Why we need to kill the UK assisted dying bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill has written some excellent articles opposing assisted suicide. His latest article was published by Spiked on December 30, 2024 explaining the direction of the assisted suicide lobby and the need to kill the UK assisted suicide bill. Yuill wrote:

This past year has exposed the moral bankruptcy of the ‘assisted dying’ lobby. Dignity in Dying placed ads on the London Underground that gleefully celebrated people taking their own lives. Times columnist Matthew Parris called for legalising assisted suicide in order to cull the elderly. We witnessed the unveiling of the dystopian Sarco ‘suicide pod’. There can now be no doubt: far from being built on compassion, the ‘assisted dying’ movement is built on a blatant disregard for human life.

The low point of this year arrived in November, with the parliamentary vote on legalising assisted suicide in England and Wales. After having fewer than three weeks to consider Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and fewer than five hours to debate it, MPs voted by 330 to 275 in favour of it.

This vote was the culmination of years of emotionally manipulative propaganda, dominated by assisted-suicide lobby groups like Dignity in Dying. The issue of ‘assisted dying’, as proponents euphemistically call it, was brought back to the centre of political discussion late last year, when former TV presenter Esther Rantzen revealed that she was suffering from terminal lung cancer and might ‘buzz off’ to Dignitas in Switzerland. She called for a change in the law, complaining that, as it stands, police could prosecute her loved ones if they accompany her.

Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition, was quick to agree with Rantzen. ‘I am an advocate to change the law’, he said. He went on to promise Rantzen that, should Labour win the upcoming General Election, he would give MPs a free vote on legalising ‘assisted dying’. Once Labour got into power in July, Starmer made good on that promise. In October, Leadbeater, Labour MP for Spen Valley, introduced her assisted-dying private members’ bill to parliament.

Starmer’s office successfully convinced many of the 231 new Labour MPs that this vote was simply about the principle, rather than the bill itself. They were reassured that there would be a chance to vote again on the details of the bill, which even some assisted-suicide advocates acknowledged had been poorly drafted.

Now, Leadbeater is handpicking a committee to consider amendments to the legislation. Unsurprisingly, this committee noticeably lacks critics of assisted suicide, or indeed MPs with medical training. So we shouldn’t put much stock in its ability to smooth out the bill’s many loopholes – such as potentially allowing anorexics and people with Type 1 diabetes to access assisted suicide, despite Leadbeater’s reassurances to the contrary.

The notion that assisted suicide has widespread public support is also misleading. Polls show that while most people back ‘assisted dying’ in principle, they have little understanding of what it entails in practice. The ‘assisted dying’ campaigners’ linguistic games, aimed at disguising the fact that they are advocating for state-sanctioned suicide, appear to have paid off. One poll conducted ahead of the vote in parliament found that 10 per cent of Brits thought ‘assisted dying’ meant access to hospice care. Forty-two per cent thought it meant the right to stop medical treatment, which is already legal. When people were informed that ‘assisted dying’ means helping people to kill themselves, support plummeted to just 11 per cent.

We need only to look to Canada to see what disasters await the UK, should Leadbeater’s bill become law. This year, Canada released its fifth annual report on its medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme, which has been in place since 2016. In that time, 60,301 Canadians received either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Last year, the number of total MAID procedures was more than 15 per cent higher than the year before. Euthanasia now accounts for nearly one in 20 deaths in Canada. Half of those who die at the hands of MAID are aged under 75.

Plenty of stories came out of Canada this year that showed the inevitable horrors that legalising assisted dying creates. In one case that came to court, a father desperately tried to stop the assisted death of his 27-year-old daughter, who, despite being diagnosed with ADHD and autism, was otherwise physically healthy as far as he knew. Tragically, many more such stories are bound to follow when, in 2027, the criteria for MAID will expand to include those suffering solely from mental illness. Despite Leadbeater’s claims that her bill will contain plenty of ‘safeguards’ to stop UK law expanding to these levels, anyone who has been paying attention to places like Canada knows that the slippery slope is very real.

You can also look to the Netherlands, where assisted suicide has been legal since 2002. This year, there was a spate of Dutch cases in which physically healthy people were euthanised. Twenty-nine-year-old Zoraya ter Beek and 35-year-old Jolanda Fun were both killed because they suffered from severe depression.

Leadbeater would have us believe that such a situation is impossible in the UK. Earlier this year, she claimed that ‘wherever [an assisted-dying] law has been introduced… and it’s got strict, limited criteria and proper safeguards and protections, it hasn’t been widened’. This is demonstrably untrue. There is not a single jurisdiction in which assisted suicide has been legalised where the eligibility criteria have not been relaxed or expanded. We have no reason to believe that the UK would be the exception to this rule.

Despite the depressing news on assisted suicide, there are still rays of light. That 275 MPs voted against the bill is in many ways incredible, given the political pressure exerted by Starmer and his large majority. Meanwhile, among the general public, polling shows that most Brits have their doubts about ‘assisted dying’.

In 2025, the debate must continue. And this time, it must be centred on facts, thoughtfulness and human dignity.

Kevin Yuill taught American studies at the University of Sunderland. His book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Previous articles by Kevin Yuill:

• Ten myths about assisted suicide (Link).
• The dystopian horror of the Sarco Suicide pod (Link).
• No safe way to legalize euthanasia (Link).
• Why are Dutch doctors euthanizing young healthy women? (Link).
• UK Labour Party leader is wrong about assisted suicide (Link).

Once euthanasia is legal, the expansion of the act is inevitable.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Politico published a pro-euthanasia article by Claudia Chiappa and Lucia Mackenzie on December 29, 2024. Chiappa and Mackenzie are suggesting that the legalization of euthanasia is inevitable but when they interview Theo Boer, a former member of a Netherlands euthanasia review committee he actually tells them that the expansion of euthanasia, once legal is inevitable. Boer states:

"I have seen no jurisdiction in which the practice has not expanded, not one single jurisdiction,"

"By imposing really strict criteria we can slow down the expansion … but they will not prevent the expansion."

Chiappa and Mackenzie publish some of the Netherlands euthanasia statistics:

In several of the countries that have legalized assisted dying, the number of people using it to end their lives is increasing. In 2023, 9,068 people died from assisted dying in the Netherlands — 5.4 percent of deaths that year. This is up 4 percent compared with 2022 and up 87 percent from 2013.

Professor Theo Boer

Boer comments on why euthanasia continues to increase in the Netherlands:

"What I saw was not only the increase in the numbers — which for me was a sign that it was no longer the last exception, the last resort — but it became more and more a default way to die," said Boer. "In addition to the numbers, we saw an expansion of the pathologies underlying euthanasia requests."

Boer had initially supported the Dutch euthanasia law and was a member of the Dutch euthanasia review committee. But he has since become an outspoken critic of this law and has warned other governments debating similar bills of the possible "side effects."

We have seen the same outcome in Canada, even though Canada has had a shorter experience with euthanasia than the Netherlands. It is not only the number of deaths but also the number of conditions that are approved for being killed that expands once euthanasia is legal.

I do not believe that legalizing euthanasia is inevitable but experience confirms that once killing people by euthanasia is legal that the expansion of the killing is inevitable.

This blog rarely publishes anonymous comments and never publishes inappropriate ones

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Many people leave comments on the blog that we do not publish. This blog is moderated by myself and I will rarely publish comments that are made Anonymously. 

I made this decision after receiving attacking or rude comments from people. Often these attacks were made without the person placing their name with the comment.

I do not publish comments that contain illegal or inappropriate comments. [The death lobby often attempts to publish lethal drug ordering information on an EPC blog article.]

I have received excellent comments from readers and followers of this blog that I did not publish because the person did not post their name with the comment.

Whether the comment is instructive or destructive, I will rarely publish an anonymous comment.

Sharing Christmas among cultures.

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

It's the eve of my favorite holiday, Christmas. Hence, this blog post will probably be seen after Christmas, but for some people the Christmas season extends way out into Candlemas on February 2nd and I am one of those people. And, of course, Kwanzaa will happen after Christmas Day, and we still have New Years to celebrate, so the holiday season is not over yet. 

For those of us for whom Christmas has religious significance, I think we can recognize a link between the influence of Christmas on mainstream culture and the Bible passage from Luke 2:10-11: "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause joy for all people." The angel is referring to the salvific birth of Jesus, but I think it is also a powerful statement about love and justice for people of all beliefs, cultural backgrounds and abilities. 

One can also find touching examples of human community in the efforts of people who do not celebrate the Christian aspect of Christmas but find ways to make the holiday season a time of mercy and joy. For instance, there's an online meme containing a picture of a sign by "The Chinese Restaurant Association of the United States" thanking the Jewish community for eating Chinese food on Christmas. The sign reads, "The Chinese Restaurant Association of the United States would like to extend our thanks to the Jewish people. We do not completely understand your dietary customs. But we are proud and grateful that your God insist you eat our food on Christmas." (Snopes assumption is that a Chinese restaurant owner put the sign in their window as a joke.) The bottom of the sign includes the Taoist symbol of the Yin and Yang and the Jewish Star of David. In addition to chuckling when I see it, I see it as a humorous expression of solidarity between people from minority groups, and a friendly holiday message to all people that "hey, we're all making our way through this world together."

I find myself feeling moved by the story of Muslim restaurant owners in London who offered free Christmas meals to the elderly and homeless in 2016. "No one eats alone," the sign advertising a three course Christmas meal read. "We are here to sit with you." The Independent's touching description of the story behind the effort reads as follows: 

Irfant Genc, 20, told the Independent that the idea was born out of an unexpected meeting with the elderly lady who turned up at the Shish Restaurant in Sidcup one cold night. She told staff that the open windows in her home were too high for her to reach and she was too scared to get on a chair to try and close them, he said. 

After she asked them for help, staff made the two minute journey to her home, receiving a hug and thank you after they closed the windows and stopped the cold air drafting in. 

By way of a thank you, the following day, the lady returned to eat at the restaurant. Staff became "emotional" after she admitted she was lonely, Mr. Genc said. 

'She said that she had nothing else to do other than wait for death because her husband died years ago and there was no one to care for her. She said she was going to be alone on Christmas day," he added. "The old lady's story really hit us. No matter what religion we're from or what language we speak, we're here to help each other and support each other on a special day. We don't want anyone to be left out." 

Muslims do not celebrate Christmas, yet the restaurant owners had the compassion in their hearts to put religious differences aside and assist marginalized people for whom Christmas is a special day. I think that's the kind of generosity that should motivate both efforts to oppose assisted suicide and to achieve disability rights in general. Disabled people having an equal opportunity to live is only the foundation of our inclusion in a diverse human community. I think the holidays provide an opportunity to reflect on the importance of people putting our differences and disagreements aside to create a better world where everyone is cared for and loved.

More articles by Meghan Schrader (Articles Link).

2024 was a great year for preventing assisted suicide in America. 2025 will begin with a challenge.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex speaking in West Virginia

On September 20, Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed Assisted Suicide Bill HB 140 (Link to the Statement by Governor Carney).

When Governor Carney vetoed HB 140 he continued the success with no new state having legalized assisted suicide in the past three years.

On November 5, West Virginia votes passed Amendment 1, preventing the legalization of assisted suicide. Amendment 1 passed with a narrow victory with 50.5% voting YES. West Virginia is the first US State to create a constitutional protection from assisted suicide.

Even though 2024 represented one of the most successful years in defeating at least 20 state assisted suicide bills. We will not rest.

2025 is expected to be as busy a year as 2024.

The assisted suicide lobby has already announced the introduction of a 2025 Delaware assisted suicide bill. The new bill will need to be defeated in the House or Senate since Delaware Governor-elect Matt Meyer has expressed support for legalizing assisted suicide.

The New York assisted suicide lobby announced the introduction of their 2025 assisted suicide bill with a planned campaign kick off and lobby day with other scheduled events. New York has faced assisted suicide bills nearly every year since 2016.

The assisted suicide lobby has also prepared a bill for Missouri, which is not likely to pass. In fact we expect to see at least 20 states debate assisted suicide bills in 2025.

Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide has expanded the law.

Colorado, which legalized assisted suicide in 2016, in 2024 passed Senate Bill 24-068 expanding the Colorado assisted suicide law by: allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 7 days, and allowing doctors or advanced practise registered nurse to waive the waiting period if the person is near to death.

The original version of SB 24-068 would have removed the residency requirement for assisted suicide in Colorado. 

We expect that other states will attempt to further expand their laws in 2025.

In 2023 Washington State expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, by reducing the waiting period to 7 days and to force healthcare institutions and hospices to post their assisted suicide policies. 

Washington State has already announced another expansion bill. This bill defines assisted suicide as a "protected healthcare service" and will force healthcare providers to be complicit in promoting assisted suicide. The Washington State bill is part of the assisted suicide lobby's strategy of defining assisted suicide as healthcare and forcing healthcare institutions to provide it as a "service."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicts that assisted suicide will be debated in at least 20 US states, but since Oregon and Vermont removed their residency requirement assisted suicide has also become a national issue.

There is currently a legal challenge by the assisted suicide lobby to force New Jersey to remove it's state assisted suicide residency requirement.

It is possible that the battle to protect people from assisted suicide might move into the federal realm in 2025 since the assisted suicide lobby has removed state barriers to killing.

The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to legalize assisted suicide in more states and to expand the scope of the assisted suicide laws in the states that have legalized it.

The goal of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is to prevent the legalization of assisted suicide in states where it is currently illegal while rolling back the legalization of assisted suicide in states where it is legal.

Canadian woman does not qualify for care but qualifies for euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Marcia Doherty

Marcia Doherty is a Canadian woman who has been approved for euthanasia, but wants to live.

Hannah Sharland reported for the Canary on December 20, 2024 that:

After decades battling severe ME/CFS and systemic lack of support, Marcia Doherty – known online as “Madeline” – is going fully public in a desperate bid to secure her survival and fight for change. It comes amid her being approved for assisted suicide in Canada – something she doesn’t actually want at all.

Sharland explains:

Marcia lives with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS), a debilitating condition often triggered by viruses, which can rival cancer and late-stage AIDS in severity.

It’s a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease which affects nearly every system in the body. As a result, it causes a range of symptoms that hugely impact patients’ daily lives. These typically include influenza-like symptoms, cognitive impairment, multiple forms of pain, and heart, lung, blood pressure, and digestive dysfunctions, among other significantly debilitating symptoms.

In particular, post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark feature of ME. This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion.

At least 25% of people with ME live with severe ME. In these cases, people living with severe ME are mostly, if not entirely permanently bed-bound or hospitalised. On top of this, they are often unable to digest food, communicate, or process information and are fully dependent on others for their care.

Sharland explains that the British Columbia Ministry of Health does not fully recognize ME and therefore leaves people with ME, such as Marcia, without the care and treatment that they need.

Sharland explains that since Canada's euthanasia law was expanded in 2021 to include non-terminal conditions that:

It has led to harrowing stories of chronically ill and disabled people turning to MAiD due to poverty, homelessness, and a lack of quality available healthcare. So naturally, it’s extremely concerning Marcia has been approved for this, while the Canadian healthcare system continues to utterly fail her.

Marcia doesn't qualify for care that she needs but she qualifies to be killed. Marcia has tried to change British Columbia Ministry of Health policies. Sharland reports:

For years, I’ve fought to stay alive and advocate for my community.

Yet over and over I’ve been told there’s no route to adequately help people like me – no human rights recourse, no legal pathway to address the systemic neglect of my illness.

I’ve worked with the medical community, government ministries and legal experts, and been told that coverage for ME is a political decision. Well, political change only happens when there’s public awareness – which is why I’m sharing my story.

The problem with ME not qualifying for care is not limited to British Columbia. Sharland states:

In the past year alone, the Canary has covered the stories of multiple ME patients. In the UK, the NHS has abused, neglected, and sectioned patients like 18-year-old Millie McAinsh and 24-year-old Carla Naoum. From Australia, we spoke to severe ME patient Anna. She is still without support or care to leave an abusive household.

There’s 29-year-old Nevra in Pakistan too. Like Marcia, she has had to fundraise for care – and is currently doing so for urgent endometriosis surgery. Meanwhile, a hospital in New Zealand forced 34-year-old severe ME patient Rhiannon into an ‘aged care facility’ as the government has no provision in place to support her elsewhere.

It’s a disgraceful state of affairs that governments globally are denying ME patients like Marcia the support they need. Moreover, the British Columbian state’s authorisation of an assisted death for Marcia, before funding adequate care, should send alarm bells ringing.

Marcia has been approved for euthanasia but is not approved for the care that she needs.

Marcia has launched a petition calling for better recognition, care, and support for ME.

People can support Marcia’s petition, both in Canada and internationally, and learn about her fight here.

They can also learn more about her story via her video announcement, podcast and YouTube channel, and support her crowdfunding campaign.

Vancouver man dies by euthanasia while on a psychiatric day pass.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brieanna Charlebois reported for the Canadian Press on December 19 that a Vancouver man who was on a psychiatric day pass died by euthanasia at Ellen Wiebe's clinic:

The family of a 52-year-old man who received medical assistance in dying while on a day pass from a Vancouver hospital’s psychiatric ward has launched a constitutional challenge to the procedure’s legal framework.

The case filed in the B.C. Supreme Court says the businessman and father of three, who had chronic back pain and long-term mental illness, suffered wrongful death in December 2022.

This is not the first court case involving Ellen Wiebe, a Vancouver euthanasia doctor who is known for killing more Canadians by euthanasia, than any other doctor.

A British Columbia judge halted the euthanasia death of a woman from Alberta who was scheduled to be euthanized by Dr Ellen Wiebe on Sunday October 27, 2024. (Link to the injunction decision).

Article: Has Dr Wiebe killed people who do not qualify for euthanasia? (Link).

Ellen Wiebe

Charlebois reported that the case:

...accuses Dr. Ellen Wiebe and her clinic of malpractice. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The latest case, which only identifies the man by initials, says that while MAID’s framework excludes people solely suffering from mental illnesses, it does not supply similar safeguards for those with “concurrent mental and physical illnesses,” heightening risks of premature death.

The family is seeking damages for alleged wrongful death as well as a declaration that the man’s Charter rights were breached and that the MAID framework is invalid and unconstitutional.

Applicants whose sole medical condition is mental illness will remain ineligible under MAID until at least March 2027.

Charlebois further reports that:

The lawsuit says the man was formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2013. It said he was also suffering chronic back pain, but this injury was neither grievous nor incurable enough to make him eligible for MAID.

The notice says he sought and received approval for MAID — though it did not include a date. But then, the notice, he decided to pursue treatment and rehabilitation instead.

The man’s family obtained a court order under the Mental Health Act to commit him to a psychiatric ward at St. Paul’s Hospital, the lawsuit says. It alleges the hospital and his doctors “negligently or recklessly” allowed him to leave the hospital, upon which underwent MAID.

It argues the man was not capable of making decisions about his health at the time and allege his choice was influenced by concerns about his finances. It alleges he did not give informed consent “as he lacked capacity to do so.”

The family only learned of his death later.

More articles about Dr Ellen Wiebe:

• Has Dr Wiebe killed people who do not qualify for euthanasia? (Link).
• BC Judge halts euthanasia death scheduled by Dr Ellen Wiebe (Link).
• Canadian doctor considers euthanasia the best work that she has done (Link).
• Canadian euthanasia doctor giggles about killing (Link).
• Vancouver doctor euthanizes a man who was unable to consent (Link).
• Vancouver doctor who has killed more than 400 people by euthanasia also supports euthanasia for mental illness (Link)

EPC Guide to answering the online "consultation" on euthanasia by advance request.

Before completing the online euthanasia by advance request "consulation" please read our EPC guide to the consultation.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Health Canada has opened an online "consultation" on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) by advance request. When completing the online "consultation" we felt that some of the questions were a sham because the questions imply that you support euthanasia by advance request. This is why EPC created a Guide to completing the online consultation

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

Before completing the online consultation, please read our EPC guide to answering the online consultation.

Some people suggested that we boycott the "consultation." This is not the first Canadian government consultation that is a sham. EPC has produced a guide for our supporters to answer the online consultation questions.

Euthanasia was originally legalized in Canada under the guise of being limited to mentally competent aduls, who are capable of consenting and who freely "choose." Euthanasia by advanced request undermines these principles.

The first principle for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is that we oppose killing people.

Background to the "consultation."

The "consultation" was announced on October 28, 2024 by Health Minister, Mark Holland who was responding to the Québec government instituting euthanasia by advance request starting on October 30, 2024.

The Québec government announced on September 7 that they informed the provincial Crown prosecutor’s office to not prosecute medical practitioners who carry out euthanasia by advance request, so long as the medical practitioner complies with Québec law. The federal law does not permit euthanasia by advance request.

Euthanasia by advance request means that a person, while competent, legally declares their "wish" to be killed and if the person becomes incompetent, the person would then be killed, even though the person is not capable, at that time, of consenting. 

It must be noted that every Canadian province has advanced directive laws. Therefore the federal government is considering an issue that is outside of their jurisdiction.

The "National conversation" on advance requests for medical assistance in dying will be open until February 14, 2025. The online consultation link is found on the Consultation website below the words - Join in: How to participate (Consultation Link).

EPC Guide to answering the online "consultation" questions.

Question 1: To what extent do you support or oppose Canada's current MAiD law pursuant to the above criteria and safeguards?

Response: Strongly oppose.

Question 2: To what extent would you support or oppose adults having the option of making an advanced request for MAiD, in the following situations:

(A) After a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition that will lead to the loss of capacity to make decisions (for example: Alzheimer's Disease, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease)?

Response: Strongly oppose.

(B) While living with a medical condition that could lead to a sudden or unexpected loss of capacity to make medical decisions (for example: high blood pressure which could lead to a severe stroke)?

Response: Strongly oppose.

Question 3. What values guide you when thinking about advanced requests for MAiD? Check all that apply.

Response: Sanctity of life and/or Protection of vulnerable people.

Question 4. If the advanced requests for MAiD were permitted, how important would it be as an option for your formal personal health planning needs?

Response: Not at all important.

Question 5. The following considerations have been raised about advance requests. Check any of the considerations below that are a concern to you.

Response: A person could feel pressured by family or others to make an advance request and/or 

A person could make an advance request before knowing how well they might adapt to (or tolerate) their medical condition with appropriate support in the future.

Question 6. Please specify other considerations about advance requests you have without providing personal identifying information (250 word limit). You can state what you want within a 250 word limit.

Response: Alex Schadenberg suggests using some of the following: 

When euthanasia (MAiD) was legalized, Canadians were told that the law would be limited to: competent adults who are capable to consent and freely choose. 

Euthanasia by advance request undermines these principles. Even though a person makes an advance request, the person when killed by euthanasia is not a competent adult, is not capable of consenting and cannot freely choose. Therefore, euthanasia by advance request is technically euthanasia without consent.

Once a person becomes incompetent, they are not legally able to change their mind, meaning that some other person will have the right to decide when the person dies, even when that person is happy with life.

If euthanasia by advance request is approved, the law will discriminate against incompetent people who did not make an advanced request. The law will be challenged and it will be argued that the person didn't make an advance request based on timing (the option didn't exist yet) or lack of knowledge that it was possible to make an advance request. 

Once killing incompetent people is viewed as "compassionate" it will be considered cruel to not kill an incompetent person who is deemed to be suffering, because the person didn't make an advance request.

Advanced directives are also provincial not federal jurisdiction.

The next questions are problematic since they infer that you support euthanasia by advance request.

Question 7. Please rate the importance for you of the following potential conditions as safeguards when a person is developing their advance request.

A person must wait for a minimum period of time following their diagnosis of a capacity limiting illness before they can make an advanced request?

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person who makes the request must validate it periodically (such as every five years) and can withdraw and modify it at any time while they still have decision making capacity.

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 8. Please rate the importance for you of the following potential conditions of safeguards when the individual is assessed for MAiD and MAiD is provided based on advanced request.

There must be a minimum assessment period during which the health care providers must evaluate and confirm the patient is demonstrating the conditions described in their advance request on a recurring basis and that they otherwise meet the eligibility requirement for MAiD.

Response: Prefer not to say.

Any provision of MAiD based on an advanced request must be provided in accordance with standards developed for health care professionals. (Ridiculous question)

Response: Prefer not to say.

Health care providers must be trained on the assessment and provision of MAiD based on an advance request. 

(This is not helpful since the euthanasia doctors group - CAMAP - provides the training).

Response: Prefer not to say.

The advance request must be made using a government designated form, must be notorized or witnessed, and recorded in a person's medical record or a registry.

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person must be provided personal care planning by a healthcare professional or their team, including information on living with a capacity-limiting disease as well as available care and supports, as part of preparing an advanced request.

Response: Prefer not to say.

The person making the advance request must do so voluntarily and with the assistance of a health care professional who has received training related to the appropriate development of advance requests. (This is not helpful considering CAMAP will provide the training).

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 9: Do you have any comments about other potential conditions and safeguards you think are needed for advanced request? To protect your confidentiality, please do not provide information that could be used to identify yourself or others (250 word limit).

Response: Alex Schadenberg responded in this manner.

Euthanasia by advance request should never be considered an option. The very premise of allowing euthanasia is that the person be a competent adult who is capable of consenting and freely "choosing." Euthanasia by advance request undermines any and all potential "safeguards" and opens the door to euthanasia of people who are incompetent and have not consented.

It is impossible to separate an act of killing an incompetent person for reasons of compassion, because the person indicated, out of fear or other situational reasons, that the person wanted to be killed under these circumstances. Euthanasia by advance request requires another person to decide when this person should be killed, knowing that the person is not competent to make the decision for themselves.

We shouldn't even be discussing this issue.

Advanced directives are also under provincial not federal jurisdiction.

Question 10: In addition to no longer having capacity to make decisions, do you think a person should be demonstrating another serious physical or psychological limitation (such as loss of ability to communicate or loss of ability to perform activities of daily living, like eating or dressing) in order to be eligible to receive MAiD based on their advance request?

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 11: After a person has lost capacity to make decisions, should a person other than the person who made the advance request (such as a member of the family) have the authority to withdraw or modify the person's advance request. (Precendent would require an advanced directive, if specific, to be followed).

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 12: Consider a person who no longer has the capacity to make decisions and meets all of the conditions outlined in their advance request that describe enduring and intolerable suffering and advance decline in capability, and yet they appear to be content. Select the statement that best describes what you think should happen next:

(You may think that the second answer is best except that the second answer requires the person to be reassessed at a later time for the purpose of killing.)

Response: Prefer not to say.

Question 13: How important would it be to have the same minimum eligibility criteria and safeguards permitting advance requests for MAiD apply across every province and territory in Canada? (This is a provincial jurisdiction)

Response: Not at all important.

The consultation ends with a series of demographic questions.

Euthanasia is a national tragedy — and it's only getting worse

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brian Bird

Brian Bird, who is a lecturer at the Peter A. Allard School of Law, UBC, and a contributor to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute wrote a Special to the National Post that was published on December 19, 2024 examining Canada's experience with euthanasia. Bird looks at Canada's recent national euthanasia report and states:

A new report from Health Canada confirms that more than 60,000 lives have been lost to “medical assistance in dying” in Canada between 2016 and 2023. Euthanasia was supposed be the exception to the rule, but Canada has become a case study in how euthanasia is virtually impossible to confine once legalized.

Euthanasia in Canada was initially envisioned as an option only for competent adults nearing death who ask for their lives to be ended. A few years later, the requirement that death must be reasonably foreseeable disappeared from the law.

Parliament also enacted legislation that, if not for subsequent amendments, would have already decriminalized euthanasia for people suffering exclusively from mental illness (an expansion now scheduled for 2027).

Bird then comments on Québec's euthanasia experience:

In 2022, Quebec’s college of physicians proposed that infants with severe disabilities should be candidates for euthanasia. Last year, a parliamentary committee recommended that euthanasia be granted to certain minors.

Doctors in Quebec can now end the lives of people with illnesses that have rendered them unable to consent to euthanasia, as long they asked for it in advance. That province recently amended its legislation to allow euthanasia for people who “suffer from a serious and incurable illness leading to incapacity to give consent.”

This change allows people living with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, for example, to make an “advance request” for euthanasia long before they are suffering severely and in a state of irreversible decline. Doctors need not obtain fresh consent from them before they are euthanized.

Yet the federal Criminal Code says that euthanasia cannot be granted based on this sort of advance request. Anyone who euthanizes a person in such a scenario could be prosecuted for the crime of assisted suicide or culpable homicide, depending on the circumstances.

Between the Government of Quebec directing the province’s prosecution service to not enforce the Criminal Code in these cases and the federal government saying that it will not litigate the matter, we are left with medical professionals in Quebec being overtly authorized — if not encouraged — to commit serious criminal offences. The federal government has hinted that this practice could soon be decriminalized across the country.

Bird continues by explaining what euthanasia by advance request actually is:

As for what advance requests for euthanasia in Quebec might look like, picture a person who is diagnosed with dementia and makes an advance request for euthanasia. Years later, this person meets the remaining legal criteria for euthanasia but no longer has the mental capacity to express a desire either to be euthanized or to cancel the advance request.

The person has, in the preceding weeks, resisted care and reacts negatively as the euthanasia process begins. The doctor in charge determines that the resistance is a symptom of the dementia, not a refusal to be euthanized. After members of the medical team restrain the person, the doctor injects a lethal substance.

Bird then says that he is not fear mongering since the fears by critics of euthanasia have so far been accurate. For instance:

...a judge in British Columbia recently halted a scheduled euthanasia due to allegations that the person to be euthanized was not legally eligible for it. In Ontario, recently uncovered documents reveal that 428 euthanasia-related cases in that province featured potential violations of the Criminal Code.

Bird then comments that Canada's short experience with euthanasia should act as a cautionary tale to other jurisdictions and yet Britain just voted, at second reading, in support of a bill that would legalize assisted suicide. Bird concludes by stating:

When I think about the troubling road Canada has travelled with respect to euthanasia, I am often reminded of the words of our national anthem: “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.” Part of standing on guard for Canada is the duty to stand on guard for each other.

With euthanasia, we are failing in our duty. With every expansion of euthanasia, we confer a form of second-class citizenship on more Canadians, sending the message that they are less valuable than others.

This lie at the root of euthanasia must be undone. Every person, no matter their circumstances, has dignity and worth that never disappears. This truth — and the hope it promises — never dies.

Previous articles by Brian Bird:

• Canada is euthanizing persons and personhood (Link). 
• Hospitals should not ask people to consider euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia is a runaway train. It's time to hit the brakes (Link).