Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is concerned about euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

During a January 30, 2025 interview with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, on the John Bachman Now show, Bachman asked Premier Smith about her concerns with the increase in MAiD in Canada to almost 1 out of 20 deaths. Bachman suggested that to a lot of people the increase in assisted deaths in frightening. Premier Smith's comments on MAiD begin at the 6 minute point:

And it should be frightening.

One of the things that the federal government is allowing is the potential for people to seek MAiD because of mental illness. We've heard of people seeking MAiD because their poor and can't get on government supports. It's outragious.

The intention behind it was always that if death was reasonably foreseeable and imminent from a condition that you weren't going to recover from, like late stage cancer or something along those lines, that a person would have the choice. But it has broadened out to the point where its completely unreasonable.

We've resisted moving down that path. We are creating a separate oversight body to make sure that doctors have the oversight if they do make that determination, so that families can intervene in the event that somebody is just seeking it because they are having a bad patch in life. We don't want somebody feeling so desperate that they think that's the only answer.

We want people to recover, if they can and to get their lives back. So we are taking a little different approach on that.

On February 1, 2023, Alberta premier Danielle Smith objected to the expansion of euthanasia to include mental illness (link)

Alberta Health Services data states that there were 1116 reported assisted deaths in 2024, which was up by almost 15% from 977 in 2023, 836 in 2022 and 594 in 2021. 

Alberta has had the case of the 27-year-old autistic woman, who was approved and scheduled to die by euthanasia on February 1, 2024 until her father challenged the euthanasia approval in court. There was also a case of a Calgary man who couldn't get experimental treatment for cluster headaches but could get approved for euthanasia.

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario released a report from the Ontario MAiD Death review Committee outlining six representative stories of non-compliant euthanasia deaths in Ontario. The report indicated that there were at least 428 non-compliant Ontario euthanasia deaths from 2018 to 2023 with 25% of all euthanasia providing doctors, in Ontario, having at least one non-compliant death. We suspect that similar concerns exist with euthanasia in Alberta.

Alberta does not have a MAiD Death Review Committee therefore data about non-compliant euthanasia deaths in Alberta is unknown.

The euphemistic language for killing.

This article was published by the British Medical Journal blog on January 31, 2025.

David Albert Jones

By David Albert Jones
Director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

My article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is about the words ‘assisted dying’. I argue that the term is problematic not principally because it is euphemistic, which is true of many terms for controversial practices. The a key problem is that ‘assisted dying’ is ambiguous and hence the words are used inconsistently.

‘Assisted dying’ is best understood as an umbrella term for a doctor ending the life of a patient at the patient’s request (voluntary euthanasia) or a patient ending their own life with means provided by a doctor (physician-assisted suicide), for patients who may or may not be terminally ill.

In contrast, the term is also used, especially in the United Kingdom, with certain further stipulations, for example, only for physician-assisted suicide of adults with a terminal illness.

A good example of the confusion that follows is a BBC website article where it is stated that ‘assisted dying generally refers to a person who is terminally ill receiving lethal drugs from a medical practitioner, which they administer themselves.’

But later, in the same article, it is stated that ‘more than 200 million people around the world have legal access to assisted dying’. A link is provided to a map created by the British Medical Association, showing, ‘Physician-assisted dying legislation around the world’ (which is generally accurate except it mistakes France for Spain).

In most of the countries in this map, however, ‘physician-assisted dying’ is not limited to assisted suicide of someone with a terminally illness. Some countries also include euthanasia for those with terminal illness (as in Australia and New Zealand) or assisted suicide for those without terminal illness (as in Switzerland and Austria) or both assisted suicide and euthanasia for people without terminal illness (as in Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands).

In fact, only one country in the world, the United States, confines ‘assisted dying’ to assisted suicide for someone with a terminal illness, and this only in the 10 states (plus DC) where it is legal.

Contrast ‘medical aid in dying’ which was legalised in California in 2015, with ‘medical assistance in dying’ which was legalised in Canada in 2016. The first denotes assisted suicide by a patient who is expected to die within six months. The second, overwhelmingly, denotes euthanasia of someone whose death is ‘reasonably foreseeable’, without any specific timeframe. In 2021 the Canadian law was expanded to cover people whose death is not ‘reasonably foreseeable’, but already the law was very loose. The rate of assisted death in Canada is around ten times that in California. However, the great differences of practice in these two countries are obscured by the use of similar terminology.

In Australia, the law has expanded as successive states have legalised ‘voluntary assisted dying’. In 2017, Victoria permitted euthanasia only if someone was not physically capable of assisted suicide, and restricted eligibility to expectation of death within 6 months, except for people with neurodegenerative diseases. In 2021, Queensland allowed doctors to offer euthanasia at their discretion and set the time limit at 12 months. In 2024, the Australia Capital Territory gave patients a free choice of euthanasia or assisted suicide and gave no timeframe for expectation of death. The law in Australia has changed rapidly, coming to resemble that of Canada, but has kept the same language of ‘voluntary assisted dying’.

It may be that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, currently in Committee Stage in the UK House of Commons is, at this stage, closer to Oregon than to Canada. However, the example of Oregon is not so reassuring as sometimes thought and the example of Australia shows how the language of ‘assisted dying’ can easily expand further to apply to a wider range of cases. Claiming that ‘assisted dying’ is only, or primarily, or generally, restricted to assisted suicide for terminal illness does not reflect the ordinary use of the term. What is more, such linguistic stipulations will not prevent the practice expanding over time under cover of this ambiguous term.

In my paper I show that, while the term ‘assisted dying’ is increasingly prevalent, ‘assisted suicide’ remains the more common term in the scholarly literature. It has the great virtue of clearly distinguishing this practice from euthanasia, with its higher rates of death and more serious abuses. The example of Australia shows how, once permitted, a shift can occur in ‘assisted dying’ from euthanasia being allowed only in exceptional circumstances to it becoming the norm. It is surely better to acknowledge that the practice being proposed is ‘assisted suicide’ than to obscure this with ambiguous language and, by doing so, perhaps open the door to euthanasia.

Who donates to the euthanasia lobby?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bell, Google, Microsoft, Rogers and Telus all supporting Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group? Thank you to Patricia Maloney for providing the links.

Dying with Dignity states the following

"As a charitable organization, Dying With Dignity Canada would not exist nor have the impact it does were it not for the generous contributions of all our donors and supporters. We would like to acknowledge a group of supporters to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude."

Just some of the corporate donors. There are 65 pages of donors, most are individuals.

Bell, Google, Google Ad, Great Toronto Airport Authority, Alberta Gerontological Nurses Association, Healthcare Excellence Canada, Hospice Greater Saint John , MAiD Family Support Society, Microsoft, Rogers, Telus, United Way East Ontario, Vancouver Island Mental Health.

I am wondering about the many donations from estates. Dying with Dignity, through their network, facilitates euthanasia deaths. Some of the donations from estates may be directly related to providing a euthanasia death.

Several years ago the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition ran a successful campaign to have Dying with Dignity Canada's charitable number revoked based on "serious non-compliance issues." But under the current federal government they were able to once again obtain a charitable number.

The growth of Dying with Dignity Canada is closely related to a donation of $7 million from the late Vancouver entrepreneur David Jackson in 2018.

Sponsor Alex's March 2 run for EPC!

Alex Schadenberg will be running the Chilly Half Marathon on March 2 in Burlington.

Alex is running to raise money for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Donations can be made online (Donation Link) or (Paypal Donation Link) or send E-transfer donations to info@epcc.ca or contact the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Research project: Experiences of medical professionals who have refused MAiD requests

Alexandra Beaudin, a student member at the RQSPAL and a PhD candidate in population health at the University of Ottawa, is currently looking for participants for her research project!

If you are a physician or nurse practitioner who has previously refused requests for medical assistance in dying, your experience may be valuable to this study.

For any questions or participation, contact Alexandra Beaudin at: abeau194@uottawa.ca.

Duration: Approx. 60 minutes
Location: Video conference (Teams) or In-person (depending on location)
Languages: French or English
All your responses will remain strictly confidential.

 

Euthanasia (MAiD) by advance request is euthanasia without consent.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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 the EPC guide to answering the online consultation (Link to the EPC guide).

The first principle for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is that we oppose killing people. So why is euthanasia by advance request more egregious?

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

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 of consenting. Therefore euthanasia by advance request is euthanasia without consent.

Further to that, 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 if that person is living a happy life.

If euthanasia by advance request is approved, the law will discriminate against incompetent people who did not make an advance request. The law will be challenged and it will be argued that the person didn't make the 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 not to kill an incompetent person who is deemed to be suffering, because the person didn't make an advance request.

Every Canadian province has advanced directive laws. Therefore the federal government is debating 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).

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

Vermont House Bill 75 to expand assisted suicide law again.

House Bill 75, if passed, would be the third expansion of Vermont's assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Vermont House Bill 75 (H 75) will expand the state assisted suicide law by allowing (non physicians) naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to participate in assisted suicide.

Are naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants demanding the right to be involved with killing people?
Or is it that there are too few physicians who are willing to kill?

H 75 has been referred to the Committee on Health Care.

If passed, H 75 would be the third expansion of Vermont's assisted suicide law. 

Assisted suicide laws, once legal, inevitably expand (Article Link).

When writing about Vermont's continuous expansion of their assisted suicide law I ask the question, will there ever be enough killing?

On January 5, 2024 I reported that data from the Vermont Department of Health indicated that the number of assisted suicide deaths more than quadrupled in 2022/2023 from the previous two years.

The increase in Vermont assisted suicide deaths is partly due to the expansions of the Vermont assisted suicide law.

In 2022 Vermont passed assisted suicide bill S74 which expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing assisted suicide by telemedicine, (permitting lethal assisted suicide poison prescriptions to be written without meeting the person), eliminating the 48 hour waiting period before prescribing and defining assisted suicide as a "healthcare service."

On March 14, 2023 Vermont's Attorney General's Office  reached an agreement with the assisted suicide lobby to remove the residency requirement for assisted suicide in Vermont. That means residents form other states can die by assisted suicide in Vermont. A media report  indicated that a Connecticut woman died by assisted suicide in Vermont. 

Now Vermont wants to permit expand the law by permitting other medical professionals to also be legally capable of killing their patients.

Urge Delaware Legislators to Vote NO to Assisted Suicide Bill HB 140

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Please contact every member of the Delaware State House and urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide Bill HB 140.

(Link to the list of Delaware State House members).

(Link to the list of Delaware State Senators).

On September 20, 2024, Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed assisted suicide Bill HB 140 after HB 140 passed in the Delaware Senate by one vote.

Governor Carney served his term as Governor. The new Delaware Governor is Matt Meyer who has stated that he supports assisted suicide.

We require members of the House and the Senate to vote NO to defeat Delaware Assisted Suicide Bill HB 140 in 2025.

Please contact every member of the Delaware State House and urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide Bill HB 140. (Link to the list of Delaware State House members). (Link to the list of Delaware State Senators).

Some good arguements opposing HB 140 include:

People with eating disorders are dying by assisted suicide. 

An article by Jennifer Brown that was published in the Colorado Sun on March 14, 2022 reported that Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani, an internal medicine doctor who specializes in eating disorders published a paper on how she was prescribing assisted suicide for people with anorexia nervosa in Colorado. Gaudiani approves assisted suicide for Anorexia Nervosa by falsely defining the condition as terminal.

Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide, has expanded their law. 

HB 140 claims to be a "tightly worded" bill. The assisted suicide lobby uses a "bait and switch" technique where they sell assisted suicide with a "tightly worded bill" and if the bill passes they pressure states to expand their laws with expanded legislation or by forcing them with a court case. (Article Link).

Assisted suicide creates two tier medicine

Some suicidal people are offered suicide prevention while others are provided assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is inherently discriminatory.

We believe in caring for people not killing them.

Assisted suicide is an act of providing a poison cocktail to someone who is living wiht suicidal ideation, often related to their health concerns. Assisted suicide constitutes killing. We believe in caring for people at their time of need.

Assisted suicide is not about autonomy but rather it medically abandons a person to death.

A Call to Defeat Delaware House Bill 140 (an act to amend title 16 of the Delaware Code relating to end of life options)

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

It is a widely shared principle that, as long as our actions cause no harm to others, we might all be allowed to do as we please.

And so it is that many principled people feel a visceral duty to support the right of others to choose the manner of their own passing. However, in presenting assisted death (AD) as "medical aid in dying", HB 140[1] does not merely create a liberty of permission for this purpose. Far from it!

Medical care is universally seen as a positive benefit and a human right. To define assisted death in this way is to automatically create entitlements, obligations and mandates which are entirely foreign to any fundamental notion of free choice.[2]

What is so confidently stated in the preamble to HB 140, for example, is perfectly false:

"(line 18) participation in the practice of medical aid in dying by willing medical providers (...) respects and honors each patient’s values and priorities for their own death...".

In reality, there is no equivalence. In promoting the positive good of AD as medical treatment, participating doctors simply ignore the "values and priorities" of that vastly larger group of patients who will never willingly consent to assisted death, regardless of medical circumstances.[3]

One particularly heated controversy, regarding the medical interpretation of AD, concerns the permission (and even the duty) of doctors to pro-actively raise this question with eligible patients. For to be clear: the normal rules of medical practice require physicians to themselves propose optimal care (with the full weight of professional authority) subject only to patient consent. If AD is indeed considered in this way: any patient medically eligible for AD may expect to become the target of such contextually powerful suggestions of suicide, at any time, depending solely upon the personal bias of particular professionals.

Nor does HB 140 leave us in any doubt about the reality of this threat:

"§ 2513C. (a) A person acting in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted health-care standards is not subject to civil or criminal liability or to discipline for unprofessional conduct for ... (3) Providing scientific and accurate information about medication to end life in a humane and dignified manner. "

On reflection, it is absurd to expect that participating physicians might be appropriate carers for the non-suicidal majority. For we are in the presence of two mutually exclusive clinical visions, as shown by the Hippocratic revolution 2500 years ago: Assisted death cannot be "added" to traditional medicine, any more than meat can be "added" to a vegetarian diet!

On this subject, HB 140 (again we believe falsely) states: (Preamble line 6) 

"in other jurisdictions, the integration of medical aid in dying into the standard for end of life care has improved quality of services by providing an additional palliative care option to terminally ill individuals".

But we do not have far to go in seeking contrary evidence. If we look to our Northern neighbor where the term "MAID" first appeared in legislation (Province of Quebec, Canada, 2014),[4] we see exactly how such a medically justified regime of assisted death is destined to unfold. Indeed, Canadian hospitals, and care teams have normalized AD, to such an extent, that eligible patients are now obliged to navigate a clinical environment which has become objectively indifferent (if not hostile) to their continued survival.[5]

Very obviously, no coherent system of individual liberty might ever have produced such a result.

Most certainly, also, a principled defense of death-by-choice does not require liberty-minded citizens to espouse this extreme theory of death-as-medical-care. Both Switzerland[6] and Germany[7], recognize a general right to suicide (including assisted suicide) but also refuse to accord such actions any objective validation (medical or otherwise), precisely to avoid the effects of entitlements, mandates and obligations as described above.[8]

In conclusion, therefore: Although I am personally opposed to any assisted death whatsoever, I also recognize that a sincere philosophy of "live-and-let-live" might indeed inspire principled support for death-by-choice. But not with just any Bill. And certainly not with this one! The naturally non-suicidal majority of eligible patients must not be confronted, in their moment of greatest need, with the promotion of assisted death as medical treatment. Normal medicine must be kept clear --by default-- of any AD related practice.

With the greatest respect, I request the defeat of this legislation.

Gordon Friesen, President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 27, 2025

---

[1]  Delaware House Bill 140, as of January 2025 (An Act to Amend Title 16 of the Delaware Code Relating to End of Life Options) https://www.legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=141725&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB140

[2]  Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946) as amended (2005)    accessed April 17, 2024 https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1    accessed April 17, 2024

[3]   Friesen, Gordon, The Medical Slope of Assisted Death: From "Who May" to "Who Should", Psychiatric Times, January 3, 2025 https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-medical-slope-of-assisted-death-from-who-may-to-who-should

[4]   "Act Respecting End-of-Life Care" Province of Quebec, Canada, 2014, as revised 2024   https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/s-32.0001   accessed April 17, 2024

[5]   Friesen, G.R., Lessons from the Canadian Euthanasia Experiment, EuthanasiaDiscussion.com    https://euthanasiadiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/lessons_from_the_canadian_euthanasia_experiment_april_4_2023_gordon_friesen.pdf    accessed April 17, 2024

[6]  Swiss criminal code art. 115 https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#art_115  accessed Nov 4, 2023

[7]  German High Court decision, Criminalisation of assisted suicide services unconstitutional  February 26, 2020 https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-012.html  accessed Oct 28, 2023

[8]  Friesen, G.R., Fundamental Considerations in the Creation of a Minimally Intrusive Liberty of Assisted Death, EuthanasiaDiscussion.com (produced for the Irish Joint Committee on Assisted Dying), November 12, 2023, https://euthanasiadiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/minimally_intrusive_liberty_of_assisted_death_gordon_friesen_nov_12_2023.pdf      accessed April 17, 2024

The Concentration of Canada's Euthanasia Providers Signals a Critical Juncture for Meaningful Policy Reform.

Yuriko Ryan

By Dr. Yuriko Ryan

A new article published on January 10, 2025 in The American Journal of Bioethics examines the rapid increase in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) deaths in Canada. 

Dr. Lyon, the lead author witnessed a MAID death in BC; Dr. Lemmens is a member of the MAID Death Review Panel of the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario, and Dr. Kim along with Dr. Lemmens, were members of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying.

The authors describe the rise of MAID deaths in Canada, suggesting it is influenced by policy rather than widespread societal acceptance. They argue that organizations such as the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) and Dying with Dignity Canada (DWDC) have significantly influenced MAID policy, emphasizing access over patient safety and protection against premature death. This, according to the authors, has resulted in concerning cases and potential legal violations. They call for substantial reform, advocating for more transparent, evidence-based, and multi-perspective policymaking to ensure a safer and more ethical MAID system in Canada.

The key issues discussed in this article include:

Drivers for the Exponential increase in MAID deaths

Provider Concentration: A small group of clinicians are responsible for the majority of MAID deaths. The Fifth Annual Report on MAID 2023 (Canada, 2024) shows that practitioners who performed MAID 11 or more times in 2023 provided 66.4% of Track 1 (a requester’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable) cases and 58.4% of Track 2 (a requester's natural death is NOT reasonably foreseeable) cases. Some clinicians have made MAID their full-time practice, and the number of cases per provider has increased from 5.1 in 2019 to 7.2 in 2022.

Problematic Cases: There have been instances where individuals sought MAID due to lack of access to other resources, non-compliance with eligibility criteria, incomplete documentation, and clinicians refusing to cooperate with oversight bodies. A concerning number of unlawful MAID deaths have been reported.

Expansion of Eligibility: There is an active movement toward further expansions in MAID eligibility, including for mature minors and those with mental disorders. There are concerns that the focus is on facilitating access to MAID rather than protecting against premature death. Some cases suggest that individuals with mental illness, poverty, or lack of adequate support have received MAID.

Lack of Safeguards: The criteria for MAID, such as "serious and irremediable" conditions, have been interpreted flexibly, with heavy reliance on self-reporting. The MAID law does not require a high level of expertise for assessments.

Influence of Advocacy Groups: CAMAP and DWDC have played a disproportionate role in influencing MAID policy. CAMAP has close ties to DWDC, an expansionist advocacy group, and this has resulted in a conflict of interest that has been disregarded by the Canadian government.

CAMAP's Role and Influence:

Activist Ideology: CAMAP promotes an activist approach to MAID and has its origins in the leading global MAID advocacy organization, DWDC. CAMAP's bylaws require that more than half of its directors must be assessors or providers who have approved or provided MAID for at least five people each year.

Policy Influence: CAMAP has been consulted by Health Canada and has received public funds ($3M CAD) to develop a national training curriculum. CAMAP members’ expertise appears to be based on informal accumulation of patient requests and deaths rather than formal training.

Guidance Documents: CAMAP's guidance documents have been geared toward expansion, with advice on how to circumvent requirements for those not approaching natural death. CAMAP advises clinicians to mention MAID to potentially eligible patients, which some consider a risk of coercion. The organization also suggests that the imminent loss of capacity can be seen as an "advanced state of irreversible decline."

Flaws in Canadian MAID Law:

Subjective Preferences: The irremediability is reduced to the subjective preference of the requester. The law allows the co-opting of the healthcare system for the delivery of ideologically driven deaths.

Lack of Medical Expertise: The majority of MAID delivery is by non-specialist family practitioners and nurse practitioners. The law allows a person with "expertise in the condition" to be consulted rather than requiring a specialist, explicitly to avoid barriers to access.

Prioritizing Access over Safety: The Canadian MAID law prioritizes access to MAID over safety measures. Some providers construct MAID in ideological terms, as ‘social justice,' 'a crusade,' or 'empowering people.'

Conclusion:

The rapid increase in MAID deaths in Canada is not solely a reflection of widespread public support but is influenced by a small group of activists. The close relationship between CAMAP and DWDC, along with the government's reliance on these organizations, has led to an expansionist approach to MAID. There is a need for substantial review of MAID policy and practice. Reforms are urgently needed to insulate policy development from the influence of minority views. The government should establish an independent and transparent public body more representative of clinical specialties and other stakeholder groups, as well as a public meta-regulator to provide oversight and standardization. Increased transparency is necessary for public accountability and patient safety.

What Can We Learn?

These findings are relevant to ongoing debates about assisted suicide and euthanasia globally. The Canadian example highlights the need for safeguards and transparent processes to prevent similar issues elsewhere. Policymakers, medical professionals, and the public should be aware of these risks when considering end-of-life options.

Dr. Yuriko Ryan is a Canadian bioethicist and gerontologist who explores emerging topics including end-of-life care, mental health and addiction, and artificial intelligence. She is an ethicist with more than 25 years experience in health policy research and healthcare administration. She has a doctorate in bioethics and a Master's degree in gerontology from Simon Fraser University. 

Montana Senate Bill 136 would prevent assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Senator Carl Glimm

Montana State Senator, Carl Glimm introduced Senate Bill 136. SB 136 will prevent assisted suicide by clarifying that consent is not a defense for homicide or assisted suicide.

Montanans have a confusing legal situation concerning assisted suicide. 

In 2009, the Baxter lower court decision declared that Montanans have a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montanans do not have a right to assisted suicide but the Court found a defense of consent, meaning, a Montana physician who assists a suicide must prove that there was consent. 

Article: Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Baxter decision, the assisted suicide lobby claims that assisted suicide is legal in Montanaw while assisted suicide remains technically prohibited. Montanans have been dying by assisted suicide.

SB 136 will prevent assisted suicide by clarifying that consent is not a defense for homicide or assisted suicide. Among other things SB 136 states:

(3) (a) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), physician aid in dying is against public policy, and a patient's consent to physician aid in dying is not a defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.  

    (b) (i) For the purposes of this subsection (3), "physician aid in dying" means an act by a physician of prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a patient that the patient may self-administer to end the patient's life.  

    (ii) The term does not include an act of withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment or procedure authorized pursuant to Title 50, chapter 9 or 10."

Contact Montana State Senators and urge them to vote YES on SB 136. (List of legislative members).

Specifically contact the members of the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee immediately: 

Usher, Barry (Chair) (R) Ricci, Vince (VCh) (R) Andrea Olsen (VCh) (D) Emrich, Daniel (R) Lammers, Gayle (R) Manzella, Theresa (R) Neumann, Cora (D) Olsen, Andrea (D) Smith, Laura (D) Vinton, Sue (R)

Delaware Residents with Money Will Be Rendered Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs (HB 140)

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on January 24, 2025.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

“Aid in Dying” has been a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia since at least 1992.

The American Medical Association states that: "physician-assisted suicide" occurs when a doctor facilitates a patient’s death by providing the means or information to enable a patient to perform the life-ending act. "Euthanasia" is the administration of a lethal agent to kill another person.

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Reported motives have included: the “thrill” of getting other people to kill themselves; and wanting to see another person die.

The proposed Delaware Act (HB 140) has a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no required oversight. No witness, not even a doctor or other medical person is required to be present at a patient's death.

The proposed drugs used to kill patients are water or alcohol soluble. This is significant because the drugs used can thereby be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without the person's consent. If the person objected or struggled against administration, would anyone know?”

Delaware law prevents a person who kills another person, i.e., commits homicide, from inheriting from the person that he or she killed. The rationale is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.

HB 140, however, states that: a person who intentionally kills another person will be allowed to inherit. This is because deaths occurring pursuant to HB 140 will be treated as natural, as if the person who died, had died from natural causes, as opposed to a lethal overdose. In the event of the Act’s passage, Delaware residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, will be rendered sitting ducks to their heirs. Passage of the Act will create a perfect crime.