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

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia went from an exception to an expectation in Canada.

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

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

Don't follow Canada's lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada euthanasia report - massive problems with reporting errors.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPC urges the government to consider the many stories associated with our euthanasia law that have been publicized world-wide and recognize that the law needs to be reviewed.

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

Prescription Poison film: Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

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

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

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

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

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

Groups throughout the US can organize screenings of the Prescription Poison film. 

You may also want a speaker, such as Alex Schadenberg, to lead a discussion forum, after the screening. 

For early screening plans contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca

Donations to cover the cost of the film are still required. Donations are made to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.

The cost to order and screen the film will be available soon.

The Prescription Poison film will be available on July 24.

The film features: Denise Leipold, Margaret Marsilla, Victor Nieves, Professor William Peace (RIP), Ales Primc, Alexander Raikin, Jessica Rodgers, Alex Schadenberg, Wesley J Smith, Dr Sarah Smith, Nir Solomon, Dr William Toffler.

Québec physician urges France to reject euthanasia.

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

Dr Paul Saba

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

To the Honorable Members of the National Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death by Organ Donation pushed in Medical Journal.

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

By Wesley J Smith

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

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

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

Oh, Wesley! That would never be allowed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We live in very disturbing times.

France's Senate once again rejects euthanasia bill.

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

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Senators urge Health and Human Services to monitor assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Senator James Lankford

There are now 13 US states as well as Washington DC that have legalized assisted suicide. A press release from US Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) to Health and Human Services  (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. urging HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) urges them:

to establish reporting requirements in the hospice program to monitor physician-assisted suicide for discrimination against individuals with disabilities, older adults, and other vulnerable populations.

The letter warned Secretary Kennedy that assisted suicide:

“raises significant informed consent issues as well as concerns about disability and age discrimination” and noted that the vast majority of patients receiving physician-assisted suicide are enrolled in hospice.

Senator Tim Kaine

The Senators further stated:

“We urge HHS and CMS to establish reporting requirements to monitor physician-assisted suicide for discriminatory practices and oversee compliance with federal funding restrictions within hospice programs. All hospice patients—regardless of disability, age or financial means—deserve compassionate end-of-life care that is free of coercion and discrimination.”

The Senators were joined by US Representatives Greg Murphy, M.D. (R-NC-03) and Lou Correa (D-CA-46).

Link to the letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (Letter Link).

Rep Greg Murphy

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) shares the concerns of Senators Lankford and Kaine and Representatives Murphy and Correa. We are particularly concerned with the formulation and use of poison drug cocktails for assisted suicide that are not approved as "safe" by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The letter from the Senators and Representatives states:

Physician-assisted suicide drugs are not approved for the purpose of ending human life. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved drugs indicated for physician-assisted suicide. These drugs would not meet the criteria as "safe" for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Instead, medical practitioners prescribe drugs approved for other indications to be used "off-label" for physician-assisted suicide. As the Atlantic reported in 2019, "[I]n states where the practice is legal, state governments provide guidance about which patients qualify but say nothing about which drugs to prescribe." With "no government-approved clinical drug trial, and no Institutional Review Board oversight," physician-assisted suicide drug prescribers are left with little oversight in assisting end-of-life patients"

Rep Lou Correa

EPC is also very concerned about abuses related to the Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act that essentially restricts federal funding for assisted suicide and protects the conscience rights for medical practitioners who object to assisted suicide. The letter from the letter from the Senators and Representatives states:

We request that you establish reporting requirements within hospice programs regarding physician-assisted suicide. In doing so, please consider monitoring physician-assisted suicide practises for the following:

• Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, older adults, and other vulnerable populations; 

• Proper disposal of unused medication and prevention of drug diversion; 

• Insurance denials of life-sustaining medical care that offer to cover physician-assisted suicide drugs instead.

There are many concerns with assisted suicide laws and the practise of assisting suicides. Some of the key issues include the lack of clear oversight and the use of lethal poison drug cocktails. The drug cocktails are concerning for their use but also the abuse the occurred with their experimental development.

Jersey assisted suicide bill receives Royal Assent

The following is a media release from the Care Not Killing Alliance on July 9, 2026.

Care Not Killing deeply disappointed as Jersey’s assisted dying law receives Royal Assent despite ECHR breaches

Campaign group Care Not Killing has expressed deep disappointment following the decision to grant Royal Assent to Jersey’s Assisted Dying (Jersey) Law 2026, making Jersey the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying.

The group believes the legislation breaches the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights — including Article 2 (right to life), Article 9 (freedom of conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association), and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) — and that this is precisely why Royal Assent had been held up for so long.

In a legal letter sent to the Attorney General of Jersey and the Ministry of Justice on 21 May 2026, Care Not Killing’s solicitors, Conrathe Gardner LLP, set out a series of concerns about the Law’s compliance with the ECHR. The letter warned that the legislation places vulnerable individuals at “severe risk of loss of life in a way that is discriminatory and impermissible under the ECHR.”

It highlighted that the law fails to adequately test for coercion, duress or undue influence — particularly in the case of disabled people — by relying on “an assessing doctor simply asking the individual if anyone has coerced them.”

The letter also noted that individuals with conditions such as bipolar disorder, depression, and autism face significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation, and that the Law makes no provision to protect them.

Care Not Killing pointed to the well-documented expansion of euthanasia regimes in other jurisdictions — noting that in Canada, one in twenty deaths is now by assisted suicide, and in the Netherlands, 5.4 per cent of all registered deaths are by assisted suicide with uptake increasing by 8 per cent every year.

The group also highlighted that even before the Law was passed, a proposition was tabled to extend it to incurable (non-terminal) conditions, and that Health Minister Tom Binet has stated this amendment will be proposed again in future. The Law also introduces so-called “safe access” zones that could criminalise prayer and sermons in places of worship near where assisted dying takes place, interfering with rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald commented: 

“This legislation will fundamentally alter health and palliative care on Jersey and put the lives of vulnerable people at risk, exactly as we have seen in those places that have introduced assisted suicide or euthanasia. It fails on a number of fronts, including: lack of legal protections for doctors and nurses who do not want to be involved, protections for the elderly and disabled people at risk of being coerced, will see money taken out of palliative care and has been sold to the public as a way to end suffering when we know from places like Oregon, those who take the death row drugs may suffer long and agonising death from a pulmonary oedema - where their lungs slowly fill up with bodily fluid and the drown in their own secretions.

“Importantly, as our lawyers have pointed out, this law does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We will be consulting our lawyers to determine our next steps and how and when this dangerous law can be challenged.”

For media inquiries, please call Alistair Thompson or Team Britannia PR on 07970 162225.

Editors Notes

Care Not Killing was founded as a UK-based alliance of human rights and disability rights organisations, health care and palliative care groups, faith-based organisations groups, and is supported by thousands of concerned individuals.

We have three key aims:

• to promote more and better palliative care;
• to ensure that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed;
• to inform public opinion further against any weakening of the law. 

*As this story is dealing with suicide, please could we ask that you include details about organisations that offer help and support to vulnerable people who might be feeling suicidal such as the Samaritans, CALM or similar - Thank you.*