The Ethical Dilemma: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?

Watch the following youtube video with Kelsi Sheren and Alex Schadenberg titled: The Ethical Dilemma: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides? (Youtube Link).

In this episode of The Ethical Dilemma, we dive deep into the controversial world of organ donation and presumed consent — a policy where your organs could be taken unless you explicitly opt out.

Kelsi Sheren is joined by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, we unpack:

• How presumed consent laws are reshaping global healthcare systems.
• The ethical challenges and moral grey zones policymakers face.
• The potential benefits for patients — and the risks to personal freedom.
• The erosion of the dead donor organ donation rule.
• Why this debate touches every single one of us.
• This isn’t just about medicine — it’s about life, death, autonomy, and choice.

Learn more from Alex Schadenberg at: www.epcc.ca or the EPC blog at: www.epcblog.org

Stories supporting Bill C-218:

• I want to live. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• Patti's Story. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• My Story. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).
• I got Better. Oppose MAiD for mental illness. Support Bill C-218 (Link).

Prevent MAiD for Mental Illness – Support Bill C-218

On June 20, 2025 Tamara Jansen (MP) introduced Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to reverse the law permitting euthanasia for mental illness that is scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027 in Canada. (Article Link). 

Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Why Bill C-218 Matters (Link to Bill C-218)

• On March 17, 2027, MAiD will become available for mental illness alone as the sole medical condition for requesting death.
• This expansion was rushed through, in 2021, despite widespread concern from doctors, provinces, and the public.
• Bill C-218 will stop this dangerous expansion and protect vulnerable Canadians.
  

Key Reasons to Support Bill C-218

1. Safety and Recovery, Medical Evidence: (Evidence Link)

• No doctor can predict with certainty who will never recover from mental illness.
• Most people who once felt suicidal recover and are grateful to be alive.
• Suicide prevention and treatment—not assisted death—must be the response. 
  

2. Human Rights

• In March 2025, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities condemned Canada’s MAiD expansion as inherently discriminatory and called for its repeal of Track 2, including this planned expansion. 

3. Public Opinion

• Only 31% of Canadians support extending MAiD to those with mental illness alone (Angus Reid Institute). 

4. Medical and Provincial Consensus

• 17 Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada had agreed: we are not ready.
• Most provinces have asked Ottawa for an indefinite pause on this expansion.
• Quebec legislated against MAiD for mental illness (Bill 11). 
  

5. Compassion and Care

• People with serious mental illness deserve treatment, housing, and supports—not premature death.
• Real stories show recovery is possible with the right care. (Article Link). 
  

Action Needed

• Support Bill C-218 to stop MAiD for mental illness.
• Speak out in Parliament, media, and community forums.
• Stand with Canadians who believe in care, dignity, and hope—not assisted death for mental illness.

Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to info@epcc.ca

Sign the petition supporting Bill C-218 (Petition Link).

Canadian Physician sends Open Letter to the House of Lords (UK) Opposing Assisted Suicide.

Dr Paul Saba

As the United Kingdom’s House of Lords debates the legalization of medically assisted dying—commonly called MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) in Canada—I want to warn the people of the United Kingdom not to go down this wrong and dangerous road that Canada has embarked on since 2016. 

The first reason not to legalize assisted suicide is that the eligibility for ending patients’ lives expands dramatically over time. This leads to unnecessary deaths for people who may have many years, if not decades, left to live. 

When Canada first legalized MAID in 2016, it was supposed to be for only a handful of terminally ill patients with just days to live. In 2016, there were 1,018 assisted deaths. By 2023, the number had increased to 15,343. From the inception of the law to the end of 2023, 60,301 Canadians had their lives ended by physician-assisted death. The numbers continue to rise each year. (Link) 

Québec, the province where I practise medicine, has the highest rate of euthanasia in both Canada and the world, at 7.6% of all deaths in the province. In 2024, the Commission sur les Soins de Fin de Vie—a government body that oversees end-of-life care—reported 6,058 euthanasia deaths between April 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024. (Link) 

The law was extended from those with terminal illnesses to those with chronic conditions and disabilities in 2021, following the passage of Bill C-7. Those with fragile health are also considered candidates for assisted dying. 

Starting in March 2027, those with mental illness will be eligible for physician-assisted death. I am strongly opposed to this expansion, as are many in the medical and psychiatric communities, who have raised concerns about the dangers of offering assisted suicide to vulnerable individuals with mental health challenges. This move has been highly controversial in Canada, with many experts warning about the risks of premature death among those who could otherwise recover or improve with treatment. 

As a physician, I sit on a review committee at one of Canada’s medical centres that assesses assisted deaths. The majority of the cases I have reviewed include people with medical conditions or disabilities, most with associated psychological and social factors that greatly influence their decision to request physician-assisted death. These factors include social isolation, feeling that they are a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Based on my observations, physical pain was the least common reason. My experience is confirmed by Canada’s recent report on physician-assisted death. (Link) 

The State of Oregon was the first US state to legalise assisted suicide. In that state, the reasons for assisted suicide shows a similar pattern to Canada with loss of independence, wanting to control the time and manner of death, the fear of worsening pain or quality of life and the inability to care for themselves heading the list. (Link) 

Another reason not to go down this dangerous road is because of diagnostic errors. Physicians are human. When doctors give a patient a diagnosis, they can be wrong. In fact, errors in diagnosis for severe, life-threatening conditions may be as high as twenty percent in hospitalized patients. (Link) 

Several years ago, one of my patients, Jim (a pseudonym to protect his identity), came to me with a cough, thinking he had a cold. I ordered a chest x-ray. According to the radiologist’s report of the chest film, Jim appeared to have lung cancer. 

I sat down with Jim and said: 

“We need to do a scan right away. We need to get you to see a specialist. We need to do a bronchoscopy….” 

Jim responded: 

“Dr. Saba, I know you’re against assisted suicide, but you know what? I don’t necessarily agree with you. If I’m going to die, if my time is up….” 

I replied, 

“No, no. You have to go through the process because this is only a preliminary diagnosis. Even if it is lung cancer, it is treatable today. There are new treatments. It may not even be lung cancer.” 

I spoke to the radiologist who performed the lung scan, who said, 

“We’re not sure what it is. It appears to be lung cancer but it may be a lymphoma, which would be highly treatable.” 

Jim is an intelligent, well-informed man, an engineer, who thought he had a cold, then was told he might have cancer. He could have resigned himself to a medically assisted death before he even knew what we were dealing with, since Canadian law does not require that all diagnostic avenues be exhausted before a person is deemed eligible for MAID. Under current policy, a person can be eligible without undergoing every investigation necessary to confirm the diagnosis or rule out effective treatment. He could have given up hope while the situation was still filled with hope. The power to move people to give up is one of the dangerous and misleading aspects of medically assisted dying. 

However, I was able to get his attention and persuade him that the situation was hopeful and that he should get more tests and undergo treatment. The result? He called me in the summer of 2019 to thank me because there was no further evidence of disease, which is still the case today. He had finally been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a condition that is highly curable with proper medical treatment. 

A Canadian study found that 13% of patients with a diagnosis of “lung cancer” who died by MAiD did not have a biopsy-proven diagnosis of lung cancer. Moreover, only a third of those diagnosed with advanced lung cancer underwent systemic treatments despite the availability of known effective treatments. (Link) 

This is what happens when the door is opened to assisted dying. Jim could have been another assisted dying fatality. I am a doctor who believes medicine must be grounded in solid science, in what research and experience teach us about how the body works and heals. 

Another reason not to go down the deadly road of assisted suicide is because it becomes an excuse for a faulty healthcare system lacking resources. Canada‘s publicly funded healthcare system lacks access to care for family physicians, specialists, investigative studies and has long waiting times for surgeries. In fact, Canada is considered one of the worst healthcare systems among OECD countries. (Link) 

Inversely, Canada has one of the fastest growing assisted dying programmes in the world. (Link) In contrast, palliative care for people seeking end-of-life care is not available for 70% of the population. The resources used for assisted dying should be rerouted to treat these patients. (Link) 

Canada like the United Kingdom has a publicly funded healthcare system. In Canada, assisted dying has become the default procedure for a healthcare system that has seriously failed to adequately care for its population. Similarly, Australia, which is given as an example for the British assisted suicide Bill, also has failed at providing quality palliative care. (Link) 

The conclusion—hope is one of the most powerful forces for good medical care. When I say hope is a powerful force for health, I mean that hope counsels us to patience, to seeing processes through, and to regarding every step as part of the great gift of being made for life. Assisted dying destroys that hope and leads people to giving up on life before their time. 

Dr. Paul Saba is a physician practicing family medicine in Lachine, Québec. He is a co-founder of the Physicians Alliance Against Assisted Suicide (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and is the author of the book Made to Live (madetolive.com) 1 514-886-3447 pauljsaba@gmail.com

A Fifty State Assisted Suicide Legislative Strategy

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

It is possible to defeat medical homicide bills. Our predecessors and allies have done so many times.

To do this requires the use of every possible argument, from common morality, from medical ethics, and from the particular lived experience of persons with disabilities. Above all, we must always remember --and clearly articulate-- that we are not only resisting death by choice, but much more importantly: we are resisting medical homicide.

We also know that these battles may be lost.

And yet, even then, lost battles do not always equate to lost wars. Many ultimately victorious armies have been forced to retreat, only to mount a successful defense in some other place.

But to prevail in such a strategy will generally require the forethought to prepare that new position before the retreat arrives. For otherwise there will be nothing --earthworks, supplies, reinforcements-- of that which is required to break the momentum of their pursuing foes.

In terms of our war against medical homicide: if we are unfortunately unable to stop legalization in some particular State, then our next immediate goal must be to prevent further expansion of the harms caused. But if we wish to do that effectively, much will depend upon the prudence with which we have prepared for that task in the course of the original battle.

Our adversaries have but one powerful argument in their arsenal. And that is the argument of autonomous choice. It should be our goal to make sure that the force of this weapon is fully expended in the first encounter, so that in the event that we are defeated there, our opponents will have nothing left, or as little as possible, with which to renew the struggle at a later time.

To that end, we must use all of our knowledge and all of our experience, gained from other States and from other countries, in different phases of the medical homicide debate, to demonstrate that the projected ideal of choice is a fraud; that the inevitable endgame of medical homicide is not personal freedom, but an impersonal utilitarian regime of managed death.

We must force the sponsors of assisted suicide legislation to spontaneously yield on those points which might most effectively enable that medical logic. They must be forced to piously claim that they have no such ambitions, and must be held to a statute implementation which can be justified by choice alone.

For example, recourse to doctor administered death must be explicitly renounced, in any text of law, not only because it is easier to obtain consent and carries a stronger weight of professional validation, but because doctor administration opens up --to the possible euthanasia of patients incapable of choice-- a path which is already well beaten elsewhere.

Not only must we demand a requirement of terminal condition, but we must also demand a written explanation, that such a requirement is necessary to prevent the assisted death of persons suffering from mental illness alone, or other chronic conditions.

All of this must be spelled out at length in any such law, as written proof of solemn engagement.

For the same purpose of protecting free choices equally, we should ideally peel away any privilege or mandate of "information", any mandated access in any institution, and any restriction on the formation of care teams which are literally sworn to renounce the practice of medical homicide. (And, once again: to do this explicitly in the text of law)

For our adversaries must be forced to acknowledge the choices of those patients who wish to live.

The more of these concessions we are able to gain (even if we lose the final vote) the better will be the end result: not only in the same State (when medical homicide advocates are forced --in the course of future proposed expansions-- to explain why they are now repudiating earlier promises); but also in other States, which may --in observing such cynical hypocrisy-- find the wisdom, themselves, to reject the seductive deception of choice, at the first step on this infernal medical staircase. 

At the same time, we must never renounce our rejection of medical homicide.

Generally speaking, the public have only supped on the logic and promise of choice. They have no suspicion of the medical possibilities that await. It will be our job to forcefully and perseverantly correct that ignorance.

For make no mistake: we are combating medical homicide (not mere assistance to suicide). We must not, under any circumstances, debate these questions only within the limits of our adversaries' narrative of choice.

We have a battle of fifty States where each will influence every other. And we must effectively use even the battles we lose.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal, Québec Canada

Kilmeade and Thaddeus Pope expressed support for involuntary euthanasia.

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

On September 14th Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade said that mentally ill homeless people who do not agree to be institutionalized indefinitely should receive “involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill em.” 

Article: Kilmeade must not just apologize, he must resign (Link).

As a person who has experienced severe mental illness and could have experienced homelessness without my family’s support, I feel strongly that Kilmeade’s milquetoast apology is not enough; I want him to be fired. His suggestion was not “callous;” he stated that society should mete out deadly violence to members of a marginalized group. Respecting the dignity of the people in that group requires harsh consequences.

But, while we’re holding people accountable for endorsing involuntary euthanasia, another public figure who could justifiably be deplatformed is “MAiD” movement leader Thaddeus Mason Pope. I think both men’s privilege makes it unlikely that they will be fired, but I still think it’s worth noting that both men have said that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable.

During an X conversation with scholar Christopher Lyons in which Lyons said that:

“consent is fundamental to MAiD. No consent is no consent and absolutely serious sanction/jail worthy,” 

Thaddeus Pope

Right to die movement leader Thaddeus Mason Pope said: 

“Agree. Obviously many jurisdictions will later authorize involuntary & involuntary euthanasia. But today we need valid consent.”

Pope did not say exactly who he thinks should be killed by involuntary euthanasia, but in my opinion the context doesn’t matter very much. Pope has no special right to have people assume the best about that statement.

Given that Pope is a highly influential leader in the “MAiD” movement, why shouldn’t disability justice advocates view some of the “MAiD” movement’s ideology as falling on the same spectrum of ableist violence as Kilmeade’s suggestion? Why should Pope’s statement about involuntary euthanasia be treated with any more respect than Kilmeade’s?

Justice requires that society not tolerate killing the members of a marginalized group because they are members of that group. Maybe Kilmeade and Pope could resign from their jobs and go live on a deserted island together. It seems like they have a lot in common.

Will We Care For or Kill People with Dementia?

This article was published by National Review online on September 19, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

I understand that people are terrified of dementia. Believe me, I get it. My mother died of Alzheimer’s. But I can’t wrap my head around the fact that advocacy for killing/suicide as the answer to the difficulties caused by the condition is becoming ubiquitous.

Noted bioethicist and lawyer Thaddeus Mason Pope has written an essay, to be published in an edited volume, on this very issue. It lists eleven ways people can “avoid late-stage dementia,” and almost all involve intentionally ending life.

Remember when we were told that advance medical directives are the key to not receiving life-extending treatment one does not want? They are, but that’s not good enough for Pope, because it doesn’t guarantee death:

This strategy is risky and uncertain. While patients with dementia can refuse antibiotics, they might never get an infection requiring antibiotics. In other words, advance directives for patients with dementia may be impotent because no triggering condition in their advance directive is ever satisfied. They may never need treatment they have refused. Consequently, traditional advance directives cannot reliably achieve the goals of patients seeking to avoid late-stage dementia.

Not only that, but he barely touches on the kind of compassionate care that can be provided to dementia patients, such as hospice, properly delivered. He even damns hospice with faint praise:

While physical suffering is usually sufficiently addressed with hospice and palliative support, this long duration imposes a burden on the patient and their family. And it imposes a significant financial cost, as the patient typically has nursing and doula support.

Get it? This is an argument not to avoid suffering but to not be a “burden” and to put oneself out of loved ones’ misery.

I should also note that hospice is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, which costs the patient very little. As to additional expenses, when my mother was dying, we also had a “visiting angel” kind of service to provide companionship. It cost some money, sure, but it wasn’t prohibitive and the service made my mother extremely happy, even toward the end. Besides, given the troubles the hospice sector is currently experiencing, we need better promotion of its proper application, not an “easier” way out that involves killing. 

In his essay, Pope pushes euthanasia (eventually chosen by a surrogate), suicide (assisted and otherwise), killing by self-starvation (VSED), death by inert gasses, going to a suicide clinic in Switzerland, being denied spoon feeding, and intentional malnourishment, among other gems.

So why do I give this awfulness publicity? I believe that people need to be aware of the darkness that is deepening, and that unthinkable actions once (properly) deemed abandonment are now being advocated at the highest levels of cultural influence. People with dementia need to be assured that they are valued and will be cared for, not deemed a killable caste.

It is all so discouraging. We are moving from do no harm to “do harm medicine,” and the question must be asked: In coming years, will we care for or kill dementia patients? I believe that the morality of society will depend on the answer to that question.

Nova Scotia woman was approved for euthanasia is alive after being treated in the US

Jennifer Brady was denied medical treatment but approved for euthanasia, has changed her mind after being treated in the US.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jennifer Brady

An article by Angela McIvor that was published by CBC News on September 18, 2024 explained that Jennifer Brady, who lives in Nova Scotia, was approved for MAiD (euthanasia) after being unable to obtain treatment for Lymphedema. Lymphedma is a condition that causes an accumulation of fluid and can result in painful swelling, increased risk of blood infection, cellulitis and hardening of the skin.

The good news is that McIvor published an update to the story that was published by CBC News on September 18, 2025 explaining that Brady won a 6-year court battle with the Nova Scotia government and has received treatment in New Jersey. McIvor wrote:

After years of fighting the N.S. government for coverage, Jennifer Brady recently had lymphedema surgery

McIvor continues:

Brady went public one year ago with her application for medical assistance in dying. At the time, she spent several hours a day managing her disease, feeling severely depressed and unable to care for her two children.

Then, last October, after winning a judicial review against Nova Scotia's Department of Health and Wellness, Premier Tim Houston publicly apologized to Brady. He also promised to pay for her future treatment.

McIvor explained more about the legal battle for the right to be receive treatment:

In 2022, Brady took her fight to Nova Scotia Supreme Court after her requests for out-of-province care were repeatedly denied on the grounds she did not have a referral from a Nova Scotia specialist. Justice Timothy Gabriel pinpointed in his Oct. 2024 decision how MSI, the medical insurer for Nova Scotia, refused to acknowledge there is no such specialist in the province.

He ruled that Brady was "treated in a procedurally unfair manner" and the decision made by the province to deny care was "unreasonable."

The great news is that Brady changed her mind about euthanasia after receiving treatment:

Since having a lymph node transplant on July 16 at The Valley Hospital in Paramus, N.J., Brady said she's feeling remarkable improvement. She said she can see her kneecaps for the first time in years, and she no longer needs a massage machine that previously tethered her to the couch for six hours a day.

She has also taken her medical assistance in dying (MAID) application off the table.

Jennifer Brady is not the first Canadian who was not offered medical treatment but offered euthanasia, but then received successful treatment in the US.

Allison Ducluzeau

In December 2023 I published an article about Allison Ducluzeau who lives in Victoria BC. Allison was diagnosed with abdominal cancer and offered MAiD (euthanasia) rather than treatment, but she was successfully treated at the Institute for Cancer Care at Mercy Medical Centre in Baltimore.

Allison Ducluzeau was offered euthanasia but not medical treatment. The Ducluzeau story concerned the fact that she was suing the BC Ministry of Health for the cost of the successful treatment that she received in Baltimore.

Like Brady, Ducluzeau was able to die by euthanasia but was not being offered the option of medical treatment for her condition.

Will You Love Me Forever?

This article was published by Public Discourse on September 17, 2025.

If stillborn children could inspire one of the most-loved children’s books in the twentieth century, then maybe a grandpa with dementia will inspire one of the best stories in the twenty-first.

Amanda Achtman

By Amanda Achtman

When I was growing up in the 1990s, there was a children’s book that my mother read to me so many times that I can still hear the sing-song cadence with which she read the refrain. That book is Love You Forever by the American-born Canadian author Robert Munsch. One of the most-loved children’s authors of all time, his books have sold an astounding 87 million copies.

Love You Forever begins with a mother rocking her newborn as she sings: 

“I’ll love you forever / I’ll like you for always / As long as I’m living / my baby you’ll be.”

As the child grows, he causes his mother all manner of frustrations. But no matter what he does or how big he gets, she always goes into his room at night, picks him up, and rocks him, singing the same lullaby. Eventually, the mother grows old and sick and calls her son to visit her. She is so sick that she is unable to sing the lullaby that has been the lifelong expression of her love. And so her son sings it to her tenderly, revising the last lines to say, 

“As long as I’m living my Mommy you’ll be.”

It is a touching story of the natural circle of life and of the unconditional love for which we are made. This is one reason why many Canadians are shocked that the book’s author, of all people, is saying he wants a doctor to end his life by euthanasia. In a recent piece for The New York Times, Katie Engelhart has written a profile of Robert Munsch titled, “When Dementia Steals the Imagination of a Children’s Book Writer.” The article pays homage to Munsch’s creative process. He would tell stories to children at schools and events, and workshop the stories in real time based on the children’s reactions. Sometimes he would incorporate their spontaneous outbursts into the published versions of these stories. Engelhart tells us that Munsch often stayed with host families of schoolchildren “at first because he couldn’t afford hotel rooms, but later because he found that families were a good source of stories.” She pays tribute to Munsch’s insistence on retaining the names of children on whom he occasionally based his stories “because one of his rules was that if he made up a story about a real child, the child ‘owned’ the story.” Many of Munsch’s books were inspired by the real-life kids he met and by the thousands of pieces of fan mail he received from his young and imaginative readers.

His national legacy is, first and foremost, as a storyteller. Yet Munsch has the humility and transparency to admit his serious struggles with loss and grief, mental illness, and addiction. “I have worked hard to overcome my problems, and I have done my best. I have attended twelve-step recovery meetings for more than 25 years,” Munsch wrote in a note to parents on his personal website. “My mental health and addiction problems are not a secret to my friends and family. They have been a big support to me over the years, and I would not have been able to do this without their love and understanding.”

Much of this had been previously reported, for example, in a Toronto Life article from 2010 and on various news programs. He spoke candidly about his depression and suicidal ideation, confessing, “I didn’t have any friends. My career was eating my life.” At his wife’s insistence, Munsch began seeing a psychiatrist, particularly since his grandfather had died by suicide. It has been a tumultuous life to which we are barely privy: a life of overcoming obstacles in the hope of making a difference in the lives of the people around him.

Engelhart’s article then fixates on what Munsch can no longer do. He can no longer ride a bike, drive a car, and, particularly cruelly for an author, he can no longer read. Like the mother in his classic story, he himself has become old and sick. But, unlike her, he now is tempted to seek state-sponsored suicide.

To schedule his death at the hands of a physician would contradict the message of unconditional love that he shared all those years ago, a message that resonated with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of children and parents. But it would also contradict the support and understanding with which, thankfully, he was met throughout his life. When he faced depression and suicidal ideation, he got a psychiatrist. When he struggled with drugs and alcohol, he joined Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous. After he lost two children, he and his wife welcomed three through adoption. But now that he is elderly and asking for euthanasia, what is on offer? Why, only now, should there not be any antidote?

Engelhart does not tell us what his wife, children, or grandchildren think about his decision. However, one daughter has since spoken out, informing the media that Munsch is not dying imminently and that the news that he was considering MAiD is not new since he discussed this with journalists four years ago upon receiving diagnoses of dementia and Parkinson’s.

Now, in The New York Times interview, he is admitting his deepening insecurities over having dementia, expressing his fear about becoming “a turnip” or “a lump.” The request for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is a cry of the heart concerning self-worth and lovability. Now that he can no longer tell stories, which had always been such a key part of his identity, he is shaken and vulnerable. The request for euthanasia betrays a fundamental lack of self-esteem.

But his stories did not only come from his own genius; they came from others, including from the tiniest and weakest. In fact, his most famous book of all was actually inspired by the two children that he lost. On his personal website, Munsch’s biography says that he wrote Love You Forever as a memorial for his two stillborn children, delivered in 1979 and 1980.

It was these gifts that completely transformed him, that made him a father, that broke open his heart to that radical Love You Forever kind of love. These two children who never took a breath in this life have had an incalculably positive impact on the world by inspiring Munsch to write his book and encouraging readers to love one another, despite failures and weaknesses, through every season of life.

No matter what he suffers now, Robert Munsch will never be more vulnerable, more discreet, more unspoken than his stillborn children who inspired his bestselling book of all. In the universality of Robert Munsch’s fears about dementia, we see the need to propose something other than death. It is time for someone else to continue the story with him still in it. Just as in the story, he needs someone to pick him up and rock him “back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.” Singing over him: “I’ll love you forever / I’ll like you for always / As long as I’m living / My [dear one] you’ll be.”

If stillborn children could inspire one of the most-loved children’s books in the twentieth century, then maybe a grandpa with dementia will inspire one of the best stories in the twenty-first.

Australian police lay charges in assisted suicide deaths. Investigating 20 more.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Det. Mark Mooney, Queensland Police

Luca Ittimani reported for the Guardian on September 15 that Australian Police have charged Brett Daniel Taylor with two counts of aiding suicide and is being investigated over three Australian states in at least 20 deaths. 

Even though every Australian state has legalized assisted suicide, Taylor allegedly set-up a fake charity to obtain drugs that are used to euthanize animals. Ittimani reports:

Police have uncovered an alleged “end of life” business believed to be linked to as many as 20 deaths, with investigations across three states after a man died from a veterinary euthanasia drug.

Queensland police have charged a Gold Coast man alleged to have operated the business, Brett Daniel Taylor, with two counts of aiding suicide and several drug offences including trafficking dangerous drugs.

“The alleged conduct involves deliberately targeting vulnerable people and exploiting them in their most desperate moments,” said Det Insp Mark Mooney.

Taylor, 53, was not a vet, instead allegedly securing access to the drugs through a “front” charity set up to euthanise whales, which police claim has never carried out any lawful business.

Police stated that they are investigating back to 2021 possible cases.

The police need to investigate further back than 2021. There have been incidents of euthanasia drugs being stolen from Australian veterinarians. 

In May 2014 I reported that veterinary euthanasia drugs were stolen from the home of a semi-retired veterinarian in Victoria Australia. This was not the first incident of euthanasia drugs being stolen from a veterinarian.

Philip Nitschke has also promoted the use of veterinary euthanasia drugs for years. In March 2010 I published an article on how Nitschke encourages people to purchase veterinary euthanasia drugs online. The same article commented on a report from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine that researched 51 people who died from Nembutal in Australia. The report found that young people and depressed people were more likely to die by Nembutal than terminally ill people.

Police should also not assume that these alleged deaths were assisted suicide. They could also be euthanasia.

Ittimani reports on Taylor's alleged business model:

Police said they were investigating deaths dating back to 2021 and expected the business had allegedly played a role in 20 or more deaths, including some outside Queensland’s south-east.

The business’s services allegedly included helping people die in their own homes, providing them “suicide kits,” arranging wills and finding people after their death, Mooney said.

Police believe that Taylor was motivated by a profitable business model. Ittimani reports:

The business allegedly resold the drug for “significantly more” than its wholesale price, Mooney said.

“We will allege he hasn’t acted compassionately at all. This is a business transaction for him … just for pure money.”

Ittimani reported that the investigation began after an autopsy of a 43 year old man.

Police began investigating after the death of a 43-year-old man at his home on the Gold Coast in April, which a postmortem found had been caused by the veterinary drug.

“He had suffered from medical conditions for a long period of time but his medical conditions did not meet the voluntary assisted dying laws of Queensland,” Mooney said.

The case is further complicated by the alleged involvement of Taylor's family.

Taylor’s 80-year-old father and another woman, aged 81, are alleged to have helped the business’s operations and both face charges related to drug trafficking. The woman, who also faces a charge of aiding suicide, was unrelated to Taylor or his father.

Police are seeking help from anyone or has connections to End of Life Services.

Kilmeade must not just apologize. He must resign.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Wesley Smith wrote an article about Brian Kilmeade stating:
‘Just Kill’ Mentally Ill Homeless Who Refuse Help (Link).

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade apologized on Sunday for saying that homeless and mentally ill people should be killed. 

Kilmeade's apology is not enough, Kilmeade should resign.

A Guardian article by José Olivares wrote that:

During the Fox and Friends appearance on Wednesday discussing Zarutska’s death, co-host Lawrence Jones said unhoused people with mental illness should either accept the publicly funded programs to help in their situation or be jailed.

“Involuntary lethal injection or something,” Kilmeade responded to Jones. “Just kill ’em.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition believes in the innate equality of the human person. It is not only wrong to suggest that homeless and mentally ill people should be killed, we oppose killing all people.

Kilmeade apologized by stating:

“I wrongly said they should get lethal injections” 

“I apologize for that extremely callous remark. I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill, homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina – and that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.”

Kilmeade misses the point in his apology. His original statement suggests that some homeless and mentally ill people should be killed. His apology suggests that some of these people deserve our empathy and compassion.

Some people will suggest that Kilmeade didn't actually mean what he said. Whether or not that is true he said it and his comments have consequences.

Kilmeade's apology is clearly not enough. He needs to resign.

Our statement does not negate the concerns people have with the criminal justice system.

Kilmeade: ‘Just Kill’ Mentally Ill Homeless Who Refuse Help

This artricle was published by National Review online on September 13, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Homelessness is a crisis in our major cities. But we have to always remember that people who are homeless have equal intrinsic dignity as all other human beings.

That is why I was appalled that — in a recent discussion about the atrocious murder of Iryna Zarutska by a mentally ill homeless man — Fox News personality Brian Kilmeade said that if the mentally ill homeless don’t accept hospitalization, they should be, well, killed.

Yes. He actually said that.

When Kilmeade’s co-host Lawrence Jones said that the homeless should either accept help “or be locked up in jail,” Kilmeade replied, “Or involuntary lethal injection, or something. You just kill ’em.” The hosts then went on to talk North Carolina politics around this issue.

I know we live in volatile and emotional times. And I do think that we talk too much about what we owe the homeless and not enough about what they owe us and themselves, including participating in remediating their own plight, if they’re able.

But Kilmeade is not a would-be TikTok influencer. He is a major personality on the country’s most watched cable news channel. Given the violence we have witnessed in recent days, such a reckless statement about murdering homeless people is utterly unacceptable.

Kilmeade — and Fox — should apologize. And perhaps he should work to keep his emotions in check while broadcasting. With great influence comes equal responsibility.

UPDATE: Kilmeade has since given a terse apology for his comments. You can watch here:

California 2024 assisted suicide report. The data is not accurate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The California assisted suicide statute assumes that assisted suicide deaths are voluntary or self-administered. The lack of oversight in the law makes it impossible to assure that every death was voluntary and self-administered.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report that was recently released states that there were 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024 which was up from 969 in 2023.

The data is not accurate. 

The 2023 California assisted suicide report indicated that there were 884 reported assisted suicide deaths. Based on reporting problems, I predicted, last year, that the actual number was likely 925, but the 2024 report indicated that there were 969 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. The difference of (969 - 884) means that 85 assisted suicide deaths were reported late in 2023 representing an almost 9% difference.

Based on the California reporting system, I predict that the 2025 California report will indicate that there were at least 1100 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024.

The previous data is also problematic. 

The 2024 California assisted suicide report indicated that there were 896 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022, the 2023 report indicated that there were 890 in 2022 and the 2022 report indicated that there were 853 in 2022. Why are the medical professionals filing the assisted suicide reports so late?

Further analysis: Ingestion status is unknown.

The 2024 report indicated that of the 1591 Californians who received the poison prescription, the ingestion status was unknown for 388 of the people. The problem with the unknown ingestion status increased greatly. The 2023 report indicated that there were 276 Californians who received the lethal poison but whose ingestion status was unknown. 

When the ingestion status is unknown, they know that the person was approved and received the lethal prescription, but they do not know if they died or how they died.

Based on the data we know that some of the 388 people, whose ingestion status is unknown, died a natural death and some of them died by assisted suicide but it is also likely that some of the 388 people died by assisted suicide but the assisted suicide death was unreported.

California uses a self-reporting system, meaning the medical professional who prescribed the poison prescription same person who is obligated to submit the assisted suicide death report. It is impossible to know that a person died by assisted suicide when the medical professional fails to submit the assisted suicide report and there is no oversight that uncovers unreported assisted suicide deaths.

More inaccurate data: Increase in lethal poison prescriptions.

The 2024 report indicates that there were 1591 lethal poison prescriptions written which was up from 1409 in 2023 and 1332 in 2022. 

But the data is problematic. The 2023 report indicated that there were 1281 lethal poison prescriptions written in 2023 and 1328 in 2022. Why is there a discrepancy of (1409 - 1281) 128 poison prescriptions for 2023 within the 2024 report?

Based on the data from previous years, it is likely that at least 1700 poison prescriptions were written in 2024. 

I can understand the problem with late reporting of assisted suicide deaths. I can understand the problem of under-reporting of assisted suicide deaths. I can't understand the discrepancy concerning the poison prescription data. Prescriptions can also be tracked through through the pharmacy system, therefore the discrepancy should not exist.

The Times of San Diego reported that the California legislature passed Bill SB 403, a bill that expands the California assisted suicide law by removing the requirement that law be reviewed in 2031 and by removing certain reporting requirements.

Based on the lack of accurate data in the 2024 California assisted suicide report, I can understand why the California legislature would want to hide the date in future reports.

More articles on this topic:

• California 2023 assisted suicide report (Link). 
• It's time to audit the death bureaucracy (Link). 
• How America Abandoned its assisted suicide safeguards (Link).
• Assisted suicide laws, once legal, inevitably expand (Link).
• California doctor faces up to 10 years in prison for fraudulently diagnosing his patients as terminal (Link).