed by euthanasia. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the law.
2. Bill C-7 permitted a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for euthanasia. This contravened the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which 
3. Bill C-7 removed the ten-day waiting period when a person's natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable enabling a person to die a same day euthanasia death on a "bad day."
4. Bill C-7 created a two track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.
5. Bill C-7 (originally) falsely claimed to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. After Canada's Senate demanded that euthanasia for mental illness be added to the law, parliament specifically approved euthanasia for mental illness but added a two-year moratorium (March 17, 2023) to enable parliament to create "rules" concerning euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria.

Later, euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, was delayed by parliament until March 17, 2024 and then it was delayed again until March 17, 2027.

Euthanasia based on mental illness is happening in Canada, but the law requires that the person must also have another medical condition.

Bill C-7 went much further than the Quebec Superior Court Truchon decision and now that parliament has approved euthanasia for mental illness alone, Bill C-7 is much worse.

Parliament introduced Bill C-41 on October 27, 2026 to prevent euthanasia based on mental illness as a sole criteria but it also approves euthanasia based on advance request.

Roger Foley continues to seek funding for self-directed care in Ontario.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Fox news recently featured Roger Foley, a Canadian man who is living in a London Ontario hospital for 10 years as he battles to receive self-directed care funding to enable him to be cared for at home. Foley has been offered euthanasia (MAiD) several times and has been denied food for long periods of time.

Roger is working with several supportive organizations on the Bring Roger Home campaign.

Rachel del Guidice reported for Fox news on October20:

A Canadian man battling a debilitating neurological disease told Fox News Digital that hospital staff repeatedly raised the possibility of medically assisted death while he was fighting for the home care he says he needs to survive.

Roger Foley, who has spinocerebellar ataxia, told Fox News Digital in a recent interview that the conversations began in 2016 at Victoria Hospital, part of the London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, where he says he has remained hospitalized for years while seeking a self-directed home-care arrangement.

In a July 7, 2026, letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Foley's attending physician said he could safely leave the hospital if the Ontario government authorized an individualized home-care arrangement.

Foley prefers to be cared for in his home, but without the necessary funding he remains in the hospital. Dr George Dresser, Foley's physician, told Fox news in a letter that:

"By any reasonable clinical standard, you could be discharged from our hospital if you had adequate support at home,"

Dresser stated that Foley has complex medical needs that require consistent caregivers and highly individualized assistance. Dresser also stated that home-care would be a much less expensive option and provide much better "matched care."

Foley has been pressured, in the past, to consider euthanasia (MAiD) and he has experienced hospital policies that are not flexible to his needs. del Guidice reported:

Foley also alleged that the hospital removed lighting accommodations for his neurological condition in May 2025, making it difficult for him to receive care and consume food and fluids.

Foley said the lighting dispute is particularly serious because his neurological condition makes him sensitive to certain wavelengths of light, including those emited by fluorescent fixtures.

For years, he said, the hospital accommodated his condition with amber-spectrum lighting that allowed caregivers to assist him without triggering his symptoms.

But in May 2025, Foley alleged the hospital withdrew those accommodations and began requiring staff to provide care under fluorescent lighting.

He claimed the change has made it increasingly difficult to receive routine assistance, including help with eating and drinking, because he must wear large, heavy protective goggles that place additional strain on his already compromised neck.

As a friend of Roger Foley I can assure you that the lighting dispute was real. Hospital staff were ordered to turn the fluorescent lighting on while caring for Roger. Roger went days without effective nourishment because the hospital refused to feed him without turning on the fluorescent lights causing Roger significant pain from the fluorescent lights. At one point I helped Roger improvise ski goggles to enable him to eat with the fluorescent lights on.

Foley has kept his accessible apartment for the last 10 years. He could move back to his apartment if he is approved for self-directed funding. 

Foley is working with several supportive organizations on the Bring Roger Home campaign. Roger is hoping to raise the money needed to cover the extra cost for his care - over and above - what the Ontario government is willing to provide. Foley told del Guidice:

"I'm not giving up," he said. "I don't want to die, my doctors know I don't want to die, my physicians have always been very explicit and direct that it's not safe to put me in that type of close model that I need direct funding."

Once again, the cost of the care that Foley receives in the hospital is far greater than the cost of home-care that would be oriented to his individual needs and yet the Ontario Ministry of Health refuses to approve him for the level of home-care that he needs.

The Canadian government introduces Bill C-41 to expand euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Key talking points:

• Bill C-41 prevents euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria but it does not provide effective oversight of the law.
• Bill C-41 extends euthanasia to people who make an advance request. The federal government does not have jurisdiction and therefore requires the provinces to participate. Once again, there is not effective oversight of the law.
• The federal government needs to provide a complete review of the law.

Today (October 27) Justice Minister Fraser introduced Bill C-41, titled the: Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Health Minister Marjorie Michel stated in a press conference on October 7, 2026 that the federal government would introduce legislation, that will prevent the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, while also permitting euthanasia by advance request. Bill C-41 is the fulfillment of their promise.

Article: Euthanasia by advance request is euthanasia without consent (Read)

Bill C-41 states that it prevents euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness, as a sole criteria while permitting euthanasia by advance request. 

As I stated on October 7, the language of the legislation will determine whether the bill actually prevents euthanasia for mental illness.

It must be noted that, euthanasia by advance request is outside of the federal governments jurisdiction. Canada's provinces have jurisdiction over advanced directive legislation based on their constitutional power over healthcare. 

I have stated this reality on many occassions. Fraser, in the text of the bill agrees with me.

Does Bill C-41 prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria? 

C-41 states:

Eligibility for medical assistance in dying
241.‍2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying, other than on the basis of an advance request, only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(2) Subsection 241.‍2(2.‍1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Exclusion
(2.‍1) A person cannot meet any of the criteria set out in paragraphs (2)‍(a) to (c) on the basis of a mental illness.

Based on the text of the bill it appears that it prevents euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria but the law lacks any effective oversight.

The law only requires that the medical or nurse practitioner be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria of the law.

Therefore, if a person, who has a mental illness as a sole criteria, is killed by a medical or nurse practitioner, it would be impossible to prosecute the medical or nurse practitioner as they only need to claim that they were of the opinion that the person, who they killed, met the full criteria of the law.

Does Bill C-41 contain effective oversight for euthanasia by advance request?

Bill C-41 provides several changes to Canada's Criminal Code exemption to homicide to enable euthanasia by advance request. 

Bill C-41 states:

Exemption for medical assistance in dying
227 (1) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.1 or 241.‍21. 

Exemption for person aiding practitioner
(2) No person is a party to culpable homicide if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 241.‍21

Bill C-41 creates a "repository" for advance requests for euthansia and a need for provincial legislative regimes to oversee killing someone by an advance request. Bill C-41 states:

241.‍21 (1) A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may provide medical assistance in dying on the basis of an advance request to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to receiving such medical assistance in dying only if

(a) the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (2);

(b) the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner ensures that the safeguards set out in subsection (3) are complied with;

(c) the criteria set out in subsection (8) in respect of the advance request are met and the request is stored in a repository referred to in subsection (10); and

(d) a provincial legislative regime in relation to advance requests for medical assistance in dying, that includes the rules referred to in subsection (10), is in force in the province in which the medical assistance in dying would be provided.

The requirement for provincial legislation is paramount since advanced directive legislation is the responsibility of the provinces based on their constitutional power over health care. The federal government can't legislate to allow euthanasia by advance request without the provinces participating.

I am very concerned about the concept of a repository. Legally, a person has the right to update their power of attorney for healthcare (personal care) at any time. The law recognizes that the most recent legally signed document replaces any previous legally signed documents.

The repository makes it more difficult for a person to change their request for euthanasia by advance request.

The federal government does not have the right to create a repository for these documents, only the provinces have this right.

I understand that the government creating the repository as an attempt to supercede the "power of attorney" for healthcare, since that person may oppose euthanasia. The repository ensures that the person can be killed without enabling anyone to prevent the killing.

Bill C-41 states under Safeguards — advance request states:

(3) Before a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner provides medical assistance in dying to a person on the basis of an advance request, the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner must
(a) be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (2);

Once again, the language of the bill, like other sections of Canada's euthanasia law, prevents oversight of the law. The medical or nurse practitioner, who kills the person, only needs to be "of the opinion" that the person meets all of the criteria set out in the law to be legally immune from the act of homicide.

There is much more that can be said but since the legislation lacks effective oversight, there is no further need to discuss the "other" supposed safeguards that are contained within the bill, as they are only ink on paper.

First recommendation: Provinces need to inform the federal govenrment that they will not be expanding the euthanasia law to include euthanasia by advance request.

Since the federal government requires the provinces to pass legislation concerning euthanasia by advance request, this also provides the opportunity for the provinces to exercise their provincial jurisdiction over healthcare and create some oversight of the law.

Second recommendation: The federal government needs to completely change the law by creating effective oversight of the law. This is essential considering the fact that people are being killed and they can't come back from the dead.

Third recommendation: The Canadian government needs to create a process to provide a complete review of the euthanasia law. Bill C-14, the original bill, that legalized euthanasia in 2016, required that a complete review of the law was to begin in June 2020. This never happened.

The federal government may blame Covid 19 on the fact that the law was never reviewed, but in fact the government had time to expand the law through Bill C-7 in March 2021. Therefore, they could have provided a complete review of the law.

Once again, Bill C-41 does not actually create any effective oversight of the law and it is essentially concerned with opening new avenues to killing without any effective oversight of the law. 

Bill C-41 trusts that medical and nurse practitioners, who are willing to kill people, will limit the killing to set criteria. But at the same time the law provides complete legal coverage to enable them to kill without any prospect of oversight or recourse by legal means.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition welcomes and hopes that Bill C-41 will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone but we question how the federal government can usurp the rights of the provinces by attempting to institute euthanasia by advance request.

Would you attend an assisted suicide?

This article was published by National Review online on October 27, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

The highbrow Dear Abby of the New York Times — a.k.a. The Ethicist (who is a philosophy professor at NYU) — published an inquiry from a reader whose “difficult aunt” is pondering assisted suicide. The Ethicist’s response was rather namby-pamby. From his answer:

It would be kind to give her a call, explaining that her messages left you concerned and uncertain about her situation. (A decision to seek MAID is a far cry from obtaining it; eligibility is subject to a formal medical assessment.) You can ask whether she has spoken to her doctors about MAID and what they’ve told her. Just be careful about offering more than you can give. You don’t have to make yourself available for an extended or continuing conversation.

The “difficult aunt” aspect of the question deflected from the truly pressing moral issue that the inquiry presented. What if you are asked to support someone with whom you are close — a parent, spouse, child, sibling, cousin, friend — in his or her decision to commit assisted suicide. More anguishing, what if your loved one wants you to be there for it? What would you do?

It seems to me that for many of us, this is a difficult question that involves profound moral and social considerations. If you attend the death, you will be complicit in the suicide. Your presence might be perceived as a validation and endorsement by the suicidal person and by others. And it might communicate to the suicidal person that his or her worst fears are true; that life is no longer worth living, that suffering cannot be alleviated. That is a moral burden you could carry for the rest of your life — and perhaps beyond, depending on your beliefs.

But if you don’t attend, you might worry about — or could be perceived by others as — abandoning someone you love at a most consequential moment. Saying no also means that you will be absent when the end comes, which could also be a burden to carry. You might even face estrangement from loved ones who interpret your refusal to be in the room as cruel or judgmental.

Of course, the question isn’t binary — to attend or not. Your response could (should) also involve an attempt to help the suicidal person decide to not commit suicide. Compassion means to suffer with someone. It seems to me that helping a loved one live on would be a true act of caring.

If you are the person who wants assisted suicide, you also face a moral dilemma. Do you ask the people you love to take on the moral weight of your suicide? Is it moral to force such choices on others? Is it selfish? But who wants to die without loved ones present to ease the passage?

Bah. These awful moral dilemmas should not exist. And they would not but for the euthanasia movement’s activism, the spreading legalization of facilitated death, and the consequential normalization of having family and friends attend these deaths, which is seen repeatedly in the media.

Assisted suicide isn’t going away anytime soon. So we had all better think deeply about this question, because we never know when that call might come.

So, what would you do?

Tracy Latimer: Now 33 Years Later

Inclusion Canada - Tracy Latimer: Now 30 Years Later. 

Tracy Latimer was killed 33 years ago today (October 24). Tracy was a vulnerable 12 year old girl who was killed by her father. In an act of discriminatory violence Robert Latimer sought to unburden Tracy of life with a disability. Canadians with disabilities were disturbed not only by Tracy’s murder and copycat crimes that followed it, but also by the public’s understanding and support of Robert Latimer’s actions.

Tracy Latimer

In 2018, on the 25th anniversary of Tracy’s death, we at Inclusion Canada released a blog post that both honoured Tracy’s life and put into words how her death could inform then-emerging discussions about the legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for mature minors. Today, on the 30th anniversary of Tracy’s death, our concerns have only grown.

Five years ago, assisted death remained strictly an end of life option – a way for people whose deaths were “reasonably foreseeable” to be assisted to die peacefully. Now, five years later the law has been changed and assisted suicide is available to persons with disabilities whose deaths are not “reasonably foreseeable.”

Marginalized people who suffer because of systemic oppression and inadequate care are dying. Their suicidality is being endorsed and facilitated by the same state that is failing to meet their most basic needs. The same will soon (March 17, 2024) be true for persons whose “sole underlying medical condition” is a mental illness.

Therefore, in 2023, when elected officials discuss the prospect of legalizing MAiD for mature minors (the practice is not yet legal), they’re wrestling with whether or not to provide death by assisted suicide to minors with disabilities and mental illnesses who are not otherwise dying. This includes particularly at risk populations, like Indigenous youth.

A committee of MPs and Senators recently recommended making MAiD available to mature minors only in end of life scenarios. In doing so, they cited experts who said that this would be a first step in a “staged approach,” necessary to basically warm Canadians up to the idea of minors dying by MAiD.

Authorities are waiting for assisted suicide for mature minors with disabilities to feel right to Canadians. And we know from Tracy Latimer’s death that before long it likely will. It is our responsibility as individuals and as an informed collective to unpack our gut reactions and to recognize ableism when it shows its ugly face. So, just like in 2018, we’ll end this blog by asking “do we, as a country, like where we are headed?”

Five years later, we, at Inclusion Canada, can confidently say that we do not.

Previous article:

• Tracy Latimer - Some of the facts (Read).
• Disability rights leader - Latimer stirs up nightmarish wake-up call (Read).
• Not Dead Yet: Tracy Latimer must not be erased; her murder must not be pardoned (Read).

The threat of euthanasia for mental illness, continues.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Key Issues:

• The Canadian government defeated Bill C-218 and promised to introduce a bill to prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. The bill must become law before March 17, 2027.
• Dying with Dignity and Claire Brosseau launched a court case demanding that the court legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness.

On October 7, 2026, Bill C-218, the private members bill that was sponsored by Tamara Jansen (MP) was defeated in parliament by a vote of 187 to 141. Bill C-218 would have amended the Criminal Code to prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria.

The defeat of Bill C-218 was related to the announcement on October 7 at 12 noon by Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Health Minister Marjorie Michel promising that the federal government will introduce legislation this fall that will prevent the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. However, the government legislation will also permit euthanasia by advanced request.

Euthanasia by advanced request is a dangerous concept as it would permit doctors and nurse practitioners to kill someone who is incompetent, based on an advanced request.

We have not seen the language of the government bill, but even if the bill actually prevents (MAiD) euthanasia as a sole criteria it will not end the issue.

We urge the government to follow the recommendations from the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians was released on June 17, 2026.

The AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition on March 17, 2027. The report concluded:

That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

It is great news that the AMAD Committee decided that Canada should not implement euthanasia for mental illness, but the battle has only begun.

It is important to note that euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, is currently scheduled to be implemented on March 17, 2027. The government is facing a time-line to pass their legislation.

Euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria - Brosseau court case.

Dying with Dignity, a death lobby group, and Claire Brosseau, launched a court case demanding that the court legislate from the bench to permit Claire Brosseau to be killed by lethal poison based only on mental illness. If the court approves euthanasia for Brosseau, that would entitle others with mental illnesses to be killed by euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition intervened in the Brosseau case to ensure that the salient arguments were offered in court.

On July 21/22, 2026 there was a hearing on the Brosseau case to deal with an "emergency" request, by Dying with Dignity and Brosseau, demanding that the court grant Brosseau an injunction to enable her to be killed by lethal poison.

Justice Carissima Mathen denied Brosseau and Dying With Dignity a lethal injunction but Mathen initiated a time-line for a full-hearing on the case that will may be heard in March 2027.

Even if the government passes a bill that clearly prevents euthanasia for mental illness the Brosseau court case may legislate from the bench and force parliament to permit euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. Clearly, the Brosseau court case is very important.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your financial support to continue our intervention in the case. The preparation and involvement in the July hearing cost around $50,000 and a full-trial, which may happen next Spring, will cost much more. (Donation Link).

The case will likely be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. Help us continue the battle (Donation Link).

Previous articles on this issue:

• EPC victory: Court denies Brosseau euthanasia for mental illness (Read).
• EPC intervention in euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read).
• Important insight into decision to reject euthanasia for mental illness (Read).
• EPC filed to intervene in euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read).
• Bill C-218 was defeated. What will happen next? (Read).