Euthanasia death approved at a coffee shop.

Declaring a person to be dead, when he was not dead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr James MacLean is one of the few doctors to be sanctioned for unprofessional conduct related to his euthanasia deaths. One of the complaints included a euthanasia assessment that was done at a Tim Horton's coffee shop.

An article by Brian Williams and Sharon Kirkey published by the London Free Press on May 27, 2026 explained that the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal received two complaints about MacLean, but only gave him a minor sanction for his actions related to his euthanasia deaths. The CPSO stated:

“The measures include mandatory clinical supervision for a minimum of six months, frequent supervision meetings, ongoing review of his MAID patient charts, regular written reports to (the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) from the clinical supervisor, and completion of mandatory professional education relating to MAID, consent, documentation, professional boundaries, and professional behaviour.”

The first complaint that included assessing the person for euthanasia at a Tim Horton's coffee shop. The authors reported:

MacLean conducted his assessment of the patient outside a coffee shop. The college panel found it concerning that MacLean discussed “sensitive MAID-related matters in an informal public setting,” according to the summary of the inquiries and complaints committee’s decision.

“In the committee’s view, this reflected a lack of the level of formality and care expected when assessing requests for MAID.”

The panel was also troubled by the “quantity and nature” of MacLean’s text exchanges with the patient, which included comments about the family’s views.

MacLean’s decision to drive the patient to the MAID provision location “raised concerns about professional boundaries.”

“Taken together, these actions created a risk that (MacLean’s) involvement could be perceived as influencing the patient,” the committee’s summary reads, especially given the patient-doctor power imbalance and the patient’s history of mental health and substance use issues.

The second case was a failed euthanasia death whereby MacLean declared he patient dead and left the person's home even though the patient was not dead. The authors reported:

The second complaint involved a cancer patient at end of life. The man had signed a “waiver of final consent” that allows people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID, even if they lose capacity to give consent the moment before death.

Before the chosen date, the man lost capacity and was unresponsive. MacLean was called to the home.

He’d ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops.

But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

Shortly after administering the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, MacLean pronounced the patient dead, according to the college. After he left the house, “the patient resumed spontaneous breathing.”

MacLean returned, saw signs of cardiac and respiratory activity, administered more medication along with the paralyzing agent, “and again pronounced the patient’s death.”

According to the college committee, MacLean “advised that he believes the stress of the situation, including the last-minute and urgent request for his attendance and the substantial number of people present with significant tension amongst them, contributed to initial failed provision of MAID.”

The family complained about MacLean’s professionalism and communication.

Dr Ramona Coelho a London family physician and former member of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s MAID death review committee. told the authors:

“What is striking is not only the seriousness of the concerns identified in these cases, but the limited regulatory response,”

“The level of scrutiny and accountability applied to MAID is inconsistent with how other serious medical procedures are regulated,”

Dr Coelho commented on the notion that Canada's euthanasia law operates well.

The federal government “frequently points to the absence of criminal findings or disciplinary action as evidence that the MAID system is functioning safely,” she added.

“Cases such as these, along with those documented (by the coroner’s MAID death review committee) confirm that important gaps in oversight and accountability remain.”

The Chief Coroner of Ontario established the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee that published multiple reports underlining the concerns with the law. Even though that report found cases of people who had no actual medical condition or who died by euthanasia based on poverty or a lack of proper housing, none of those cases were then brought to the CPSO to determine if any sanctions should be applied to the doctors and nurse practitioners who caused those deaths.

Elizabeth had suicidal ideation. She is very glad to be here today.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received the following letter from Elizabeth, a woman who lived with suicidal ideation and is very glad to be alive. Elizabeth opposes euthanasia for mental illness.

Back in 2012, I had multiple chronic health conditions and had failed completely again at getting and holding down a job after moving to a larger city with some money from family to try to find work I could actually do. I needed the disability benefit, but didn't have it. I'd already been denied once for it in 2010, and applied again in 2012 and suspected I wouldn't get it. I have generalized anxiety disorder and depression that was severely aggravated by my financial troubles and inability to support myself, and I started having panic attacks and cutting myself, as well as not eating enough and becoming underweight with dizzy spells. I felt like a burden and had suicidal ideation, though I didn't try to kill myself.

A few months later I finally got the letter back about the disability benefit. I was convinced I'd be denied again, and had to read it through twice before I realized it was approved. It totally changed my life, and I am very glad to still be here today, even if I still can't support myself financially by working due to health issues and live with chronic pain and still struggle with depression and anxiety at times. Your worth as a human being and right to live doesn't depend on whether you can earn a living, and there are other ways to contribute to society even if you can't earn a paycheck.

This was before MAID was legal. I already felt like a burden and was struggling with suicidal ideation to the point I was cutting myself without society offering me social sanction for dying, suggesting I should do so, and offering to help me while making it easier and faster than applying for disability. That would have made my mental health struggles so much worse.

Elizabeth

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill, that was sponsored by Tamara Jansen (MP) to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. EPC urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) exists to build a well-informed, broadly-based network of groups and individuals supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada created the term (MAiD) - medical assistance in dying, to make us feel better about killing, but the reality is that Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and expanded the law in 2021 by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ill to be killed.

Canada is currently scheduled to extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone in March 2027.

On May 5, 2026, I spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that is further examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone. The position of EPC is to demand that Canada fully review it's euthanasia law rather than further expand the law.

EPC works to educate about the reality of euthanasia, to advocate to politicians and others in leadership roles and to support and assist people and their families to prevent death by euthanasia.

In January EPC released the Life Worth Living film that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. This is a powerful award winning film. You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/

EPC is currently seeking to intervene in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision that would approve Brosseau for death by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving death for Brosseau as the Canadian government continues to debate this issue.

EPC also supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

For more information you can read our newsletters (newsletters link) or you can read more of our blog articles (EPC Blog Link). The EPC blog has more than 6300 articles and has had more than 16 million pageviews.

EPC has many more activities. We need your support to continue our work. Donations can be made at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

Show the powerful film in your community: Life Worth Living

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Purchase or rent the Life Worth Living film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com

Show the powerful Life Worth Living film in your community.

Below is the trailer for the Life Worth Living film:

Reviews we received of the film:

I just watched Life Worth Living and I have to say I'm so incredibly impressed. I can't contain my enthusiasm for this film. It's one of the best film projects on the subject of medical killing ever. I'd expect awards to be forthcoming for best documentary film. Lester.

Another review:

I have purchased the film "Life Worth Living" a couple of weeks ago and have watched it. I feel that it's a film that everyone should watch because it shows what is happening in the system of "health" care in Canada and it opens our eyes to the reality of how far our government and the medical system has gone in the direction of killing people instead of healing people.

I would like to ask permission to show this film for our parish community. Eva

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition granted Eva permission to have the film shown in her community. Please arrange screenings of the film.

Life Worth Living features:

• Alicia Duncan, whose mother died by euthanasia with conditions based on mental health, 
• Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian military veteran who came back from combat with PTSD and other disabilities. Kelsi is a social media influencer and a life coach.
• Roger Foley, a Canadian man living with a significant disability who has been pressured by hospital staff to request euthanasia.
• Dr David D'Souza, an Ontario pain specialist.
• Dr Catherine Ferrier, a Quebec Gerontologist and a leader of Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia, 
• Dr Will Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and leader of Euthanasia Resistance BC
• Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care,
• Alex Schadenberg, (myself), author, keynote speaker, International leader opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.

1. Purchase the Life Worth Living Film (Life Worth Living film Link)
2. Arrange to have Life Worth Living shown in your community. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca
3. You may want a speaker at the event to lead a discussion. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca

Bioethicists: ‘Terminally Sedate’ People Committing Suicide by Self-Starvation

This article was published by National Review online on May 25, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

In a newly released paper in the prestigious journal Bioethics, three prominent bioethicists argue that when someone decides to commit suicide via self-starvation and dehydration — known in euthanasia movement parlance as “voluntary stop eating and drinking” (VSED) — doctors should be allowed to “terminally sedate” the person trying to die when necessary to prevent intractable suffering.

Patients who commit VSED are often not terminally ill. In fact, euthanasia organizations promote self-starvation to the elderly who are not dying and as a means of becoming eligible for assisted suicide where it is legal by making oneself “terminal” via lack of sustenance.

VSED must be distinguished from the common circumstance when actively dying people stop eating. That’s a natural process and often peaceful because the body cannot assimilate food as organs shut down. VSED, in contrast, deprives the body of sustenance it needs to remain alive toward the end of causing death, i.e., it is a suicide method.

Without palliation, many people attempting VSED would abandon the attempt. The bioethicists know this and claim that once the decision to commit suicide is made, doctors are duty-bound to medically ameliorate the suffering that inevitably results:

If a patient is adamant in their refusal of food and water, the same physician must respect the competent refusal by not force‐feeding the patient and should offer standard palliative care, as they would for any other dying patient. Medical support for patients undertaking VSED should be adequate and proportionate to their symptoms, as per any other form of palliative care. This is arguably not assisted suicide.

No, it is precisely that. First, but for the self-starvation, many people who undertake VSED would not be dying. Second, palliation permits the patient to complete the suicide that would otherwise be abandoned. Hence, the palliating doctor is facilitating the patient in becoming dead, i.e., it is a form of suicide assistance.

The authors acknowledge that if a doctor’s assurance of palliation factors into the decision to undertake VSED, that could be deemed assisted suicide:

We acknowledge that there may be some cases in which combining these two practices could amount to assistance in suicide. Jox et al. identify two key factors which, if present, arguably classify VSED cases as assisted suicide: (a) the promise of medical assistance is instrumental to the individual’s decision to pursue VSED, and (b) the physician shares, at least in part, in the individual’s decision to pursue VSED (amounting to some level of encouragement).

The authors next argue that VSED patients should be allowed to be rendered permanently unconsciousness if experiencing “refractory delirium”:

We propose the following criteria for VSED with TS in the setting of refractory delirium:
1. The patient is experiencing unbearable suffering.
2. The patient has lost decision‐making capacity.
3. The patient has previously stopped all fluids.
4. The patient has previously indicated that they would not wish for fluid to recommence if delirious.
5. Other measures to address confusion/distress have been attempted (or refused in advance), such as antipsychotics.

Ah, the old “strict guidelines protect against abuse” scenario.

Let’s discuss this in the real world. Strict restrictions rarely stay strict. For example, needle “exchange” to prevent the spread of HIV eventually slouched into outright needle give away, no used syringes required.

The same kind of slippage would happen if sedating people committing VSED were allowed. Eventually, such drugging would become a standard technique, its availability amplified by assisted suicide advocates.

The authors’ answer to this objection? Let doctors predetermine whether to facilitate the suicide with sedation:

We believe that this harm can be reasonably mitigated through a thorough pre‐assessment of individuals requesting VSED. Prior to initiating physician involvement in the VSED process, physicians should seek to confirm that the individual (a) has decision‐making capacity, and (b) expresses a genuine intention to end their life. This pre‐assessment should also seek to confirm that the individual is fully informed, their decision is voluntary, their decision is consistent with their known values, and that the individual is free from mental illness compromising their decision.

Wait: The authors wrote earlier that when “the promise of medical assistance is instrumental to the individual’s decision to pursue VSED, and “the physician shares, at least in part, in the individual’s decision to pursue VSED (amounting to some level of encouragement),” that it would amount to assisted suicide. Pre-assessment would fit those very criteria, no?

So, we see the slippery slope slip-sliding away in the very article calling for allowing sedation under strict guidelines to prevent abuse. If this proposal is implemented, the next step will be to quit beating around the bush and get on with the lethal jabs.

Why write about this, Wesley? Articles in professional journals are a means of constructing future public policy and people need to be warned about what is being planned before it is imposed from on high. Or to put it another way, these issues are too important to be left to the bioethicists.