BC Judge halts euthanasia death scheduled by Dr Weibe.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is seeking to intervene in this legal case. Donate to the EPC legal fund (Donation).

On October 27, 2024 I reported on the BC judge who granted a 30-day injunction to prevent the euthanasia death of a woman. I was the first one to report on the case but I did not share the information that I had based on a publication ban. I did promise to provide information as soon as it was available.

On October 29, Lisa Steacy reported for CTV news Vancouver that Justice Simon R. Coval signed an injunction on Saturday October 26 which prevented Dr Ellen Wiebe from killing an Alberta woman on Sunday October 27. Wiebe is known to be Canada's most active euthanasia doctor. Steacy writes:

The injunction, signed by Justice Simon R. Coval, is the first of its kind issued in the province and was issued on Saturday, the day before the woman was scheduled to die.

It prevents Dr. Ellen Wiebe or any other doctor from “causing the death” of the 53-year-old woman “by MAID or any other means.” It followed a notice of civil claim alleging Wiebe negligently approved the procedure for a patient who does not legally qualify.

The injunction prevented Wiebe from killing the woman. Steacy explains:

“If the defendants proceed with MAID, the death will constitute a battery of (the patient), wrongful death and, potentially a criminal offence,”

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide a mechanism for challenging a negligent approval but the judge establishes the role of the court by stating:

“It is within the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court to enjoin allegedly criminal conduct, in this case the termination of a patient's life where it appears that legislative criteria has not been met, and/or the protection of a patient from injury,”

Dr. Ellen Wiebe

The woman who was approved for euthanasia by Dr. Wiebe remains anonymous. The woman was refused approval in Alberta but went to British Columbia because Wiebe approved her death. Steacy reports:

“She could not get approval from her own doctors (in her home province), and so started looking online for other doctors who might be open to her request. She eventually found Dr. Ellen Wiebe,” the application says, adding that the woman had several Zoom meetings with the B.C. doctor and outspoken MAID advocate.

“At the end of the first meeting, Dr. Wiebe approved (the woman) for MAID.”

The claim, that was filed by her common law husband, states that the woman does not qualify for euthanasia, not even for a Track 2 approval. Track 2 approvals are based on a person who is not terminally ill but is suffering and living with an irremediable medical condition. Steacy reports:

According to the notice of civil claim, the woman has been diagnosed with “rapidly cycling bipolar 2 disorder.” However, she sought MAID on the basis of “akathisia,” a condition that is associated with changing doses of psychotropic or antipsychotic medication. According to the American Psychiatric Association, it manifests as “extreme restlessness characterized by an inability to sit or stand still and by fidgety movements or jitteriness, as well as a subjective report of inner restlessness.”

In October of 2023, the woman was prescribed a high dose of Quetiapine but soon after sought to reduce the dosage.

“As she was reducing her medication, (she) began describing distressing side-effects. She described having ‘the horrors’ or an inner sense of terror all day long, the inability to sleep at night, nightmares, the inability to lie down during the day due to a feeling of falling, the inability to sit or remain still, suicidal thoughts,” the application for the injunction says.

“At the same time, (she) continued to express her desire to die. She did not want to do it herself, and regularly begged (her partner) to end her life.”

According to the court documents, the woman and her partner – at an emergency consultation with a doctor in their home province 11 days before the medically assisted death was scheduled – were told that the condition is treatable and that the symptoms could resolve within months.

The claim states that the woman is being actively treated by a physician and yet was approved for euthanasia by Dr Wiebe. Steacy continues:

“This case raises serious questions about whether (the woman) in fact qualifies for MAID Track 2. Particularly concerning is that akathisia appears to be a cluster of symptoms connected to the changes in usage of drugs used to treat a psychiatric condition. It is treatable but (the woman) has not followed treatment recommendations.”

The case alleges that Dr Wiebe did not fulfill the requirements of the law. Steacy explains: 

In addition to arguing that the woman was seeking MAID based on a condition that disqualifies her from receiving it, the lawsuit raises a number of concerns about the process by which MAID was approved in this case.

According to the court documents, the woman’s partner allegedly questioned whether akathisia is “irremediable” and questioned Wiebe’s willingness to sign off on the procedure during a Zoom call.

“(The partner) asked Dr. Wiebe if she had ever carried out MAID on someone with akathisia. Dr. Wiebe said that she had not. During the same Zoom session, (the partner) also attempted to describe (the woman) as a person with unresolved mental health problems which were probably not considered during the MAID assessment,” the notice of application says.

“Dr. Wiebe responded by stating that diagnosis does not matter, and that only quality of life mattered, and that this was (the woman’s) right.”

The lawsuit alleges that Wiebe did not directly speak to any of the woman’s doctors, did not request her medical records, and only reviewed partial records provided by the patient via email.

Further to that the case alleges that Wiebe did not consult or have a second independent physician sign off on the euthanasia application. The case alleges that Wiebe arranged for a second doctor to speak to the woman and approve her death by Zoom. The case also claims that there was not an independent witness who signed the euthanasia. Steacy explains:

“The litigation seeks to address potentially serious failings in the application of the MAID regime,” the court documents say, summarizing the arguments.

This case will potentially set precedent related to the approval system for euthanasia in Canada, how a determination is made when the applicant is not terminally ill and establish some possible oversight of the law, which is currently lacking.

As I stated on October 27 - Similar to the WV / MV case in Calgary where a father was granted an injunction in the euthanasia approval of his 27-year-old autistic daughter because he claimed that his daughter didn't have an irremediable medical condition, this case the woman's husband sought an injunction claiming that his wife does not have an irremediable medical condition.

This case goes further because the woman's husband is also challenging the shoddy nature of euthanasia approvals in Canada.

Woman who died in Sarco pod had strangulation marks.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Miriam Kuepper and Elena Salvoni reported for the Daily Mail on October 28 that strangulation marks were found on the 64-year-old American woman who died in the Sarco death pod on September 23, 2024.

On September 24 I published an article stating that the Swiss police had made arrests related to the Sarco death pod and on September 29 I published an article explaining why the Sarco death method constitutes torture.

Kuepper and Salvoni reported that:

The first person to use the Sarco suicide pod in a Swiss woodland was allegedly found inside with strangulation marks on her neck.

The 64-year-old American woman died inside the capsule set up near a cabin in Merishausen, Switzerland, on September 23 after pushing a button that injects nitrogen gas into the sealed chamber, causing fatal hypoxia.

Dr Florian Willet, the president of Swiss Sarco operator The Last Resort, was among several people arrested at the scene.

Kuepper and Salvoni explain that Willett remains in jail.

He still today remains in custody - nearly five weeks after the US woman's death. Willet was the only person present when the mother-of-two died.

Investigators are now probing the woman's death, with chief prosecutor Peter Sticher raising the suspicion of 'intentional homicide' after suggesting in court that the 64-year-old may have been strangled, Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant reports.

The woman had suffered serious neck injuries, according to a forensic doctor, who spoke to the prosecutor just hours after her death.

A spokesperson for The Last Resort stated:

The woman had reportedly been diagnosed with skull base osteomyelitis.

The disease could manifest as an infection of the bone marrow, which could have been responsible for the marks on her neck resembling strangulation marks, according to a person close to The Last Resort who spoke to Swiss outlet NZZ.

Eleni Salvoni reported in the Daily Mail on October 29 that:  

The Last Resort and Exit International - the organisations behind Sarco - have insisted that its first user voluntarily entered the pod and pushed a button to fill the chamber with nitrogen, triggering her own death.

The Sarco death pod was invented by Philip Nitschke, who had lost his medical license in Australia. The 64-year-old American woman who died in the Sarco pod that was organized by The Last Resort Swiss assisted suicide group that is led by Florian Willett, a former spokesperson for the euthanasia group Dignitas and Fiona Stewart, the wife of Philip Nitschke.

My key reasons for opposing assisted dying (euthanasia and assisted suicide) Part II:

Patients overwhelmingly refuse the option of assisted death.

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In an earlier post on this blog I began a list of key reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide (Part 1). I started with the social importance of maintaining a categorical prohibition of homicide.

Our adversaries predictably respond to such arguments with their own primary claim: that an exception must nevertheless be made because the people directly concerned truly wish to die.

I believe we may ourselves emphatically reply to this claim with one word: NO. 

That leads us to my Key reason #2: People eligible for Assisted Death (meaning euthanasia in Canada and assisted suicide in US) do NOT typically wish to die, nor will they typically consent to die in that fashion.

To be more precise and according to present clinical observations: at least NINETY PERCENT of all patients eligible for assisted death DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT to that procedure REGARDLESS OF MEDICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

(N.B. Such a bold claim of fact obviously demands clear proof, and I am pleased to present that proof in the concluding section of this commentary. To preserve a fluid narrative, however, I will first jump to the practical significance of these facts, in argument and in practice.)

What does it mean for euthanasia that (statistically speaking) people don't want to die that way?

Prior to widespread legalization of assisted death, all debate was wrapped in theory and conjecture. But as hinted above, that is no longer true. From a scientific perspective we must now concede that the hypothetical identification of a natural death-wish among certain patient populations has been rigorously tested, by an extended period of experimental legalization which has conclusively refuted that hypothesis.

Considered from a majority perspective therefore: the science (as they say) would unambiguously counsel us to stop this failed experiment and repeal all euthanasia-enabling legislation at once.

None of this, to be sure, should be taken to imply that the euthanasia phenomenon is actually too small to be of consequence. Not at all. Over 15,000 people died of euthanasia in Canada in 2023. That is an astounding number of medical homicides. And yet there is an equally important difference between the absolute size of a number and its proportional meaning in context.

It is only suggested here, that a proportional request rate of 1 in 10 eligible patients (even if entirely voluntary) cannot possibly justify the prioritization of assisted death which we observe today. Indeed, there is something deeply sinister (with far reaching political implications) about imposing this utilitarian medical agenda under a justification by personal choice, but against the clearly demonstrated collective will of those concerned.

(Our adversaries, of course, will surely retort that minority desire, also, deserves expression and respect.)

The proper place (if any) for a minority accommodation of assisted death.

In the modern policy lexicon we find a very interesting concept of "centering" which speaks to the wisdom of appropriately prioritizing minority interests in the public sphere. The centering of a marginal suicidal patient death-wish, however, has nothing in common with such positive examples of minority empowerment as the centering of disabled accessibility requirements in public buildings. Nor can the majority cost of this policy be discounted as a mere passing irritation, born of novelty. The Majority of patients interest and safety are severely compromised by the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. There is no legitimate minority claim, therefore, for the centering of assisted death.

Unfortunately, however, the often irrational theater of political compromise (particularly in the face of of actual legalization) has made the frank rejection of assisted suicide, and euthanasia, impossible in many jurisdictions at this time.

It thus becomes imperative to insist on a coherent political understanding of the simple quantitative facts presented here. Typical patients, of the vast non-suicidal majority, should always be served (by default) in Assisted Death-free institutions, by physicians and nurses who can be trusted never to suggest or to collaborate with assisted death in any form.

Only outside of this secure clinical environment might any minority accommodation ever be contemplated, and always limited to a scale which is proportional to real observed demand

The facts and nothing but the facts: demonstrating the marginal presence of patient death-wish

Euthanasia has been practised in the Netherlands and Belgium for over 20 years. It has been practised in the Canadian Province of Quebec for 9 years, and in the whole of that country for a little more than 8 years. We therefore possess an excellent body of data to inform us of the real popular response to assisted death.

We are not talking, here, about democratic support for the hypothetical freedom to choose. We are rather talking about the real instance of choices actually made. For it is to that measure that real policy should coherently respond.

A quick indication of the popularity of assisted death (in any given jurisdiction) may be found in the rate of AD to total deaths. By this measure, the Netherlands and Canada are the most prolific countries in the world having rates of 5.3% and 4.6% respectively. This means that roughly 95% of people (one way or the other) still die a natural death. However, we can't say that all of those people have refused euthanasia, because there are accidental and sudden deaths where that choice is not possible.

In the interests of fairness, therefore, let us examine that category in which the choice of euthanasia is most popular of all, which unsurprisingly concerns the terrifying prospect of terminal cancer. Indeed, on average, for our two countries, cancer causes only 28% of all deaths but results in no less than 60% of all euthanasia. Most interesting, however, is the observation that among all patients in this extreme category, in those two countries possessing the highest acceptance of euthanasia (and where all terminal cancer patients are systematically informed of that option) only 1 in 10 will choose, or consent, to die in that manner.[i]

Hence we are rigorously correct in concluding that the highest participation rate ever recorded, in any medical circumstance, in any jurisdiction --after nearly a quarter century of trial-- is no more than 10%.

To recapitulate

1. The demand for assisted death is a marginal phenomenon arising among a small minority of patients;

2. Considering the proportion of those eligible individuals actually requesting this death it can (and should) be vigorously argued that no practice of assisted death, whatsoever, is reasonably justified;

3. In the real world of political compromise (where assisted death has already been legalized) it must be our task to lobby for the limitation of that practice to a marginal accommodation only, commensurate with the small minority who really desire it.

Above all: we must use these facts to defend our collective interest in maintaining a medical "safe spaces" which is safe for the non-suicidal majority, and thus to reject policies which would threaten that safety by artificially centering objectively marginal suicidal desires.

[i] Note on Canadian and Dutch cancer euthanasia as a fraction of all cancer deaths:

• Canada total deaths: 330,380 total deaths (Link)
• Canada euthanasia deaths: 15,280 (Link)
• Canada total cancer deaths 86,700 Cancer fraction of all deaths .26 (Link)
• Canada euthanasia fraction of all deaths .046 Cancer deaths fraction of all euthanasia deaths .63 (Link) 
• Canada cancer euthanasia fraction of all deaths (.046 x .63) .029 
• Canada euthanasia fraction of all cancer deaths (.029/.26) .11
  

• Netherlands total deaths 170,100 (Link)
• Netherlands total cancer deaths (2022) 49,790 (Link)
• Netherlands (2023) total euthanasia deaths 9068; cancer euthanasia deaths 5105; (Netherlands euthanasia reports)
• Netherlands cancer fraction of total deaths: (49,790/ 170,100) .29
• Netherlands euthanasia fraction of total deaths: (9068/ 170,100) .053
• Netherlands cancer deaths fraction of total euthanasia deaths: (5105/ 9068) .56 
• Netherlands cancer euthanasia deaths fraction of all deaths (.56 x .053) .03
• Netherlands cancer euthanasia deaths fraction of all cancer deaths (.03/.29) .10
  

Ontario MAiD Death Review stories. Do you have a (MAiD) death story?

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death?

Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario?
Why has there been no medical license suspensions? 

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The recent Ontario MAiD Death Review that released by the Chief Coroner of Ontario in conjunction with the Review Committee outlines several Ontario euthanasia stories.

According to the Review Committee, these euthanasia stories were not the only stories but they were representative of concerns with the euthanasia deaths in Ontario.

The purpose of this article is to outline the stories in the Ontario MAiD Death Review report and help other people with their concerning euthanasia cases.

Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee report.

Case 1: Complex Medical Condition

Mr. A was a male in his late 40s who experienced suffering and functional decline following three vaccinations for SARS-Cov-2. He received multiple expert consultations, with extensive clinical testing completed without determinate diagnostic results. Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed. He had a significant mental health history, including depression and trauma experiences. While navigating his physical symptoms, Mr. A was admitted to hospital with intrusive thoughts of dying. Psychiatrists presented concerns of an adjustment disorder, depression with possible psychotic symptoms, and illness anxiety/somatic symptom disorder. During a second occurrence of suicidal ideation, Mr. A was involuntarily hospitalized. During this hospitalization, post-traumatic stress disorder was thought to be significantly contributing to his symptoms. He received inpatient psychiatric treatment and care through a specialist team. He was also diagnosed with cluster B and C personality traits.

The MAiD assessors opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

No pathological findings were found at the time of post-mortem examination. The cause of death following post-mortem examination was provided as post COVID-19 vaccination somatic symptom disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder.

In this case the person who died by euthanasia had no pathological findings that were found at the time of post-mortem examination. In other words he was otherwise healthy. Whether his health issues were related to psychological issues or some other health concern, Mr. A was killed without having a known medical condition.

Case 2: Concurrent Mental Illnesses

Mr. B was a male in his late 40s. He was diagnosed with longstanding severe gastric and duodenal ulcers with unknown etiology. Mr. B concurrently presented with multiple mental illnesses, namely depression, anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder, and bipolar mood disorder type 2. He had chronic suicidal ideations.

A year prior to the provision of MAiD, Mr. B attempted suicide with a descent from a height. He experienced polytrauma and required extensive medical and surgical management and rehabilitation. Psychiatry was involved in the MAiD assessment process. Mr. B was deemed by psychiatry to be capable of participating in the MAiD process, and the suicide attempt was determined to be a reflection of profound existential suffering. A psychiatrist determined that neither psychiatric illness nor suicidal ideations were facilitating the request for MAiD.

Mr. B may be experiencing suicidal ideation and yet psychiatry found him capable of participating in MAiD and determined that his previous suicide attempt and existential suffering were not leading him to ask for death by MAiD. Since a person with psychiatric concerns can die by euthanasia, in Canada, if they have another health condition, this case shows how it is impossible to determine whether the psychiatric condition is driving the request to die, or not.

Case 3: Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder

Mr. C was an older male in his 80s, who experienced chronic back pain (15 years) due to spinal stenosis and post-surgical adhesive arachnoiditis. He was followed by a specialist pain clinic. Mr. C was also diagnosed by a psychiatrist with an adjustment disorder leading up to his request for MAiD. He declined further pharmacological interventions for same. The psychiatrist determined that this approach was in-keeping with an informed decision. Mr. C’s adjustment disorder was mainly influenced by irremediable chronic pain, and less likely to be responsive to pharmacologic intervention.

Mr. C needed support related to his adjustment disorder and he required relief from chronic pain. Some members of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee suggested that a 90-day waiting period was insufficient in this case because Mr. C needed a time to adjust to his condition. Mr. C did not need to be killed.

Case 4: Social Vulnerability

Mr. A was a male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. He received extensive treatment for this illness. It was reported that partly due to the course of his illness, Mr. A did not have an active social network: he could not maintain employment, he found personal relationships difficult to sustain, and he was dependent on family for housing and financial support. As a result, Mr. A lived with reduced social supports. He had declined multiple social support programs and psychosocial services.

Mr. A had a history of mental illness, previous episodes of suicidality, and on-going alcohol and opioid misuse. He lost his driver’s license secondary to his addictions. During a psychiatry assessment, the psychiatrist asked him if he was aware of MAiD and presented information on the option. While Mr. A was believed to have maintained decisional capability, his substance use was not explored in the MAiD assessments, and he was not offered addiction treatments.

During the MAiD process, there was no documented input from Mr. A’s family, nor a statement about why there was no engagement with family. The MAiD provider documented that the family had concerns about his request for MAiD.

The MAiD provider personally transported Mr. A in their vehicle to an external location for the provision of MAiD.

The MAiD Death Review Committee expressed concerns related to Mr. A and his lack of social connections, his family not supporting the death decision and his addiction and mental health problems.

Mr. A was killed without being offered an alternative to live. Even the fact that the MAiD provider gave Mr. A a ride to his death opens the question as to whether Mr. A was killed due to his request or based on the MAiD providers convictions.

Case 5: Housing Vulnerability

Ms. B was a female in her 50s with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCSS). She had a history of psychiatric hospital care for depression, anxiety, suicidality, and post-traumatic stress disorder, related to childhood trauma.

Ms. B had difficulty securing housing that met her medical needs. After years of attempts to secure appropriate housing, the Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling to allocate funds to renovate her apartment. These renovations did not satisfactorily address her MCSS symptoms. A remaining option presented was to live in a small hypoallergenic space (i.e., a bubble). As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCSS, Ms. B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD.

It is safe to conclude that Ms. B is dead because she was not provided suitable housing. Housing is a serious problem in Ontario but in this case the lack of affordable suitable housing resulted in the death of Ms. B.

Case 6: Disability

Mr. C was a male in his 40s living with quadriplegia following a motor vehicle collision. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to vulnerability in his medical journey (e.g., social isolation). Mr. C received rehabilitation without physical or functional gains. Due to his complex medical conditions, returning home with supports was not feasible.

The MAiD assessors considered his death non-reasonably foreseeable, thereby proceeding with Track 2 safeguards. However, one of the MAiD assessors considered the 90-day assessment period to be a “waiting period” and documented the possibility of “reducing the timeline should his natural death become reasonably foreseeable” (e.g., untreated septicemia).

Mr. C was separated from his family while receiving on-going complex continuing care. He was distressed about perceived limits of maintaining an ongoing relationship with his young children. Mr. C was a member of a racialized and religious community, with associated challenges with acceptance of MAiD.

Mr. C is the prime example on how one's disability can lead to their death by euthanasia. Mr. C needed an adjustment period to come to accept his new life with a disability. It is normal for an able-bodied person to grieve and feel that their life lacks meaning and hope after a serious accident that led to a serious disability.

Further to that Mr. C was living with social isolation since he was now separated from his family. If care-givers provided him the opportunity to re-intergrate into his family/home and/or provided a positive peer support to encourage him to adjust to his disability, then he would likely be alive today.

Mr. C. didn't need death, he needed an opportunity to live.

It is important to restate that the six cases that were outlined in the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee Report were representative of cases, not the only cases. 

These cases were based on six areas of concern: Complex Medical Condition, Concurrent Mental Illnesses, Chronic Pain & Adjustment Disorder, Social Vulnerability, Housing Vulnerability, Disability.

Some of these themes were present within more than one of the cases, especially concerns around disability, mental health (psychiatric conditions) and social vulnerability.

The greatest question related to these cases is: Why has there been no attempted prosecutions in Ontario and/or why has there been no medical license suspensions?

These cases have been discussed after the person died. Clearly there is a problem with the death approval system. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because these acts result in the killing of a person. The current approval system enables two doctors or nurse practitioners to approve a death and carry out the killing. There is no committee or “third-party” to ensure that there is effective oversight before a person is killed. You can’t bring any of the 6 people featured in these case back from the dead.

Do you have a story about a euthanasia (MAiD) death? Sharing your story may help prevent other deaths by euthanasia or at least create awareness to alert other families.

To share your story, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1). 

Canadian government will discuss euthanasia by advanced request.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian government website - Medical Assistance in Dying: National conversation on advanced requests (Link).

The Canadian government will launch a consultation on expanding Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law to permit euthanasia by advanced request. 

David Baxter reported for the Associated Press on October 28 that Canada's Health Minister, Mark Holland, made the announcement on October 28.

Baxter explained that the Québec government announced that, starting on October 30, they will permit advanced requests for euthanasia to enable people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease to request euthanasia while the person is still competent. Euthanasia by advanced request is not permitted in Canada's euthanasia law.

Health Minister Mark Holland

Baxter reported Holland as stating:

“What we’re saying very clearly is that this is an incredibly difficult issue, that we need to take the time to have a national conversation that includes our provincial and territorial colleagues, that where these lines are drawn and whether or not the system is ready is a very important step,” Holland said at a press conference on Parliament Hill on Monday.

“This continues to be illegal in this country, that if you act on an advance request, the Criminal Code is very clear that that is not legal.”

The Quebéc government announced on September 7 that they had asked the provincial Crown prosecutor’s office to not pursue charges against doctors as long as they comply with the provincial law. Euthanasia by advanced request changes the requirement of consent.

Canada's euthanasia law requires that a person be capable of consenting to euthanasia when the doctors or nurse practitioners approve the death. The Québec government will enable someone to state, in advance, their wish to die and then it would be legally carried out at a later date, even if the person has become incompetent.

Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia.

"A lack of proper care and inadequate safeguards are driving some Canadians with disabilities to choose assisted death."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho was published by the Globe and Mail on October 28.

Coelho is a family physician whose practice serves marginalized persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. Coelho is also a member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review committee that recently released it's report outlining the experience in Ontario with legalized euthanasia.

Coelho states in her article in the Globe and Mail:

A lack of proper care and inadequate safeguards are driving some Canadians with disabilities to choose assisted death. This is just one of the disturbing findings revealed by a report released earlier this month by the MAID Death Review Committee, which was launched in January by the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

As a member of the committee, I am dismayed to confirm the validity of repeated warnings from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) that some Canadians with disabilities are opting for medical assistance in dying because they lack access to essential supports and health services.

The MDRC report also underscores a troubling trend: some MAID providers may end the lives of Canadians with disabilities without fully exploring other care options, considering the effects of non-medical factors influencing requests for death, or questioning whether MAID should even be an option. The law must change to prevent these needless deaths.

The federal government legalized MAID in 2016 as a last resort for suffering individuals facing a “reasonably foreseeable death,” now called “track one″ deaths. It expanded that in 2021 to include Canadians with disabilities who are not dying but are “suffering intolerably” and “in an advanced state of irreversible decline of capability,” or “track two″ deaths. Of the 4,644 MAID deaths recorded in 2023, 116 were track two.

We found that track-two patients tend to come from a younger cohort, with the majority falling between ages 18 and 59. Alarmingly, out of all 116 such deaths, 61 per cent were female. Research shows that twice as many women attempt suicide, but then benefit from suicide prevention and do not reattempt. Individuals who chose a track-two death were also more likely to reside in areas with higher levels of marginalization.

Worryingly, the report also suggests that MAID recipients lacked adequate mental health and disability supports before ending their lives. Only 8.6 per cent of Canadians who chose track-two deaths were first offered housing support, and 6 per cent were offered income support.

The case reviews are telling. In one situation, a man with inflammatory bowel disease was informed about MAID – an example of potential undue influence. Although the man also struggled with untreated addictions, social isolation, and mental health issues, those appear to have been largely overlooked, as were his family’s concerns. In another case, a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities opted for MAID due to suffering caused by isolation and her housing situation.

As a physician serving marginalized patients for 17 years, I have seen how a lack of care, discrimination and social isolation can deepen despair. In contrast, supportive care can ease wishes for death and lead to healing – even if it requires significant effort and time.

The vague language used in MAID legislation only exacerbates the situation. Terms like “reasonably foreseeable death,” “intolerable suffering,” and “irreversible decline” remain largely ambiguous, making their use as eligibility criteria worrisome. Patients are legally entitled to refuse treatment options (they can decline, or services might simply be inaccessible) before opting to end their lives, but clinicians only need to inform patients that treatments exist; they do not have to provide access to treatments and social support. These factors highlight the risk of abuse in the process.

Medicine has developed standards of care designed to protect patients, and these standards should apply equally to MAID. To suggest that eligibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as expansionists have repeatedly argued, is an irresponsible approach. In Canada, some doctors have deemed patients eligible for MAID due to suffering exacerbated by long wait times for care. Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers is offering clinicians guidance on how to convert track-two MAID requests into track-one cases, facilitating a quicker MAID death.

But since health conditions can improve and suffering can be alleviated through care and support, it is crucial to emphasize the need for better care and to address issues like housing, addictions, and palliative care for those in terminal situations.

By offering Canadians with disability easy access to MAID, physicians are reinforcing ableism – the belief that disabled lives are less valuable. Many in the disability community strongly opposed MAID’s legalization – including a coalition of disability groups that has launched a Charter challenge against track-two deaths, alleging that MAID for people with disabilities violates their equality and security rights – but Ottawa has largely dismissed their concerns.

Moving forward, we must actively listen to the disability community in these conversations. It’s a matter of life or death.

The Ontario MAiD Death Review report has three parts (Part 3) (Part 2) (Part 1). 

The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law, admits abuse of the law

"In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Cameron Henderson reported for The Telegraph on October 26 that the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) admits that Canada's euthanasia is being abused. It was the BCCLA that carried the Carter case that legalized euthanasia in Canada to the Supreme Court. According to Henderson:

Assisted dying is being abused in Canada with doctors coercing patients into ending their lives, members of the group who helped to legalise it have admitted.

Henderson reports that:

The Telegraph can now reveal that members of the British Columbia Civil liberties Association (BCCLA), the group that spearheaded efforts to legalise assisted dying, have privately raised fears the practice is being “abused”.

Staff members also fear disabled people in Canada are being coerced by doctors into choosing to end their lives.

Henderson's report is published one week after the Chief Coroner of Ontario pubished a review of Ontario's experience with euthanasia which indicated that:

those on lower incomes who were offered the scheme were more likely to opt for it.

Henderson uncovers the information from a leaked footage from a video call last year between BCCLA staff and a Canadian disabled patients’ group.

In the footage a BCCLA employee admits that:

“we are seeing MAiD being abused”.

Henderson further reports that:

In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss.

On the same call, it was claimed some medical colleges in Canada had been advising against referring to MAiD on patients’ long-form death certificates, in a move which could distort the true numbers of people using it.

Some BCCLA staff members feel very uncomfortable with Canada's euthanasia law. Henderson writes:

One staff member admitted feeling “very uncomfortable” about the group’s previous campaigning on assisted suicide.

Speaking on the call, one of the two current BCCLA employees said: “It is the social and material aspect of [patients] disability and how that isn’t supported and how that’s treated in the community that’s creating intolerable conditions.

“In my view, that’s not proper,” they said, adding that healthcare providers should not raise the subject of MAiD with patients as “it’s far too easy for that to become coercive”.

In a separate voicemail message shared with The Telegraph, another alleged employee voiced regret about the campaigning group’s past agenda and spoke of trying to formulate a new policy that “distances the BCCLA from its past work”.

Henderson reports that the Joseph Arvay, for the BCCLA, argued before the courts in the Carter case that:

the risk of people unnecessarily ending their lives through an assisted dying scheme was negligible.

The euthanasia review from the Chief Coroner of Ontario of the euthanasia law was published last week. Henderson reports:

Yet fast-forward eight years, and the first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, revealed last week by The Telegraph, found vulnerable people faced “potential coercion” and “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

According to the data, disproportionate numbers of people who ended their lives through assisted dying when they were not terminally ill – 29 per cent – came from Ontario’s poorest areas.

That compares with 20 per cent of the province’s general population living in the most deprived communities.

The Telegraph is reporting on Canada's experience with euthanasia as the UK parliament is scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize assisted suicide on November 29.

BC Judge grants a 30 day injunction preventing euthanasia death.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Similar to the WV / MV case in Calgary where a father was granted an injunction in the euthanasia approval of his 27-year-old autistic daughter because he claimed that his daughter didn't have an irremediable medical condition. In this case the woman's husband sought an injunction claiming that his wife does not have an irremediable medical condition.

More information will be provided as soon as it is available.

The Assisted Suicide Bait and Switch

This article was published by the National Review on October 27.

By Philip Reed

Advocates of so-called medical aid in dying promote a waiting-period safeguard, which they work to jettison once assisted suicide has been made legal.

One could be forgiven for not knowing that assisted-suicide legislation is progressing across the United States. Supporters of assisted suicide mask their effort with euphemism and obfuscation, most notably by denying that a doctor who prescribes life-ending drugs to help patients intentionally end their lives assists suicide. Suicide, it’s often said, is an impulsive act; “medical aid in dying,” on the other hand, is undertaken rationally and only after careful consideration.

Yet the recent trend of reducing or eliminating waiting periods for assisted suicide belies that claim and reveals it as a bait and switch.

In the popular imagination, suicide is an impulsive act: Desperate individuals who feel trapped by their circumstances unthinkingly take their own lives because they see it as the only way out of adverse circumstances. While it can sometimes include planning, many believe the person who commits suicide does so rashly while overwhelmed by stress or suffering acute mental or physical pain.

Assisted-suicide legislation originally insulated “aid in dying” against that kind of impulsivity by mandating waiting periods. Advocates believed they could persuade the public that the practice was different from suicide in part because the law required enough time to prevent careless and impulsive choices. Terminally ill individuals who wanted to end their lives had to make a request, wait at least 15 days, and then make a second request. Waiting periods were sold as a safeguard; individuals could not choose to bring about their deaths on a whim and without sufficient consideration of alternatives.

But now that “aid in dying” is up and running in ten U.S. states, waiting periods are being recklessly abandoned. Oregon, the first state to allow legal access to life-ending drugs, amended its legislation in 2020 to allow individuals to waive the waiting period if the doctor believed that the patient could not survive long enough to ingest the drugs. Other states have been more brazen, simply shortening their waiting periods to seven days (Colorado), five days (Hawaii), or as little as 48 hours (California).

Of the states that mandated at least a 15-day waiting period in their assisted-suicide legislation, that safeguard has either been reduced or limited or could be limited in pending legislation in every state except Maine.

Indeed, legislative efforts are souring on the idea of significant waiting periods altogether. When New Mexico passed its assisted-suicide legislation in 2022, it became the first state to abandon a meaningful waiting period from the start, opting for a trivial 48-hour waiting period that could be waived. Assisted-suicide legislation introduced in 2024 in Iowa and New Hampshire followed New Mexico’s lead. Similar legislation introduced in New York and Minnesota omitted waiting periods entirely. This free fall toward death on demand mirrors the situation in Canada, which in 2021 also abandoned its ten-day waiting period for terminally ill patients.

The trend to eliminate waiting periods is motivated by a push to expand access to assisted suicide. After California shortened its waiting period in 2021 from 15 days to 48 hours, it subsequently saw a 47 percent increase in lethal prescriptions. The waiting period, once seen as a safeguard that would protect patients from rash decision-making, is now seen as a barrier to so-called standard and essential medical care. Waiting periods were once a necessary way of making assisted suicide an option of last resort. Their swift erosion shows how death as a treatment option becomes a simple and immediate solution for terminal patients and their doctors.

The playbook was predictable from a mile away: Insist that patients ingesting fatal drugs isn’t suicide because impulsive decisions are prohibited by law; leave aside the inconvenient truth that suicides are not actually regularly impulsive; then, once “aid in dying” language takes hold in the public consciousness, the alleged difference from suicide can simply be discarded altogether as a matter of denying patients what they need and want.

What is not being asked, however, is how patients are protected by the abandonment of waiting periods for assisted suicide. Why do we need to extend dying patients the option of suicide if their deaths are imminent? And, more important, how can we be sure these decisions are being made with sufficient thoughtfulness, care, and consideration of all options?

Supporters will say that we need to abandon waiting periods at least in certain situations because patients are so sick that they can die before being able to take life-ending drugs. What they don’t explain is why death needs to come by the patient’s so-called choice and the doctor’s assistance. The idea that suicide is chosen to prevent unbearable physical suffering at the end of life is mostly contradicted by the data. Assisted-suicide proponents also neglect to mention that dying patients often experience moments of lucidity and energy, as well as positive deathbed visions, just before they die.

The original instinct for waiting periods was right. If we’re going to make death a treatment option, we’d better be sure that people are not choosing it out of desperation and rashness. If we’re going to introduce intentional killing into professional medicine, we need to give people time before making an irreversible and fatal decision.

The now almost universal abandonment of waiting periods suggests that these reasonable considerations were never part of the motivation to legalize assisted suicide in the first place. Instead, they were temporary measures to sell the public on a controversial and risky policy that could be discarded with less outcry once people become acclimated to it as a medical option.

The erosion of waiting periods is not the only safeguard being abandoned in the push to legalize assisted suicide but is particularly revealing about the progressing culture of death. Assisted suicide is not different and was never expected to be different from other cases of suicide. Advocates now argue, unsurprisingly, that we can’t make people wait for “aid in dying,” an often ill-considered act masquerading as legitimate medical care.

Irish columnist changes his mind and now opposes euthanasia.

“What’s happened under the MAID programme in Canada is everything the anti-euthanasia brigade used to warn me about in debates,”

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Ian O'Doherty

The Irish parliament (Dáil Éireann) recently voted 76 - 53 to accept a report of an Oireachtas Committee that recommended the legalization of assisted suicide in Ireland.

Ian O'Doherty, who is a columnist for Mediahuis Ireland covering the Irish Independent and Sunday Independent has went from strongly supporting euthanasia to completely opposing euthanasia.

James Wilson published an interview on newstalk with Ian O'Doherty from Lunchtime live on October 24 concerning the legalization of euthanasia. As stated earlier, O'Doherty has changed his position on the issue.

O'Doherty told Wilson that he supported euthanasia when Diane Pretty, who had Motor Neuron Disease, sued the British government to overturn the law preventing assisted suicide. But since he has changed his mind. 

O'Doherty tells Wilson:

“There was a case in Belgium involving twins - the Verbessem twins,” he said.

“They weren’t terminally ill but they were deaf and they were going blind - they were suffering from macular degeneration.

“They decided that they wanted to get euthanised together.”

Although the twins’ family were against it, the pair went ahead and died together.

“I just thought that was wrong,” 

“They weren’t dying.”

O'Doherty then speaks about Canada:

In 2016, Canada legalised euthanasia and five-years later it broadened the eligibility to include people with incurable conditions.

The Medical Assistance in Dying or ‘MAID’ programme is something that has given Mr O'Doherty pause for thought.

In particular, he heard of a man with a severe disability who requested euthanasia because he was about to become homeless.

“What’s happened under the MAID programme in Canada is everything the anti-euthanasia brigade used to warn me about in debates,” he said.

“I would dismiss their warnings as being ‘scaremongering’ when they talk about the slippery slope.”

O'Doherty has been reporting on the issue of euthanasia for a long time. We hope that his knowledge and experience will help others understand why euthanasia, if legalized, cannot be controlled.