Québec physician urges France to reject euthanasia.

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

To the Honorable Members of the French 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.*

Concerns about Organ Donation.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Larry Black Jr with his sister Molly Watts

KFF Health News published an article by Cara Anthony on September 12, 2025 about organ donation featuring the story of Larry Black Jr who on March 24, 2019, at the age of 22, arrived at the SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital after being shot in the head.

A week later, Black, was on the surgical table being prepared for organ harvesting when his physician demanded that Black be removed from the surgical table, because he was not declared brain dead and his heart was still beating.

Organ donation and assisted death (youtube link)

Anthony reported that:

Black’s sister Molly Watts said the family had doubts after agreeing to donate Black’s organs but felt unheard until the 34-year-old doctor, in his first year as a neurosurgeon, intervened.

Today, Black, now 28, is a musician and the father of three children. He still needs regular physical therapy for lingering health issues from the gun injury. And Black said he is haunted by what he remembers from those days while he was lying in a medically induced coma.

“I heard my mama yelling,” he recalled. “Everybody was there yelling my name, crying, playing my favorite songs, sending prayers up.”

He said he had tried to show everyone in his hospital room that he heard them. He recalled knocking on the side of the bed, blinking his eyes, trying to show that he was fighting for his life.

New Zealand 2025 euthanasia report. Assisted deaths increase again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Zealand 2026 assisted dying report (April 1, 2025 - March 31, 2026) was recently released indicating that the number of reported assisted deaths increased to 486 reported assisted deaths up from 472 in the 2025 report (April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025) and 344 reported in the 2024 report.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in New Zealand in November 2021. The law allows doctor administered death (euthanasia) and self-ingestion (assisted suicide).

 

The 2026 report indicated that 460 of the 486 assisted deaths were carried-out by the doctor (euthanasia) which was up from 450 of the 472 assisted deaths being carried-out by the doctor (euthanasia) in 2025.

On November 11, 2025 I reported that New Zealand MP Todd Stephension introduced - The End of Life Choice Amendment Bill, a private members bill to expand the New Zealand assisted dying law.

What would the New Zealand euthanasia expansion bill (among other things) do?

• Amends the definition of who can do euthanasia by changing the terminology from attending medical practitioner to attending practitioner.
• Changes the terminal illness requirement to a person who has been diagnosed with a condition that is advanced, progressive, and, either on its own or in combination with 1 or more other diagnosed conditions, is expected to cause death. (Expected to cause death is not the same as a terminal illness with a 6 month prognosis).
• Eliminates conscience rights by forcing a medical practitioner to refer a person to the assisted dying service when they have received a request for assisted dying.

The New Zealand government may follow Canada's lead with plans to expand euthanasia to people who are not terminally ill. In fact the bills definition of who qualifies to be killed can be interpreted wide enough to include most people with disabilities.

In October 2020, New Zealand voters supported euthanasia based on specific legalization legislation. The law has only been in place since November 2021 and now there is a push to expand the legislation.

Canada had approximately 17,700 euthanasia deaths in 2025.

Canada has had more than 103,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I predict that Canada had 17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 representing about 5.6% of all deaths and a 7.3% increase from 2024. 

I am researching the 2025 Canadian euthanasia data since Health Canada is slow to release data and Canadians have the right to know.

Health Canada's Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying was released on November 28, 2025 (2024 data). The 2024 data indicated that there were 16,499 reported (MAiD) Canadian euthanasia deaths representing 5.1% of all deaths which was up by 6.9% from 15,427 in 2023. 

I published an article on March 17, 2025 with preliminary predictions for 2025 and predicted that Canada would surpass 100,000 reported euthanasia deaths in April 2026.

Where do I get my data?  

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario 2025 (MAiD) euthanasia data indicates that there were 5303 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up by almost 7.3% from 4,944 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024. Ontario represents 38.9% of Canada's population. 

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.

Based on the reported 43,223 total BC deaths in 2025, euthanasia represents almost 7.4% of all deaths. BC has 13.5% of Canada's population.

Alberta Health Services also released its 2025 (MAiD) euthanasia data indicating that there were 1,242 reported euthanasia deaths in Alberta in 2025 which was up by more than 11% from 1,117 in 2024. Alberta represents 12.7% of Canada's population.

Nova Scotia Health released its 2025 MAiD euthanasia data indicating that there were 462 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up by 5% from 440 in 2024. Nova Scotia represents 2.6% of Canada's population.

Based on the official euthanasia data from Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia, in those provinces, there were 10,196 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 which was up from 9501 in 2024 representing a 7.3% increase. These provinces represent about 67.7% of Canada's population.

How many people have died by euthanasia in Canada? 

According to the Sixth Annual Report, from legalization until December 31, 2024 there were 76,475 reported euthanasia deaths in Canada. When adding approximately 17,700 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 we can estimate that from legalization until December 31, 2025 there were approximately 94,175 reported euthanasia deaths.

Is the number of euthanasia deaths increasing, decreasing or stable in 2026?

The official Chief Coroner of Ontario data indicates that there were 1,283 reported euthanasia deaths in the first quarter of 2026 which is up by 2.5% from 1,252 in the first quarter of 2025. This is not conclusive information but it does suggest that the number of euthanasia deaths has continued to increase by approximately 2.5% in 2026.

Based on this data, I estimate that there have been approximately 1,500 reported Canadian euthanasia deaths every month in 2026 and as of June 30, 2026, that there have been approximately 103,175 Canadian reported euthanasia deaths since legalization. 

More articles on Canada's euthanasia deaths.

• Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization (Read). 
• Canada: Euthanasia continued to rise in 2025 (Read).
• Canada will soon surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths (Read). 
• Canada reports a record number of deaths in 2024 (Read). 
• Health Canada 2024 report states that 16,499 people died by euthanasia (Read)

German doctor convicted of killing 15 patients but he likely killed many more.

The lethal poison drug combination was the same as used for euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bethany Bell reported for BBC news on July 8, 2026 that a German doctor was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing at least 15 patients.

Bell reported that:

A court in Berlin found the 41-year-old man, named only as Johannes M. in line with German privacy rules, guilty of murdering 12 women and 3 men between September 2021 and July 2024.

The authorities believe these killings could be just the tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors are currently investigating dozens of other incidents involving the doctor.

His victims were between the ages of 25 and 94. The court heard how they were all critically ill, but that their deaths were not imminent.

Prosecutors said that during home visits, the doctor administered a lethal combination of various medicines without his patients' consent.

On several occasions, they said he set fires to cover his tracks.

In July 2024, shortly before his arrest, prosecutors said the doctor killed two patients in a single day - a 75-year-old man at his home in central Berlin and, a few hours later, a 76-year-old woman in a neighbouring district.

They said the doctor tried to set fire to the woman's house, but failed. 

CBS News reported on July 8 that:

Presiding judge Sylvia Busch said the conviction for 15 murders may well be only a glimpse of his many crimes.

Prosecutors said during the proceedings that he was suspected of having killed more than 70 other people.

An article by Emily Atkinson that was published by the BBC on April 16, 2025, suggests that he used the similar drugs as are used for euthanasia:

He is accused of administering an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant to his patients without their knowledge or consent.

The relaxant "paralysed the respiratory muscles, leading to respiratory arrest and death within minutes", the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

Based on the way he killed his patients, they appear to have died in the same way as a euthanasia death. It is likely that the physician was trained by a euthanasia group. 

In 2019, Niels Högel, a nurse in Oldenburg, Germany, was convicted of murdering 85 patients from 2000 to 2005, and investigators suspect the true number of victims was far higher. Mr. Högel was found to have administered drug overdoses that caused cardiac arrest so that he could revive the patients and be celebrated as a hero.

Cases of medical homicide are not uncommon. Medical practitioners who have been convicted of murdering patients, include: Dr. Harold Shipman, Charles Cullen, Dr Virginia Soares de Souza, Aino Nykopp-Koski and Dr. Michael Swango.

Professor Christopher Lyon, who teaches at the University of York (UK) published a research paper on August 2, 2024 stating that Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law enables healthcare serial killers (HSK).

It is not safe to give doctors, or others, the right in law to kill people.

When a nation legalizes euthanasia, it gives medical professionals, who were already killing their patients, the legal right to proceed.