Another Canadian veteran was offered euthanasia instead of treatment.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article published in the Toronto Sun on April 25 and written by Brian Passifiume concerns David Baltzer, a Canadian veteran who was offered euthanasia instead of medical treatment in December 2019.

Baltzer, a two tour Afghanistan combat veteran with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI,) told the Toronto Sun that:

he was offered MAID in Dec. 23, 2019 — possibly making him among the first Canadian soldiers offered therapeutic suicide by the federal government.

“It made me wonder, were they really there to help us, or slowly groom us to say ‘here’s a solution, just kill yourself,”

The Toronto Sun reported Baltzer as saying:

“I was in my lowest down point, it was just before Christmas,” he told the Sun.

“He says to me, ‘I would like to make a suggestion for you. Keep an open mind, think about it, you’ve tried all this and nothing seems to be working, but have you thought about medical-assisted suicide?'”

Baltzer said that the suggestion left him reeling. Passifiume reported that Baltzer was offered treatment for PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) after returning from Afghanistan. The treatment was unsuccessful. Baltzer then turned to alcohol and substance abuse to deal with his trauma. Passifiume reported that:

The story first came out when when he was interviewed by CAF veteran Mark Meincke, whose trauma-recovery podcast Operation Tango Romeo broke the story. 

Meincke said Baltzer’s story shoots down VAC’s assertions blaming one caseworker for offering MAID to veterans, and suggests the problem is far more serious than some rogue public servant.

“It had to have been policy. because it’s just too many people in too many provinces,” Meincke told the Sun.

Meincke and Baltzer are calling for a complete reform of the Veterans Affairs.

Meincke said that he knows at least 5 veterans who were offered MAiD by veterans affairs.

More articles on this topic:

• Offering veterans MAiD instead of healthcare (Link).
• Afghanistan veteran slams euthanasia of veterans for PTSD (Link)
• The problems with Canada's MAiD policy (Link).

Offering veterans MAiD instead of healthcare.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on April 25, 2025.

Kelsi Sheren

By Kelsi Sheren.

Big shocker Veteran’s Affairs is at it again, the Canadian government, since 2022, is failing our veterans in the most disgusting and disgraceful way possible: by offering them death care instead of healthcare! But Kelsi?! didn’t they say they aren’t doing that anymore?? Yes they sure did, once again Liberal lies. Are we surprised honestly?

In a chilling repeat of a disturbing trend, another Canadian combat veteran has been offered medically assisted suicide (MAiD) instead of genuine support and treatment. My question is when did ending lives become an acceptable, even routine, solution for our veterans suffering from trauma, PTSD, or any other physical and mental health challenges? When did offering death become an easier alternative than providing the comprehensive care our veterans desperately deserve, care we know exists but are unwilling to use or fund.

Veterans, in my opinion deserve compassion, proper treatment, respect, dignity, and unwavering support, but thats just me I guess. We should NEVER be offering an off-ramp to the grave. This continues to be a disturbing, even horrifying trend that not even the Veteran Affairs Minister is aware of. To think that some government case managers, those specifically entrusted with the sacred duty of caring for our veterans, would even contemplate suicide as an option rather than investing the necessary time, resources, and genuine effort into authentic healing and recovery is insane. Our veterans fought and continue to fight for life and liberty and now for their own country to later suggest ending their life. This is one of the dangers on continuing to talk about MAiD as some “life saving amazing program!”

This story, not one we haven’t heard before but were promised would “never happen again” to a sinister and growing pattern, the Liberal government is a profound failure on several fronts. Failing in its moral, ethical, and basic human obligations to protect and care for those who willingly put their lives on the line for our freedoms. I do love how they continue to want to send us to other countries to fight, while pulling this bullshit and asking.. why are retention rates so low?! How could that be?!

What they should be asking themselves is how can we possibly trust a system that suggests death as a viable, acceptable solution? The very thought undermines the trust veterans and their families should rightly place in their government and healthcare system.

So, what can we do to rectify this continued failure? Fire everyone? Restart?

First, a good place to start would be to stop selling veteran’s out to Manulife Insurance and ACTUALLY support them! Next, there must be absolute, unequivocal accountability at every level. (Which we know won’t happen, but hey I’m just a combat veteran who is preaching accountability, something this government knows absolutely nothing about”

Case managers should never, under any circumstances, be authorized or empowered to suggest medical suicide. These case managers need to be made examples of because in 2022 when they were caught the first time, not a damn thing was done.

Counselling suicide should be crystal clear, explicitly stated in operational guidelines, and communicated with zero ambiguity. The word is NO! WE NEVER SUGGEST SOMEONE DIES instead of helping them. Next I would implement mandatory, rigorous oversight and thorough mental health training programs specifically designed around trauma-informed care, ensuring that case managers fully understand their critical role in protecting, preserving, and supporting veterans' lives.

Additionally, complete transparency in reporting any incidents or breaches is non-negotiable, alongside swift and public accountability measures, and what I really mean is heads on spikes. There must be an unequivocal, zero tolerance policy for anyone who recommends death over dedicated, thorough, and compassionate care and support.

Lastly, why is the VA not asking Veterans what they really want to see change? Why is this only done behind closed doors, where only government officials whom not a single one is a veteran by the way are speaking for us. We need to be actively involving veterans themselves in shaping our policies and procedures that directly impact their care, we need to ensure our voices and experiences are genuinely heard and respected.

This is not simply about revising policy, this is fundamentally about basic human decency, dignity, and respect.

It is far beyond time for Canada to truly step up, reform its priorities, and genuinely care for its veterans. Anything less than complete dedication to safeguarding their lives, health, and well-being is a betrayal of every sacrifice our veterans have ever made.

And trust me, the majority of Veterans in this country including myself are nothing but ashamed of this government, how they treat us and how they have hung every single one of us out to dry.

At this point, I’m shocked they don’t just mail us the noose’s themselves.

Some previous articles by Kelsi Sheren:

• I'm done staying quiet (Link).
• Offered assisted death instead of surgery (Link)
• Dying with Deception. Exposing Dying With Dignity Canada's Dangerous Lies and teh United Nations call for Truth (Link).
• Debunking the ethical argument for assisted dying for minors (Link).
• Franchising Death (Link).
• Let's call MAiD what it is (Homicide) (Link)
• The Death Cult of the Euthanasia Lobby (Link).

Law professor urges Delaware Governor to veto the assisted sucide bill.

Letter from law professor, Stephen Mikochik urging Delaware Governor Meyer to veto assisted suicide bill HB 140, “The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law.”

Stephen Mikochik

Dear Gov. Meyer:

I am a professor emeritus of Constitutional Law at Temple Law School in Philadelphia and a senior lecturer in Jurisprudence at Ave Maria Law School in Naples, Florida. I have reviewed numerous state proposals to legalize physician-assisted suicide. House Bill 140 would authorize that practice in Delaware.

I urge you not to sign H.B. 140. The bill threatens vulnerable patients, is not needed to mitigate pain at the end of life and creates a right that all competent persons who wish to end their lives for whatever reason will demand.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution;[1] and nowhere has the Supreme Court of Delaware held it protected under the State Constitution. Therefore, the question of whether to legalize assisted suicide is one of policy in Delaware; and the balance clearly weighs in favor of rejecting it.

On the one hand, a chief reason for rejecting assisted suicide is the protection of vulnerable patients from abuse. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

We have recognized … the real risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life situations. … The risk of harm is greatest for the many individuals in our society whose autonomy and well-being are already compromised by poverty, lack of access to good medical care, advanced age, or membership in a stigmatized social group. … The State’s interest here goes beyond protecting the vulnerable from coercion; it extends to protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and societal indifference. The State’s assisted-suicide ban reflects and reinforces its policy that the lives of terminally ill, disabled, and elderly people must be no less valued than the lives of the young and healthy and that a seriously disabled person’s suicidal impulses should be interpreted and treated the same way as anyone else’s.[2]

As shown in the attached letter to Sen. Sokola, H.B. 140 provides only phantom safeguards for vulnerable patients.

It is argued on the other hand that assisted suicide is needed to mitigate physical pain at the end of life. Most terminal patients, however, die peacefully; palliative care can control the pain of those who do not; and sedation is available if that care proves ineffective. Irremediable pain is not a major concern terminal patients express for seeking assisted suicide and is not a qualifying condition in H.B. 140 or nearly all other assisted suicide measures. Thus, it is not a factor that should tip the balance in favor of legalization.

It is further argued that H.B. 140 is needed to mitigate distress at the end of life. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed, however, many patients who request assistance in suicide withdraw that request when their depression is treated.[3] Depression, of course, affects others who have no terminal condition; but that only strengthens their claim for access to assistance in suicide since they may face distress, not  for months, but for a life-time.

Finally, it is argued that assisted suicide protects the dignity of terminal patients by respecting their choice. Yet, the threat to dignity is death itself; choosing death by poison over death by cancer is a feeble capitulation to that threat. To recast that choice as the right to act on one’s deepest beliefs on the meaning of life would make “the right to suicide and the right to assistance in suicide … the prerogative of at least every sane adult[:]”[4]

The depressed twenty-one year old, the romantically-devastated twenty-eight year old, the alcoholic forty- year old who choose suicide are also expressing their views … [on] existence, meaning, the universe, and life; they are also asserting their personal liberty.[5]

The State may act gradually to avoid the free-fall that Canada has faced; it may make exceptions for those whose family obligations would fall upon it if they died; but, once suicide is legalized for terminal patients, expansion is inevitable: How could the State distinguish among persons’ beliefs about the meaning of their lives?

You alone can sign H.B. 140 into law. You thus have the awful power to choose between life and death. I urge you not to sign it, and choose life.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen L. Mikochik

---

[1] See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

[2] Id. at 731-732 (citations & internal quotation marks omitted).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 49 F. 3d 586, 591 (9^th Cir. 1995), reversed en banc by 79 F.3d 790 (9^th Cir. 1996), reversed by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 721.

[5] Id. at 590-591.

New Jersey Suicide Prevention Program — Just Not All Suicides.

This article was published by National Review Online on April 22, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

New Jersey has started an admirable program to prevent suicide. From the NJ.com story:

A new state program will send trained mental health professionals and people with lived experience to respond to adults who contact the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

The Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams, which consist of one peer and one professional, will be dispatched through the state’s 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline centers to help adults struggling with mental illness and substance use disorder, without the need for police.

“Today’s announcement underscores that — in New Jersey — help is truly only a phone call or text message away,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement announcing the program’s launch.

That’s great. Too bad the effort won’t apply to all suicides.

You see, assisted suicide is legal in New Jersey. The self-terminations of people with a prognosis of six months or less ceases to be “suicide” when facilitated by a doctor. Indeed, the terminology of the law has been engineered to create a false narrative: The request for suicide facilitation is redefined as a desire to “end my life in a humane and dignified manner.” The drugs used in prescribed intentional lethal overdoses are renamed “medications.” Even the cause of death in such cases will be mendaciously reported as “natural” on death certificates when the real reason is the ingestion of barbiturates.

Suicide is suicide — it is a what, not a why. The state can claim it wants to prevent suicides, but people who ask for assisted suicide rarely (if ever) receive these important interventions — even though suicide prevention is supposed to be an essential hospice service.

This is so wrong. Statistics demonstrate that suicidal terminally ill patients opt for assisted suicide generally because of existential issues, such as fears of burdening family, losing dignity, about how one will be remembered, and so on. It isn’t about untreatable pain (nor do laws so require). These are important matters that should and can be ameliorated through intensive social interventions like those that will be offered to other suicidal people under the New Jersey plan. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that legalization may increase other suicides, which would seem to undermine suicide prevention efforts generally.

Because New Jersey has legalized assisted suicide, its prevention program will not be universally applied. That is akin to saying to smokers, “Don’t smoke,” but then adding, “However, if you do, use a filter cigarette.” The anti-suicide message is utterly inconsistent and, therefore, likely to be less effective.

Three states, three challenges. Delaware, Illinois, Nevada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The states of Delaware, Illinois and Nevada require your immediate attention.

Delaware passed assisted suicide bill HB 140 in the House and the Senate.

Governor Matt Meyer

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer must veto assisted suicide bill HB 140. Last year Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed the assisted suicide bill after it passed. 

Contact Governor Meyer and urge him to prevent killing with a veto of assisted suicide Bill HB 140. Contact Delaware Governor Matt Meyer (Contact Link).

llinois assisted suicide bill SB9 passed in the Senate Executive Committee and will soon be debated in the full Senate. We need everyone to contact Illinois Senators and urge them to prevent the killing of Illinois citizens by defeating Bill SB9. Some talking points are below.

Contact the members of the Illinois Senate (Senate Contact List)

Governor Lombardo

In 2023, the Nevada House and Senate passed an assisted suicide bill. Thankfully Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed the bill.

In 2025, the Nevada House and Senate passed assisted suicide Bill AB 246. Recently Governor Lombardo stated that he would veto the bill (Link).

Send a message to Governor Lombardo reminding him to veto assisted suicide bill AB 246 at (this link) or send your message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo or call him at: (775) 684-5670.

When contacting Delaware Governor Matt Meyer or the Illinois State Senators use some of these talking points:

• Legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the right in law to be involved with causing the death of their patients at the most vulnerable time of their lives.
• Assisted suicide is not about freedom or choice but it is a form of cultural and medical abandonment.
• A caring culture supports good end of life care and opposes assisting suicides. 

If you have a personal story, please share it. It is important to remind elected representatives that the disability community opposes assisted suicide because legalizing assisted suicide devalues their lives.

The assisted suicide lobby has expanded existing assisted suicide legislation in nearly every state, once legal. Oregon eliminated their reflection period and has eliminated their residency requirement. Vermont is permitting assisted suicide by telehealth, they are forcing medical practitioners who oppose assisted suicide to refer patients to death and they have eliminated their residency requirement. Washington state, California, Colorado and Hawaii have also expanded their assisted suicide laws.

Once assisted suicide is legal, the assisted suicide lobby will lobby or launch court cases to expand the law. The original assisted suicide bill is designed to pass in the legislature, once passed incremental extentions will follow.

Ramona Coelho: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

The following speech was written by Dr Ramona Coelho for the April 15 launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada.

EPC has copies of the book available for purchase. 

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

By Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho speaking on April 15.

Thank you so much for being here. I’m deeply grateful to share this moment with all of you, and especially honoured to stand alongside Dr Harvey Schipper and my co-editors, Dr. Sonu Gaind and Professor Trudo Lemmens. The book we’re launching tonight is the result of years of lived experience, medical care, research, and a common concern — concern for Canadians, and for the future of medical care and societal culture in this country.

We release this book at a critical time. As Trudo has mentioned, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has recommended the repeal of Track 2 MAiD. Likewise, the Ontario Coroner’s MAiD Death Review Committee — of which both Trudo and I are members — has begun publishing reports that document serious public safety concerns in MAiD cases. What we see confirms what many of us in healthcare have long feared and have tried to bring to the attention of politicians: people are accessing MAiD through lax application of the law, often without a thorough or humane exploration of their suffering. In some cases, death is being offered more readily than medical care and supports.

As a family physician, I work every day with people who face enormous barriers: refugees, individuals living in poverty, those with disabilities, mental illness, or incarceration histories. Earlier in my career, I provided home care in Montreal for people with dementia, addiction, or severe physical disabilities. These patients — like all of us — need to know their lives are valued, but sadly often don’t. Canadians need support, not an easy exit when life becomes unbearable. They need care, not assisted death as a substitute for our societal collective failures.

MAiD was introduced to Canadians as an “exceptional measure for exceptional cases,” intended to relieve suffering at the end of life when nothing else could. It has rapidly shifted. Private MAiD provider forums leaked by AP journalists- like Maria Cheng – have revealed cases where people qualified because of loneliness, lack of housing, or feelings of being a burden. When death is given because systems failed to offer support — that is not autonomy. That is abandonment.

Our book aims to expose these troubling patterns with clarity, evidence, and compassion. We highlight not only the stories and legal pathways, but also the ethical crossroads we now face as a society.

This is not an abstract debate. These are real people — people whose deaths were approved despite untreated mental illness, poverty, social isolation, or perhaps even the pressure of caregiver burnout.

We must ask ourselves, as the human rights commissioner of Canada also asked last year: Are we building a society where everyone’s life is seen as equally worth living? Or are we creating a system that quietly accepts some lives as more expendable?

We hope this book serves as a resource for those asking these hard questions — and a call to action for those in healthcare, law, policy, and beyond. Because at the end of the day, our task is not just to offer choices — it is to ensure those choices are grounded in dignity, support, and the belief that every person deserves to live a life of meaning, regardless of their challenges.

Thank you.

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

Kelsi Sheren: I'm done staying quiet.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kelsi Sheren

Kelsi Sheren has published excellent articles on euthanasia. Her current article is excellent but long. I am republishing key points from her current article. 

Kelsi begins her article by pointing out how the euthanasia lobby has challenged her:

Recently, a Substack article "attempted" to frame me as callous and indifferent towards individuals suffering from mental illness, selectively quoting me to serve their narrative from my episode on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster. I was bored with some time, so I figured take some time months after the pro death cult made a run at my character for the millionth time. Which I guess I should be thanking them for the views. More people now have had their minds changed and eyes opened to what MAiD really is. Eugenics.

Sheren comments on the misrepresentation of her statement: "OK, go kill yourself. If that’s what you want."

This quote, taken from a much longer conversation, was an expression of frustration toward a system that encourages DEATH AND SUICIDE rather than PREVENTS suicide. You've always had the right to go take your life, but my issue is more around the fact that there are people promoting death and telling us that dying is somehow healthcare. I've never uttered any endorsement or encouragement of suicide itself. The purpose of my advocacy has never been to diminish or disregard genuine suffering—it's specifically targeted against government-sanctioned pathways that normalize suicide instead of prioritizing robust and comprehensive mental health support. What I find so fascinating, is that pro death, pro killing organizations have the audacity to say I'm promoting suicide... have they looked in the mirror lately?

Sheren explains why she is standing against the death movement:

My entire platform is built upon genuine compassion, empathy, and the imperative to protect the most vulnerable among us from a system that increasingly promotes death as an easy solution and frankly the only solution to the world's stressors since expanding to Track 2 in 2021. I have been working to stop suicide in my community since 2015 when I started Brass & Unity.

As a 100% disabled combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI), my intimate understanding of REAL pain, suffering, trauma, and suicidal ideation is profoundly personal, so much so that my career was ended from what I had seen and done in war. Taking a life is nothing small and yet we are turning our healthcare providers into serial killers.

Sheren continues:

To suggest I would intentionally dismiss anyone's suffering or pain is fundamentally dishonest and deeply disrespectful to my lived experiences and struggles, but this is not a shock to see, knowing where it's coming from. The depth of my personal experience underscores my very serious commitment to advocating for life-affirming care that addresses the root causes of despair rather than treating individuals as expendable or as inconveniences to society. Personally all I see as of late is "healthcare practitioners" pushing death in numbers that deserve attention, question and scrutiny.

Sheren is committed to suicide prevention not assisted death:

My advocacy in suicide prevention has always been and will always prioritize compassionate, effective treatment and healing over expedient and cold bureaucratic approaches, especially because there are so many solutions that the pro death cult's refuse to acknowledge that exist. Death to them is always the answer, and that's just not true. But I will also be dead honest about the real feelings and depths. I will never sugarcoat any of what MAiD is to make other people feel better, Canadian's need a reality check.

Sheren then deals with the assertion that she is not willing to debate the issue:

None of this is compassion, none of this is acceptable and if you want to have the option to die, you can do that but in no way should it EVER be a form of "healthcare" the way its being slow dripped by the Canadian Government. Contrary to claims made by same critics that I avoid scrutiny or challenging discussions, my public record clearly demonstrates my consistent engagement with a wide range of perspectives and challenging forums, so to suggest I am unwilling to discuss the subject against people who don't agree is just not true, I just won't give any of the pro death cults a platform to convince more people they should die.

A few good examples of this is my detailed discussions with thought leaders like Jordan Peterson and appearances on a ton of other public platforms that pretty clearly show a willingness to confront and thoughtfully debate issues head-on. I enthusiastically welcome rigorous, good-faith debates that encourage constructive dialogue. However, I refuse to participate in orchestrated attempts to smear my character or discredit my legitimate concerns simply to silence meaningful dissent or avoid facing uncomfortable truths about MAiD policies. I've stood in front of real malevolence and I know what darkness looks like, I have no issue facing hard conversations or truths.

Sheren then explains how the euthanasia lobby acts in a predatory manner as they "target the vulnerable and then do everything they can to convince people that death is the solution for all of their problems." She then states how her involvement is leading to change.

These groups portrayal intentionally misrepresents my position entirely and of course they will continue to. We have made too much noise, we have caused people to change their minds and we have saved people from ending their lives prematurely. People are not a burden, people in all their forms are humans who deserve compassion and SUPPORT!

Sheren commits to being an even louder voice.

My advocacy remains the same and will only continue to get bigger and LOUDER. People are waking up to what these groups of humans do, manipulate and coerce others into death. We choose life, and light. We choose supporting genuinely vulnerable Canadians requires prioritizing compassionate, effective mental health care and genuine treatment options over bureaucratic expediency and the disturbing normalization of death as a solution. My mission is unequivocally focused on ensuring REAL dignity, safety, and compassion through affirming life—not facilitating death.

My dedication to exposing these people is just the beginning and I will take this on until we show everyone what this is really about. Despite any attempts to distort or undermine my message.

Sheren expects the death lobby to continue attacking her. She then writes:

It's just showing people who you (they) really are.

Some previous articles by Kelsi Sheren:

• Offered assisted death instead of surgery (Link)
• Dying with Deception. Exposing Dying With Dignity Canada's Dangerous Lies and teh United Nations call for Truth (Link).
• Debunking the ethical argument for assisted dying for minors (Link).
• Franchising Death (Link).
• Let's call MAiD what it is (Homicide) (Link)
• The Death Cult of the Euthanasia Lobby (Link).

Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK). Have the vulnerable become expendable?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sonia Sodha

Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist who wrote a challenging article that was published by the Guardian on April 13, 2025. Sodha asks if the rush to legalize assisted suicide has made the vulnerable expendable?

Sodha, explains how dangerous the proposed UK assisted suicide bill, that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP) is. The article begins by telling two stories of people who died by assisted suicide at a clinic in Switzerland:

Last month, ITV News reported on the case of 51-year-old Anne, who travelled to a Swiss assisted suicide clinic to end her own life after her only son died. The first her family knew of it was when they received the goodbye letters Anne had posted them from Switzerland. It follows another case from 2023, when 47-year-old Alastair Hamilton went to the same Swiss clinic after telling his mother he was going on holiday. He had been suffering from stomach problems but had no diagnosed illness.

Sodha explains that similar stories have been reported in Canada.  She then comments on the reality of what a six month terminal diagnosis means:

...That’s more subjective than it might sound: in Oregon, for example, doctors have interpreted terminal illness to include malnutrition from eating disorders, and the assisted dying bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, rejected amendments backed by eating disorder charities to prevent this happening here. Having learning difficulties or a mental illness, feeling depressed or suicidal, or alcohol misuse that might impair judgment would not preclude someone from seeking a medically assisted death. There would be no obligation on assisted suicide providers to notify families their relative is about to die, and no route for relatives to raise concerns about coercion.

Sodha explains what the Leadbeater bill will permit:

Do we really want to live in a society in which a depressed 19-year-old diagnosed with terminal cancer can kill himself with medical assistance, and his parents only find out afterwards? Or in which an older woman who is terminally ill can get an assisted death to avoid being a burden on her adult children, with no opportunity for them to tell her that caring for her would be an act of love rather than obligation? These circumstances would be entirely permissible under Leadbeater’s bill. They are the logical extension of treating medical assistance to kill oneself as healthcare, and as facilitating an adult’s right to make autonomous and private choices. 

Sodha is concerned with the speed in which the assisted suicide bill is being pushed. Leadbeater did delay the next debate on the bill by three weeks. Sodha outlines some of the dangerous flaws with the bill:

The judicial safeguard has been eliminated. Instead of judges signing off assisted deaths, this will fall to panels with no investigatory powers, no ability to summon witnesses or to hear evidence under oath, and no obligation to make inquiries beyond hearing from one doctor. External oversight of the system by the chief medical officer has been removed. The NHS can outsource assisted dying to for-profit companies. There is no proper regulatory regime nor any protection for hospices from being financially penalised for not providing assisted dying on their premises. Doctors can proactively suggest assisted dying to under-18s, who can qualify for it from their 18th birthday. These are just some of the problems with the bill. Little wonder that six Labour MPs have written to colleagues calling it “flawed and dangerous”.

Sodha asks how did the UK get here? She points out that some supporters of assisted suicide acknowledge that wrongful deaths will occur. She writes:

There are some intellectually honest proponents of assisted dying who acknowledge that people would suffer wrongful deaths if it were legalised. The brain surgeon Henry Marsh even said in 2017 “if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn’t that a price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?”. Grim, though upfront.

Sodha then points out that most of the assisted suicide supporters ignore the real concerns:

But I have watched open-mouthed as some MPs arguing for assisted dying have chosen to ignore what we know about safeguarding to pretend it’s possible to eliminate the risk of people being coerced into killing themselves, through something as cursory as a bit of training for doctors signing it off. Have they not read the same safeguarding reviews that I have, which make clear that even experienced social workers routinely miss cases of domestic abuse? Have they not digested the implications of NHS scandals, such as mid-Staffs, the maternity scandals, and the Tavistock’s clinic for gender-questioning children? Is it arrogance or ineptitude that makes them think they know better than the country’s leading experts on domestic abuse?

Sodha explains that assisted suicide supporters are not only ignoring concerns with the bill but they accuse opponents of the bill as "acting in bad faith". She writes:

They are perceived as bad folk using words like “risk” and “safeguarding” as a foil for some other irrational opposition to something that’s innately good.

Sodha suggests that many of the supporters of assisted suicide do so with a quasi-religious fervour.

Sodha challenges the British Labour government by stating:

It is an unserious, irresponsible way to make law that could lead to vulnerable or suicidal people being prescribed lethal drugs by the state. Labour seems yet to twig what a serious political problem this could be. Does it really want to be known as the party that failed to fix the NHS so that a parent with probably-terminal cancer could access decent end-of-life care, but instead made it possible for them to kill themselves with medical assistance when they were feeling suicidal?

Sodha completes her article by stating the fundamental point:

I don’t want to live in a society that sees people with complications and vulnerabilities as expendable in reducing the suffering of others. It really is as simple as that. And it distresses me immeasurably that there are MPs who cannot see this is precisely what this bill would achieve.

Previous articles about the UK assisted suicide bill:

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).

Book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was pleased to attend the launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada in Toronto on April 15. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the hopes of the editors of the book - that this book will change the Canadian debate.

Unravelling MAiD in Canada is a thorough 530 page book that features chapters by: Ramona Coelho, K. Sonu Gaind, Trudo Lemmens, Mary Shariff, Leonie Herx, Alexander Simpson, Roland Jones, Gabrielle Peters, Hon Graydon Nicholas, Isabel Grant, Derek Ross, Mark Sinyor, Ayal Schaffer, Catherine Ferrier.

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Unravelling MAiD in Canada was edited by:

• Dr. Ramona Coelho, family physician and Senior Fellow of domestic and health policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
• Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Professor, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and Chief of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook
• Dr. Trudo Lemmens, Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Unravelling MAiD in Canada has chapters that focus on: general medicine, psychiatry, palliative care, Canadian law, health policy, disability rights and ethics.

With the number of (MAiD) euthanasia deaths in Canada and how the law expanded in 2021 (Bill C-7), Unravelling MAiD in Canada is an important book for Canadians and other people in countries that are debating the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. 

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Netherlands D66 political party want euthanasia for dementia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands D66 political party that currently has 9 seats in the Dutch parliament are proposing to remove euthanasia from the criminal code in order to enable euthanasia of people with dementia. The Dutchnews.nl reported on April 16 that:

Opposition party D66 has drawn up draft legislation to remove euthanasia from the criminal code in a move to make it less difficult for doctors to help people with dementia to die at their request.

The Dutchnews.nl article reported that the:

D66 leader Rob Jetten said doctors are “afraid of the consequences” and that a new law would “provide more cover for doctors if they agree to perform euthanasia on people with dementia.”

The D66 want the Netherlands to completely decriminalizes euthanasia, so that  doctors who are willing to kill people who are incompetent and living with dementia could do so. The NL Times reported on April 16 that:

Doctors are allowed to grant the requests of people suffering from dementia, but if the illness is advanced, then the thinking ability and capacity to make decisions are limited. This leads to doctors struggling with the requests as the suffering cannot be exactly determined, and an earlier request for euthanasia cannot be re-confirmed.

The Dutchnews.nl reported that ChristenUnie MP Mirjam Bikker responded to the D66 proposal by stating:

“D66 keeps moving the goalposts for euthanasia. What used to be an exception is becoming the norm. Vulnerable life deserves care and protection. Let’s put more effort into that instead of a new push towards death,”

On March 26, 2025 I published an article concerning the 2024 Dutch euthanasia report. I based my article on the report by Bruno Waterfield that was published in The Times on March 24 which stated that there were 9958 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024 in the Netherlands which was up by 10% from 9068 in 2023.

Waterfield also reported that in 2024 there were 219 psychiatric euthanasia deaths which was up from 138 in 2023 and 115 in 2022. 

When euthanasia was first legalized it was based on providing euthanasia for competent adults who were freely capable of consenting. 

People with dementia are not competent adults who are capable of consenting. 

If euthanasia for dementia is accepted, then euthanasia for people with cognitive disabilities will be next.