Response to Scotland assisted suicide bill: Disabled people are "not better off dead"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Liz Carr with Pam Duncan-Glancy

Craig Paton reported for the Independent on May 13, 2025 on the Not Dead Yet UK rally outside Holyrood (Scottish parliament) as the Liam McArthur assisted suicide bill was debated and voted on. 

The rally opposing assisted suicide featured actress Liz Carr and Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Paton reported that Silent Witness star Liz Carr told campaigners outside the Scottish Parliament that:

“I am so fed up of having to answer strangers’ questions, even in this day and age, who think that being us must be the worst thing imaginable,” she said to campaigners, which included a number of disabled people.

“That having pain, having difficulty with everyday activities, must mean that it would be better if we were dead – that is not the case.”

Paton reported that Liz Carr qualifies for assisted suicide under the bill.

“But it also has a definition that I would qualify under, I would define myself as a disabled person, but actually the definition of having a progressive condition, I would come under that.

“So the potential for this to include far more than just those with true terminal illnesses … those as well with degenerative conditions, is what concerns so many of us and so many of the people that are here today.”

Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, who strongly opposes assisted suicide, also spoke at the rally. Paton reported:

Addressing the dozens of campaigners outside Holyrood, Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “If any of my colleagues are in any doubt whatsoever, if in doubt: don’t.”

She added: “The risk is too high.

“And so I hope that my colleagues will listen carefully to that and will not support this legislation this afternoon.

“I know that I will, on behalf of all of you, go in there and fight for out lives.”

The bill passed at second reading by a vote of 70 to 56. The bill will now go to committee and a final vote is expected later this year.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) is calling on MPs to consider serious concerns about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales, ahead of the pivotal Commons Report stage debate and Third Reading.

The following is the Press Release (May 13) from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK) (Link to the Press Release)

With too many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, the College has concluded that it cannot support the Bill in its current form. 

RCPsych is once again sharing its expert clinical insight to support MPs in making informed decisions ahead of the debate in Westminster on Friday 16 May 2025.  

During the Committee stage of the parliamentary process, the College raised questions about the assessments of the coordinating doctor and independent doctor, and is now raising further questions about the multidisciplinary panel (which would include a psychiatrist) being proposed by the Bill. 

The RCPsych wants MPs to consider the following ahead of the debate and Third Reading: 

1. Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide: Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, it needs to set out clearly how and at what point a clinician would be deemed to have discharged their duty of care to those who are at risk of self-harm or suicide under existing legislation and codes of practice.
2. There should be a requirement for a holistic assessment of unmet need: Treatable needs such as intolerable pain, financial hardship and inadequate care or housing can make a person want to die. Yet the Bill makes no provision to assess unmet needs at any stage, nor consult others involved in the person’s care or life.
3. Assisted dying/assisted suicide (AD/AS) is not a treatment: AD/AS does not aim to improve a person’s health and its intended consequence is death. The Bill does not specify whether AD/AS is considered a treatment option and this ambiguity has major implications in law in England and Wales. Should this Bill proceed, it should be explicit that AD/AS is not a treatment option.
4. The Mental Capacity Act does not provide a framework for assessing decisions about ending one’s own life: The Mental Capacity Act was created to safeguard and support people who do not have the capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment or matters like finances. Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, implications for both the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act need to be considered. How would clinicians assess the new kind of capacity to decide to end one’s life that is framed in the Bill? How would clinicians protect and empower people with terminal illness to decide whether or not to end their own life, while at the same time detain those who are at risk of suicide so that they can be urgently treated?
5. It is not clear what a psychiatrist’s role on a multidisciplinary panel would be: If this Bill proceeds in England and Wales, any role a psychiatrist plays in an AD/AS process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether a person’s wish to die can be remedied or treated.
6. There are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the Bill asks: As things currently stand, mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands.
7. Professionals must be able to conscientiously object to involvement in any part of the process: We are pleased to see that the Bill no longer requires medical professionals who do not wish to be involved to refer a person to another clinician, but they are still required to signpost patients to information on AD/AS. For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved in the AD/AS process.
8. Robust professional standards and oversight would need to be in place: Any professional involved in assessments for AD/AS would need to be adequately experienced, trained, and independently overseen.
9. Physical effects of a mental disorder shouldn’t make a person eligible for assisted dying/assisted suicide: If the Bill proceeds in England and Wales, it must exclude the physical effects of mental disorder, such as anorexia or dementia, as the basis for eligibility for AD/AS. 

Dr Lade Smith CBE, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: 

"After extensive engagement with our members, and with the expertise of our assisted dying/assisted suicide working group, the RCPsych has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands. 

"It’s integral to a psychiatrist’s role to consider how people’s unmet needs affect their desire to live. The Bill, as proposed, does not honour this role, or require other clinicians involved in the process to consider whether someone’s decision to die might change with better support. 

"We are urging MPs to look again at our concerns for this once-in-a-generation Bill and prevent inadequate assisted dying/assisted suicide proposals from becoming law."

Dr Annabel Price, Lead for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in England and Wales at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: 

"The College has spent decades focused on preventing people from dying by suicide. A significant part of our engagement on this Bill to date has been to point out that people with terminal physical illnesses are more likely to have depression. Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide, and unmet needs can make a person’s life feel unbearable. But we know that if a person’s situation is improved or their symptoms treated, then their wish to end their life sooner often changes. 

"The Bill does not specify whether assisted dying/assisted suicide is a treatment option – an ambiguity that has major implications in law. It is our view that these proposals should not be considered a treatment as assisted dying/assisted suicide does not aim to improve a person’s health. Furthermore, the Mental Capacity Act in England and Wales offers no framework for assessing such a decision. 

"This Bill proposes that psychiatrists be involved through assessments of mental capacity as part of routine psychiatric practice and in a safeguarding role on a panel. But mental health services do not currently have the resource required to meet a new range of demands. 

"If this Bill proceeds, any role a psychiatrist plays in an assisted dying/ assisted suicide process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether someone’s wish to die can be remedied or treated."

View our full briefing document (PDF)

Scotland assisted suicide vote: eugenics then, euthanasia now.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Madeline Grant was published in the Telegraph on May 13, 2025 in response to the vote on the Scottish assisted suicide bill. Sadly, the Scottish parliament passed the assisted suicide bill (at second reading) by a vote of 70 - 56.

In the name of progress: eugenics then, euthanasia now, Grant argues that in the past, eugenics was considered progressive and look at the atrocities associated with eugenics. 

Today euthanasia is considered progressive. Grant writes:

It was in the name of progress that the Fabian and socialist eugenicists – from Beatrice and Sidney Webb to Bertrand Russell and Marie Stopes – advocated the sterilisation of the disabled and sick during the 20th century. It was in the name of progress that George Bernard Shaw supported “the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, even, chillingly, proposing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and other members of the “unfit” classes via “extensive use of the lethal chamber”. In short; a very dangerous word indeed. This isn’t just a history lesson either; the groups these people supported still exist. Dignity in Dying, the main advocacy group for assisted dying, was founded by a member of the Eugenics Society and was known until 2006 as The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Grant then comments on the current assisted suicide debate in the UK:

In our own day, the same concept is being invoked once more as a sort of unanswerable force. The debate over assisted suicide is intensifying on both sides of the Border this week, as Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members’ Bill returns to Parliament and Holyrood MSPs voted in favour of a similar Bill proposed by Lib Dem Liam McArthur. In her efforts to champion her Bill on social media, the former is emerging as someone with Van Gogh’s ear for diplomacy; both tactless and self-aggrandising. This week she dismissed opponents as “scaremongering and ideological”, while quoting praise of herself from a supporter, describing her as a “social reformer”. At least irony hasn’t been assisted with its death.

"The inconvenient truth," Grant goes on:

is that, in this case progress involves the sidelining and rejection of the very people whose needs it claims to advance. The Royal College of Physicians recently published a statement warning that the Bill’s “deficiencies” render it unsafe for patients and doctors. Was this “scaremongering”? Every user-led disability group opposes the change, as do a majority of palliative care professionals. Are they “ideologues” too?

Grant then refers to the former Scottish Tory Leader, Ruth Davidson's support for assisted suicide because she wants to be on the "right side of history":

It is telling that despite supporting assisted suicide in principle, former Scots Tory Leader Ruth Davidson couldn’t quite endorse the parallel Bill before Holyrood in its current form. Instead, in a column this week, she urges MSPs simply to trust that they will be able to iron out any problems at a later date. She also cites the number of countries around the world offering assisted suicide as if this, in itself, constituted an argument. What many of these jurisdictions actually show is quite the opposite to Davidson’s Panglossian faith that everything will work itself out.

Grant then digs into the deceptive language used in the debate:

A particularly invidious aspect of this debate has been the manipulation of language. Not only is there a tendency to imply, per Leadbeater, that the pro-side has a monopoly on compassion, relatives’ understandable efforts to prevent their loved ones from taking their own lives have sometimes been reframed as “coercion”. During the “expert” witness testimony, one Australian MP referred to “assisted dying” in exquisitely Orwellian fashion, as a form of “suicide prevention”. There has even been some squeamishness about using the word “suicide” at all, though the Bill would by definition amend the 1961 Suicide Act. It’s as if they fear this serious change to the social fabric will be impossible without annexing language to limit what their opponents may say. And now, showing tragedy and farce are far closer than we think, Kim Leadbeater is apparently a “social reformer”.

Grant notes:

The irony is that Leadbeater and her allies no doubt think of themselves and their actions as progressive. Yet each of them is simultaneously engaged in the business of ignoring the voices of the poor and the vulnerable.

Grant concludes by arguing that Leadbeater is doing more to undo social healthcare than Thatcher did with privatisation.

This Bill is so comprehensively at odds with the principles of previous social reform that enacting it will mean rewriting the Bill on which the National Health Service was forged. The legislation is so far-sweeping that the Bill’s proponents may become the first people to undo the basic healthcare principle that life should be preserved. This is worth restating for all the “sensibles” out there; it wasn’t Mrs Thatcher or “Tory privatisation”, but a Labour backbencher who will fundamentally change the stated purpose of the NHS – and in a final irony, will do so not in the name of profit but of progress.

More articles on this topic:

• Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK) - Have the vulnerable become expendable (Link)?

The Lies in New York’s Assisted Suicide Bill

This article was published by National Review on May 13, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

New York is close to passing a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Having passed the assembly, it is currently being considered in the senate.

I read the bill, and much of it consists of the usual obfuscating definitions and pretenses seen in all such proposals. But a few of the provisions struck me as particularly mendacious. First, it defines prescribing poison as a “medical practice.” From S. 138:

“Medical aid in dying” means the medical practice of a physician prescribing medication to a qualified individual that the individual may choose to self-administer to bring about death.

Facilitating suicide is not, and never has been, “medical.” I could prescribe sufficient barbiturates to cause death by overdose. You could too. The only difference is the MD has the right to use the pad and lay people don’t.  Indeed, as the Estonian supreme court recently noted while (lamentably) creating a civil right to suicide for any reason, assisted suicide “intentionally causes harm” to the person who dies and “causing death cannot be considered the provision of a healthcare service.”

The bill also engages in blatant language reengineering:

§ 2899-n. Relation to other laws and contracts. 1. (a) A patient who requests medication under this article shall not, because of that request, be considered to be a person who is suicidal, and self-administering medication under this article shall not be deemed to be suicide, for any purpose.

But that is precisely what it is! Death by “medical aid in dying” isn’t natural. It is self killing, intentionally ending one’s own life, i.e. suicide.

And this means that some suicidal people will not be offered suicide prevention — which all suicidal people deserve regardless of the reason for wanting to end it all — even if the actual suicidal ideation is caused by something other than the underlying illness.

More:

Action taken in accordance with this article shall not be construed for any purpose to constitute suicide, assisted suicide, attempted suicide, promoting a suicide attempt, euthanasia, mercy killing, or homicide under the law, including as an accomplice or accessory or otherwise.

The law can redefine a dung beetle into a butterfly, but it still can’t fly and doesn’t consume nectar!

Of course, the legislation requires falsifying vital statistics:

§ 2899-p. Death certificate. 1. If otherwise authorized by law, theattending physician may sign the qualified individual’s death certificate.

Thee cause of death listed on a qualified individual’s death certificate who dies after self-administering medication under this article will be the underlying terminal illness or condition.

But disease will not be the actual cause of death. And remember, sometimes people diagnosed with a terminal illness never die from that condition.

Falsifying death certificates serves two purposes. First, it prevents transparency. Investigators will be unable to access the information they need to conduct independent studies. And second, pretending that some suicides are natural deaths distorts suicide statistics by making it appear as if fewer people killed themselves than actually did.

Dr Lydia Dugdale

I’ll close by recommending an excellent critique of the bill by the physician author of The Lost Art of Dying, published by the New York Times (of all places). From, “There Are Ways to Die With Dignity, but Not Like This,” by L. S. Dugdale:

When it comes to conventional suicide, it’s no secret that people who suffer from depression are at greater risk. There is no reason to think that depression is any less of a factor when it comes to physician-assisted suicide. Yet the New York bill, which is modeled on the Death With Dignity law enacted in Oregon in 1997, does not even require a mental health professional to screen patients for depression unless one of the doctors involved determines that the patient’s judgment may be impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder.

This is a major oversight that fails to protect depressed people from making flawed decisions. Depression is not just a mood; it distorts perception, often convincing people that their lives are worthless, their loved ones are better off without them and death is their only option.

Indeed. And I know of several cases of terminally ill people backing away from the ledge when they received proper social interventions and were very glad to still be alive.

Here is Dr. Dugdale’s powerful conclusion:

This is not a compassionate policy — not in Canada, not in Oregon and not, should the bill become law, in New York. Instead of investing in the infrastructure of support for the lonely, the depressed, the disabled and the poor, we offer them a prescription for death. We call it autonomy, but it’s abandonment.

The art of dying well cannot be severed from the art of living well, and that includes caring for one another, especially when it is hard, inconvenient or costly. It is not enough to offer the dying control. We must offer them dignity — not by affirming their despair but by affirming their worth. Even when they are suffering. Even when they are vulnerable. Even when they are, in worldly terms, a burden. [Emphasis added.]

I urge you to read the whole piece. And I urge the New York State Senate to vote no on abandonment and yes on greater care. Assisted suicide is bad “medicine” and worse public policy.

Assisted Dying bill (UK) is losing support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Eleanor Hayward reported for the Times that a poll by Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, asked 103 out of 650 MP's how they planned to vote on the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill at final reading.

The bill returns to parliament, from committee, on May 16.

The poll indicated that 42% of the MP's where planning to vote against the assisted suicide bill, 36% supported the bill, while the others were undecided or planning to abstain from the vote.

The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill passed, on November 29, 2024, at second reading by a vote of 330 to 275. This new poll suggests that the vote has shifted.

The Times reported that:

Some MPs have turned against the bill as it has gone through the committee stage, during which the bill lost its requirement for a High Court judge to sign off each assisted dying application. Dozens of MPs are thought to have only backed the bill at its second reading because of this requirement.

Gordon Macdonald

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, the chief executive of Care Not Killing, told the Times that:

“The more MPs hear about assisted suicide and what it entails, the less likely they are to support changing the law.

“Clearly MPs recognise that removing the requirement for every application to be overseen by the High Court — part of a formal judicial process with the duty to consider all views and the power to summon witnesses — makes the bill much less safe, while the rejection of amendments aimed at protecting the most vulnerable people in our society is making many people think again.

“This bill was sold to parliament and to members of the public as being the safest in the world, yet the truth is this bill if it became law would put the lives of vulnerable people at risk, exactly as we see in every jurisdiction that has legalised assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

To gain back support for her assisted suicide bill, Kim Leadbeater recently urged MPs to back an amendment to the assisted dying bill which would commission a new assessment on the state of palliative care, a move first proposed by the bill’s opponents.

Leadbeater doesn't need to amend the bill in order to commission an assessment on the state of palliative care, nonetheless, this is an attempt by her to convince more MP's to support her assisted suicide bill.

New Polling Reveals Strong Public Concern Over Assisted Dying Bill in Scotland

Media Release - Not Dead Yet UK

Today (Tuesday 13 May), the day on which MSPs will vote on The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, Not Dead Yet UK are publishing the results of polling conducted on our behalf by Whitestone Insights in relation to the views held by Scots on the impact of this proposed legislation.

The polling shows significant concern from Scots that introducing assisted dying will have a negative impact on disabled people, and shows even stronger concern from people polled who had disabilities. Online interviews were held between 2 and 7 May reaching 1088 people. 298 self-identified as having a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. This rises to over three (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

Disability groups have made it clear that Holyrood should not introduce assisted dying to Scotland but are being ignored by MSPs who appear to be intent on changing the law. Three-quarters (75%) of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide.This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

Pam Duncan-Glancy, MSP for Glasgow, said:

“These statistics show the public share my concerns that legalising assisted dying at a time when health and social care budgets are under sustained pressure is a real risk to people’s lives”

Comment from Mike Smith, former Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Chair of its Disability Committee and spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK said:

“It’s clear from this polling that a significant majority of Scots agree that disabled people’s lives will be threatened if this legislation is passed.

Coercion comes in many forms, whether it’s intentional or more subtle. Most Scots agree some disabled people could feel be encouraged to end their lives even if they don’t want to.

The very existence of this wide-reaching legislation itself would send a message from the state that it would be better for disabled people to opt for assisted suicide. This is hardly surprising when two thirds of people agree assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise.

In an environment where people struggle to access the health and social care they need to live a life with dignity, this is not the right time to be risking people’s lives.

The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. Nearly 90% of those with a view agree, yet many organisations representing disabled people feel their voices have been ignored in this debate.

In the survey results, disabled people were more likely to agree with every single statement.They know the reality of their lives and how hard they can be. Their voices must be heard and their fears not ignored.

Given 80% of Scots agree that improved access to care has to come before assisted suicide is considered, we urge all MSPs to vote against this bill next Tuesday. It is dangerous and will imperil people’s lives. MSPs should be protecting the right to life for the many whose voices are not as loud as the well-funded campaign to change the law.”

Highlights

Nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Scots agree that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised. Only 23% disagreed (Question 1a). This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c)

This rises to over three-quarters (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

55% of Scots agree to 27% disagree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

75% of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

54% of Scots agree, versus 28% who disagree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it. (Question 1f) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Another way of presenting - If ‘don’t knows’ are removed:

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, nearly three-quarters (72.2%) agreed that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised (Question 1a). This rises to 75.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, three-quarters (75.7%) agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to 80.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, 8 in 10 (80.2%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c) This rises to 84.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, over two-thirds (67.4%) agree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to 75.3% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, almost 9 in 10 (89.3%) agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 91.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, two-thirds (66%) agree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it.. (Question 1f)

This rises to 74.6% for people polled who had a disability.

Background information

Disabled Peoples Organisations in Scotland have come out strongly against the McArthur Bill.This included the following organisations that have issued a joint letter calling on MSPs to oppose the Bill:

• Disability Equality Scotland.
• Inclusion Scotland. 
• Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living. 
• Glasgow Disability Alliance. 
• People First. 
• Self Directed Support Scotland.

A Canadian man, Roger Foley, has written powerfully in the ‘Herald’ of his experience as a disabled man living in Canada (where the law changed in 2016):

“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested to me that I should end my life.”

Scotland cannot follow this path - the risk is too great, regardless of any good intent on the part of Liam McArthur.

Assisted suicide is not a compassionate policy.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Lydia Dugdale

Dr. L.S. Dugdale who is a physician and an ethicist at Columbia University and the author of the book: “The Lost Art of Dying: Reviving Forgotten Wisdom.” wrote an excellent commentary that was published in the New York Times on May 11, 2025.

Dugdale begins her article by providing insight into some of the problems with modern medicine. She then writes:

Given my views, you might expect that I would celebrate the Medical Aid in Dying Act recently passed by the New York State Assembly and now awaiting action in the New York State Senate. But this bill, like similar legislation that facilitates dying in places such as Oregon and Canada, is not about dying well. It is about relieving society — government, medical systems, even families — of the responsibility to care for those who need the most help: the mentally ill, the poor, the physically disabled.

Dugdale points out that the New York bill defines assisted suicide as "aid in dying" and as a medical practice.

The New York bill defines “aid in dying” as a medical practice. If a patient qualifies, a doctor can prescribe a lethal dose of drugs that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life. Labelling this a medical practice confers a kind of legitimacy on what is also called, more accurately, physician-assisted suicide.

Dugdale explains that the New York bill does not require a mental health assessment to protect depressed people from assisted suicide. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, only 3 out of 607 people who received a prescription for lethal assisted suicide poison, received a mental health assessment.

Dugdale explains that the New York assisted suicide bill does not allow assisted suicide for people based on disability alone and then states:

In this light, to claim that people with disabilities are protected by the New York bill is disingenuous. The bill may prevent them from qualifying for assisted suicide solely because of their disabilities, but disability can become a terminal condition by choice — or despair.

Dugdale then looks to the Canadian experience with euthanasia:

Here, the experience of Canada, which since 2016 has allowed eligible adults to request medical assistance in dying, is worrisome. In 2023, 432 Canadians who received assisted suicide said they required but did not receive disability support services. More disturbing still, nearly half of the non-terminal patients who received assisted suicide did so at least in part because of loneliness. One man sought assisted death as a result of homelessness, then changed his mind after a GoFundMe campaign helped him find shelter. What began as a right to die when death is “reasonably foreseeable” seems to have evolved into the possibility of a hastened death for almost any form of suffering.

Dugdale concludes by reinforcing that assisted suicide is not a compassionate policy:

This is not a compassionate policy — not in Canada, not in Oregon and not, should the bill become law, in New York. Instead of investing in the infrastructure of support for the lonely, the depressed, the disabled and the poor, we offer them a prescription for death. We call it autonomy, but it’s abandonment.

More articles on this topic:

• New York Post editorial board opposes assisted suicide. (Link).
• Action is needed: New York state Assembly passes assisted suicide bill (Link).

Vancouver event - Opposing Euthanasia in Canada: Looking to the Future with Hope

Attend the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Euthanasia Resistance BC event - May 26 @ 6:30 pm

Opposing Euthanasia in Canada: Looking to the Future with Hope featuring key note speaker: Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

This event is open to the public but requires a free eventbrite registration (Registration Link)

The event is at the: Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre, Junior Ballroom - 1000 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC on May 26 at 6:30 pm.

 

Estonia Supreme Court Declares a "right" to suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on May 6, 2025

By Wesley J Smith

Five years ago, the highest court in Germany declared that committing suicide is a fundamental right — for everybody and for any reason — and that being assisted or assisting others in the act are ancillary rights associated with that liberty. In other words, death on demand. Now the Supreme Court of Estonia appears to have followed the same course.

Here’s the context: A man who provided a suicide machine to those who wanted to kill themselves was acquitted of any culpability. He was charged, among other crimes, with providing health services without a license. But the Court ruled — quite logically and correctly — that helping someone commit suicide is not health care. From the ERR News story:

The Supreme Court noted that Tammert’s actions did not serve any of the legally required purposes of providing healthcare services. Current law does not recognize as treatment any activity that intentionally harms health. Therefore, causing death cannot be considered the provision of a healthcare service.

I wish our courts understood that assisted suicide — despite its being called euphemistically “medical aid in dying” — isn’t health care. It is simply suicide, or helping someone commit suicide.

If the Estonian court had left it at that, it would be one thing. But it ruled that committing suicide is a right, as is assisting and being assisted in doing so:

The Supreme Court further emphasized that every competent individual has the right to end their life voluntarily. Criminal liability for assisting in such an act can only arise if the person is unable to carry it out themselves or lacks full understanding of the significance of their actions.

The court called on the Estonian parliament to issue regulations to guide non-medical suicide facilitation. In other words, once again: death on demand.

At least these rulings candidly cut through the toxic smoke so often generated by assisted-suicide advocates who claim that the death agenda is about terminal illness or, indeed, physical illness or disability at all.

Here is the debate we should be having.

• Should suicide be a right?
• If people want to be dead, should they have a right to be assisted in terminating their lives?
• Are there any limits to personal autonomy?

Bottom line: The high court rulings in Estonia and Germany demonstrate that the real goal — or, at least, the destination — of assisted suicide advocacy is a right to death by any competent person for any cause and assisted by anyone.

So, let’s stop pretending that any of this is about medicine or health care. That conceit merely corrupts the medical profession.

And let’s face the fact that, to an increasing degree, the West is no longer an anti-suicide culture.

Sonu Gaind: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

EPC has copies of the book Unravelling MAiD in Canada available for purchase.

Purchase the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Previous article: Ramona Coelho: Unravelling MAiD in Canada (Link).

The following speech was presented by Dr Gaind for the April 15 launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

Dr. Sonu Gaind is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto and Chief of Psychiatry at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. He is an Executive Member and Medical Practice & Tariff Chair of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) Section on Psychiatry and Chair of the OMA Relativity Advisory Committee, and a Past-President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

Sonu Gaind speaking at book launch.

Dr K. Sonu Gaind

You know, we often say it’s the journey and not the destination, but in this case I’m not so sure. It’s been a pretty rough journey for many advocating in this area, and it is pretty great to finally see this important work see the light of day. 

I’m so appreciative of the chance to be standing here with my co editors, Ramona Coelho and Trudo Lemmens, as we launch this book. I truly hope it contributes to our national discourse as we, as a society, continue navigating the challenging waters of how, and what, we should or should not be helping people die for. I also want to thank all of our authors, whose wisdom and compassion shine through both in this volume and through their own advocacy, and also our publisher McGill/Queen’s University Press for their support and guidance through this process.

And of course, thank all of you for being here today, both in person and online (we have another about 40 or 50 people online ). A particular shout out to my dad, who couldn’t be here for health reasons but is watching - Dada, I think by now you’ve probably read and re-read the book more carefully than me, Trudo and Ramona put together. And while I’m doing shout outs, the loudest has to be to my wife Lystra and my kids Dante and Sabine even when this work has taken me away from you, you’ve always still been there for me.

When I look around this room I’m amazed by the range of friends and colleagues who have come out to celebrate this occasion with us. Thank you all so much. We have university colleagues, hospital and workplace colleagues, old friends and new confreres we’ve met and made through this journey. The diversity is remarkable, and I think a testament to how important this issue is, and how deeply people want to think about and engage in it, if given a chance.

Why we might choose, as a society, to provide death to fellow Canadians is a hugely complex issue, and one that should engender robust and honest debate. It’s legitimate to debate when it might be compassionate to help relieve suffering, versus when it might be abandonment to facilitate suicide.

Unfortunately that honest debate is not what has driven our MAiD expansion so far. Instead, as outlined in my chapter, Fall of Duty: The Breach of Trust and Moral Failure of Canada’s Entrusted Experts, and other chapters in the book, we’ve had troubling processes that have led to Canada becoming the world’s canary in a coal mine on euthanasia expansion. As Trudo will mention, the United Nations has explicitly raised concerns that our own policy makers refuse to acknowledge, of the existential risks our current MAiD expansions pose to marginalized Canadians.

That’s why I think this book is so important. From lived experience, expertise, cultural considerations and lenses of diversity, the authors unflinchingly explore not only why our most privileged, who have lived well and want autonomy to die well, might seek MAiD; but also why our most marginalized, struggling with access to social care, who society never afforded a chance to live with dignity, might (and are) increasingly seeking available euthanasia to escape life's suffering.

What we provide death for is the flip side of how we help people live.

It’s not an easy message to hear, but it’s an essential one, since I can’t think of much that defines us more as a society is that we help people live with dignity before they need to "choose" death as their only option. And for bringing these perspectives forward with eloquence, clarity, humanity and humility, often in the face of privileged voices trying to stifle any cautions, I’m deeply grateful to all our authors and co-editors to have been part of this endeavour.

Book Launch on April 15, 2025 (Link to Video)

Coroners inquest into the euthanasia death of man with a bed sore

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Normand Meunier

Rachel Watts reported for CBC News on April 12, 2024 that a quadriplegic man, Normand Meunier (66) died by (MAiD) euthanasia after developing a severe bedsore at a hospital in Saint-Jérôme, Québec. Meunier experienced a tragic spinal chord injury in 2022. Normand died by euthanasia on March 29, 2024.

Gordon Friesen, the President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition responded to the Meunier death by stating:

Gordon Friesen

In January, 2024, Normand Meunier visited the emergency department of a major regional hospital in the Province of Quebec, the jurisdiction with the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Meunier was complaining of a potentially life-threatening respiratory infection which was successfully treated during his stay. And yet, before he was even formally admitted to hospital, this patient spent 95 hours on a stretcher in the emergency corridor, resulting in a severe pressure sore which ultimately decided him to end his own life through consent to Medical Assistance in Dying.

A Coroner's inquest in St-Jerome Québec is investigating the death of Normand Meunier. Steve Rukavina reported for CBC News on May 5 that:

Sylvie Brosseau, her voice breaking and her eyes moist, spoke of her husband's final days over a year after he sought medical assistance in dying following a hospital stay that left him with a severe and painful bedsore.

"His last two weeks…it was horror," she told reporters during a break in the public inquiry into his death that began Monday morning in Montreal.

"I hope this will change things, because even now nothing has changed."

Normand Meunier, 66, who was quadriplegic, was stuck on a stretcher in an emergency room at a hospital in Saint-Jérôme, Que., for four days in January of last year.

During his stay, Meunier didn't have access to a special mattress and developed a major pressure sore on his buttocks. It eventually worsened to the point where bone and muscle were exposed and visible — making his recovery and prognosis bleak.

He was told the sore — a gaping hole a few centimetres in diameter — would, at best, take several months to heal, according to the experts he consulted.

"It was horrible. He had no buttocks. There was nothing left," Brosseau said.

The day before his death, Meunier spoke to Radio-Canada and said he preferred putting an end to his physical and psychological suffering by opting for a medically assisted death.

Meunier died on March 29, 2024.

Steve Rukavina reported for CBC News on May 6 that:

Brigitte Guilbon, a licensed practical nurse who was part of Meunier's care team from 2022 until his death in March 2024, testified Tuesday at the coroner's inquiry looking into the 66-year-old's death. 

Guilbon testified she had never seen a wound like the one Meunier returned home with after being stuck on a stretcher for four days in the emergency room. 

"His morale was very, very low, and the sore was horrible," Guilbon testified, wiping her eyes as her voice broke. 

As Guilbon described the gaping, blackened wound on Meunier's buttocks a few centimetres in diameter, coroner Dave Kimpton requested a brief recess, noting the testimony was difficult for Meunier's partner, Sylvie Brosseau, to hear. 

When the hearing resumed, Kimpton said future witnesses would not be asked to describe the wound in detail, to spare Brosseau from having to hear the description repeatedly.
Meunier was quadriplegic and prone to bedsores. Guilbon testified he had to be turned every two hours in order to prevent them. 

She said before the hospital stay in late January 2024, she and other members of Meunier's care team were able to keep his recurring bedsores "stable" and "under control." 

Guilbon said before Meunier was admitted to hospital with a suspected virus on Jan. 18, 2024, his general state was good. 

During the hospital stay, Meunier didn't have access to a special pressure mattress that he normally used at home, despite Brosseau making repeated requests to hospital staff. 

Guilbon testified she was shocked when she first saw Meunier's bedsore on Feb. 1, 2024, after he returned home from hospital, saying she had never seen such a wound in her 15-year career. 

She said she questioned whether he should've even been released from hospital, and that she believed the bandage and treatment of the bedsore at the hospital were not appropriate. 

Guilbon said she and the home-care team did their best to care for the wound, but it continued to deteriorate in the weeks following Meunier's hospital stay. 

She said at the time, Meunier wasn't sleeping well and was very worried about his prognosis. 

Brigitte Cyr, the head of the home-care department for the CLSC that provided care to Meunier, also testified Tuesday. 

She said she first became aware of Meunier's case on Feb. 2, 2024, when his occupational therapist asked to meet with her. 

Cyr said the the occupational therapist was "a bit panicked" as she recounted what home-care nurses and Brosseau had said about Meunier's extended stay on a stretcher in the ER and the bedsore he developed. 

Then Cyr saw a photo of the bedsore. She said it defied imagination. 

"I said to myself, 'my god, what happened?'" she testified. 

Cyr said she immediately followed up with the hospital and arranged for Meunier to be readmitted for a treatment that can be painful, known as debridement, which involves removing damaged tissue from a wound to help it heal better. 

She says she also made inquiries to try to determine what went wrong during Meunier's hospital stay but had trouble getting clear answers.

Sylvie Brosseau, Normand Meunier's wife, was constantly at his side after his accident.

Gordon Friesen responded to the death of Normand Meunier by stating - In a word: Bad care produces more euthanasia. And more euthanasia enables more bad care.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Delta Hospice Society Press Conference at Parliamentary Press Gallery on May 7.

Press Release:

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Delta Hospice Society.
Parliamentary Press Gallery Room 135-B West Block Ottawa, 

Wednesday, May 7 at 9 am.

(Link to Press Conference recording)

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Angelina Ireland, the Executive Director of the Delta Hospice Society will be launching our new post election directions.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is demanding a full-review of Canada’s MAiD law. Schadenberg points out that:

On March 21, 2025 The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) urged the Canadian government to repeal Track 2 MAiD (MAiD for people who are not terminally ill) including the planned expansion to persons who “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness” to reject proposals to expand MAiD to “mature minors” and through advance requests.

On October 17, 2024 the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) report indicated that there were 428 non-compliant MAiD deaths in Ontario.

Angelina Ireland

The Delta Hospice Society is demanding that Healthcare Sanctuary be accepted as a human right for all Canadians. Facilities where they provide authentic healthcare, as opposed to “MAiD.” Angelina Ireland states that:

The world is watching the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the predatory euthanasia program known as MAiD.

The Canadian healthcare system is an international embarrassment as it turns against its own people to euthanize them.

For more information contact:

Alex Schadenberg: Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
519-851-1434

Angelina Ireland: Executive Director, Delta Hospice Society
778-512-8088

EPC Zoom event on Tuesday May 13. Celebrating 10 Million blog hits.

We invite you to ioin: 

Wesley Smith, Dr Margaret Cottle and Alex Schadenberg as we celebrate a milestone (10 Million epcblog.org hits) 

We will discuss the past and our continued efforts to prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide. The issue remains the same even if the politics and cultural have changed.

When: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:00 PM Eastern Time / 11 AM Pacific Time.
Register in advance for the meeting (Registration Link)

 

Wesley with Alex

Wesley Smith is a bio-ethicist, philosopher, lawyer and has writen 14 books. His first article opposing assisted suicide was published in 1992. Since then he has written hundreds of articles, he has been a speaker throughout North America and world-wide and he has been a leading voice in opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

Alex Schadenberg is the Executive Director and co-founder of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Alex has published more than 2300 articles, published books, produced video's and has been a speaker throughout North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Alex has worked full-time to prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide since 1999.

 

Dr Margaret Cottle

Dr Margaret Cottle is a Vancouver palliative care physician and clinical assistant professor at UBC Medical School. She is also an early leader of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and has written extensively and continues to speak out against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition blog is the world's largest source of information on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

Register in advance for the meeting (Registration Link)

Alberta Autistic woman approved for euthanasia again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Unheard published an article on May 3, 2025 by Alexander Raikin telling the story with pseudonyms, of the Alberta family, who's autistic daughter has been approved for euthanasia. Due to a publication ban, it is impossible to share actual names. 

This story is of particular importance because Marge (MV is the name used by the court) has been approved for euthanasia again. Raikin writes:

On 31 January, 2024, Wade was running out of time. He had tried everything to persuade his 28-year-old daughter, Marge, that she could get better. But Marge had been scheduled to die by assisted suicide at 2 p.m. the next day at the family’s home in Alberta, Canada. He was horrified. Marge was autistic, vulnerable, and had no diagnosed physical illness. Her autism made her different from her peers — and lonely, no doubt — but Wade knew this was no reason to terminate a young life.

He had to do something. So he went to the courts. The legal claim he filed on that frigid winter day would put Wade on a quest no father should have to face: saving his daughter’s life from a Canadian health system that at times appears more committed to delivering death than protecting health. By taking legal action, he managed to delay Marge’s death for a while. But he may be set to lose the battle.

Raikin further explains the dilemma:

The last physician to assess her for assisted suicide, a family doctor practicing with the Alberta Health Services (AHS), took fewer than 24 hours to review and approve her application. And although the neurologist treating her for fatigue and pain assessed her as “normal”, another family doctor, unknown to her parents, declared her to be terminally ill.

The father tells Raikin that his daughter's only diagnosed conditions are autism and ADHD and yet she was approved for death. Raikin explains that the daughter first applied for euthanasia in 2021:

It was 2021 when Marge first filled out the form — without telling her parents — asking to die. AHS, the public health-care system, connected her with two physicians. Although one physician deemed her eligible without any diagnosed physical symptoms, according to Wade, the second denied her application, presumably because she had no terminal illness. She seems to have only met some of the requirements, although it is impossible to know for sure without access to her MAiD assessment. Alberta’s policy was that in the case of a tie, the suicide would not proceed.

Raikin explains that the daughter went doctor shopping with the intention of applying for euthanasia again:

In 2022, she went doctor-shopping. She found another physician, an Alberta family practitioner, who intervened and supported her (their clinic didn’t reply to UnHerd’s request for comment). Unknown to the family, this doctor signed a change in her “Goals of Care Designation”, which is the medical standard used in Alberta to indicate how severely ill someone is. The doctor switched it to the most extreme category, which in some Canadian provinces indicates the likelihood of imminent death; that was almost three years ago.

In 2023 the daughter was approved for death by euthanasia.

The following year, in 2023, she applied for assisted dying a second time. Once again, the two physicians consulted disagreed. (The clinics at which these two practice didn’t reply to UnHerd’s request for comment; AHS declined to comment, citing the court case.) This time, however, the so-called MAiD navigator, who sherpas patients through the process, connected Marge with a third doctor as a “tiebreaker”. The chosen physician was the same one who had approved Marge’s MAiD application the first time, and did so again, within 24 hours.

Rankin explains that the father launched a court case to save his daughters life.

Her father couldn’t understand how any doctor could think Marge was qualified to die. “I thought MAiD was for, like, you’re dying anyway. So, we’ll just speed it up because you’re suffering. That’s what I thought it was for”, he tells me. “And I’m thinking, well, how could this be for Marge?” So, the day before her “MAiD provider” was meant to pay a final house visit, when a physician and a nurse would bring the lethal but now routine injection of a sedative, a coma-inducting agent, and a neuromuscular tranquiliser, Wade filed a last-minute court challenge. He claimed that Marge did not have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”, that her only diagnosed illnesses were mental, not physical, and that her second tie-breaking assessor was not independent.

The initial judge granted a temporary injunction that prevented the euthanasia death. The case went to court. Rankin reports that:

The judge, Justice Colin Feasby, of the Court of King’s Bench, Alberta, ruled that Marge’s father had a reasonable cause of action that the correct protocols around assisted dying weren’t followed. Marge had no terminal illness. Neither of the MAiD assessors appeared to be experts on Marge’s autism. And the independent assessor appointed as tiebreaker wasn’t, either.

The Canadian law provides no avenue for the judge to prevent a euthanasia death. Rankin reports:

Once it came to ruling on the substance of the dispute, however, the judge wouldn’t consider whether Marge qualified for assisted suicide; no evidence was accepted on even naming the condition for which she was approved. Any criminal prosecution, the judge ruled, could only happen after Marge is dead: “Parliament has put its trust in doctors and nurse practitioners, and it is not for this Court to second guess that choice.”

A court challenge was launched based on the part of the law that allows euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill. Rankin states:

In September, some of the largest Canadian disability groups launched a constitutional challenge against euthanasia based on non-terminal disabilities. The suit claimed it is an “appalling injustice” to offer suicide just on the grounds of disability. “It is not just wrong”, says Krista Carr, the executive vice president of Inclusion Canada, in an email to me. “It is discriminatory and violates our most fundamental rights.”

Rankin explains that even if the disability organizations are successful in their court challenge, that it won't happen in time to save the autistic woman. 

The father spent more than $150,000 on the court case and his daughter has been approved for euthanasia again.

Articles on this story:

• Euthanasia Prevention Coalition gains intervention standing in Calgary court case (Link).
• Calgary autistic woman is a victim of the "right to die" movement (Link).
  
• Great news: Judge prevents euthanasia death of Calgary autistic woman (Link). 
• Father of a 27-year-old autistic woman appeals court ruling in euthanasia decision (Link).