HHS Found Systemic Disregard for Organ Donation Dead Donor rule.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent out the following media release on July 21, 2025 concerning organ donation and the organ transplant system in the United States.

I have been writing about issues related to organ donation for many years based on the reality that organ donors are not always dead before organs are retrieved. Death is sometimes caused by organ removal rather than a organs being removed from a dead person.

In 2023, an effort to legitimize harvesting organs from living people was prevented when the Uniform Law Commission stopped the effort to revise the UDDA. The revision to the UDDA was designed to give legal cover when organs are taken from people who have not yet died but have an irreversible condition.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has supports the dead donor rule.

Health and Human Services examined 351 organ donation approvals and determined that in 103 of the cases the dead donor rule was likely violated.

Link to the Health and Human Services media release (Link).

HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System

Secretary Kennedy Threatens Closure of Deficient Organ Procurement Organization

WASHINGTON—July 21, 2025— The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. today announced a major initiative to begin reforming the organ transplant system following an investigation by its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that revealed disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”

HRSA directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to reopen a disturbing case involving potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient by the federally-funded organ procurement organization (OPO) serving Kentucky, southwest Ohio, and part of West Virginia. Under the Biden administration, the OPTN’s Membership and Professional Standards Committee closed the same case without action.

Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HRSA demanded a thorough, independent review of the OPO’s conduct and the treatment of vulnerable patients under its care. HRSA’s independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous OPTN Board of Directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review.

HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed. It found:

• 103 cases (29.3%) showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.
• At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated—raising serious ethical and legal questions.
• Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases.

Vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. In response to these findings, HRSA has mandated strict corrective actions for the OPO, and system-level changes to safeguard potential organ donors nationally. The OPO must conduct a full root cause analysis of its failure to follow internal protocols—including noncompliance with the five-minute observation rule after the patient’s death—and develop clear, enforceable policies to define donor eligibility criteria. Additionally, it must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise.

Secretary Kennedy will decertify the OPO if it fails to comply with these corrective action requirements [PDF].

HRSA also took action to make sure that patients across the country will be safer when donating organs by directing the OPTN to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level. Under HRSA’s directive, data about any safety-related stoppages of organ donation called for by families, hospitals, or OPO staff must be reported to regulators, and the OPTN must update policies to strengthen organ procurement safety and provide accurate, complete information about the donation process to families and hospitals.

These findings from HHS confirm what the Trump administration has long warned: entrenched bureaucracies, outdated systems, and reckless disregard for human life have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is restoring integrity and transparency to organ procurement and transplant policy by putting patients’ lives first. These reforms are essential to restoring trust, ensuring informed consent, and protecting the rights and dignity of prospective donors and their families.

HHS recognizes House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie’s (KY-02) bipartisan work to improve the organ transplant system and looks forward to working with him and other issue-area champions in Congress to deliver reforms.

More articles about this topic:

• Euthanasia turning suicidal people into 'Kill and Harvest' natural resource (Link). 
• Let's not get rid of the Dead Donor rule (Link).
• No to Killing for Organs (Link).
• Canada leads the world in organ donation after euthanasia (Link).

Organ-Procurement Organization Lapses Threaten Trust in Transplant Medicine

This article was published by National Review online on July 23, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

The “dead donor rule” is the cement that binds the public’s trust in organ transplant medicine. Under the DDR (other than in living donations, such as of one kidney) organs cannot be procured unless donors, in the words of the Munchkins, are not be merely dead but really most sincerely dead.

There are two means of declaring death. Let’s call the first “heart death,” that is an irreversible cessation of all cardio/pulmonary function. The other is popularly known as “brain death,” (death declared by neurological criteria) in which function in the whole brain and each of its constituent parts have irreversibly ceased. The key word in both means of declaring death is “irreversible.”

But something appears to have gone badly off the rails in the field of procuring organs after heart death. A long New York Times expose found cases of patients who were clearly alive when organ procurement began. At the same time, a very disturbing report by the Department of Health and Human Services contained similar findings.

First, the NYT. From “A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk”:

Last spring at a small Alabama hospital, a team of transplant surgeons prepared to cut into Misty Hawkins. . . . Days earlier, she had been a vibrant 42-year-old with a playful sense of humor and a love for the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally. But after Ms. Hawkins choked while eating and fell into a coma, her mother decided to take her off life support and donate her organs. She was removed from a ventilator and, after 103 minutes, declared dead.

A surgeon made an incision in her chest and sawed through her breastbone. That’s when the doctors discovered her heart was beating. She appeared to be breathing. They were slicing into Ms. Hawkins while she was alive.

The horror! Why are such awful things happening?

In recent years, as the system has pushed to increase transplants, a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs. Though Ms. Hawkins’s case is an extreme example of what can go wrong, a New York Times examination revealed a pattern of rushed decision-making that has prioritized the need for more organs over the safety of potential donors.

In New Mexico, a woman was subjected to days of preparation for donation, even after her family said that she seemed to be regaining consciousness, which she eventually did. In Florida, a man cried and bit on his breathing tube but was still withdrawn from life support. In West Virginia, doctors were appalled when coordinators asked a paralyzed man coming off sedatives in an operating room for consent to remove his organs.

These examples are cases of procurement after planned “heart death” under an approach known as the Pittsburgh Protocol. First, life support is removed. After the patient’s heart stops, there is supposed to be a waiting period to ensure irreversibility — three or five minutes. Only then can the procurement begin. If the patient does not die, he or she is returned to the ward.

This system works only if the absence of physiological signs of life are accurately identified. But the push for organs has apparently grown so intense that corners may be being cut, endangering still-living patients and treating them as so many organ farms:

The Times found that some organ procurement organizations [OPO] — the nonprofits in each state that have federal contracts to coordinate transplants — are aggressively pursuing circulatory death donors and pushing families and doctors toward surgery. Hospitals are responsible for patients up to the moment of death, but some are allowing procurement organizations to influence treatment decisions.

Fifty-five medical workers in 19 states told The Times they had witnessed at least one disturbing case of donation after circulatory death.

Workers in several states said they had seen coordinators persuading hospital clinicians to administer morphine, propofol and other drugs to hasten the death of potential donors.

Hastening death is strictly forbidden by the dead donor rule. Any such advocacy should result in job terminations, and if actually done, criminal prosecutions.

HHS has also issued a harrowing report about the same seeming crisis involving one OPO. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) revealed disturbing lapses — apparently including cases of inaccurately determined brain death. From the press release, “HHS Finds Systematic Disregard for Sanctity of Human Life in Organ Transplant Medicine:”

HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed. It found:

• 103 cases (29.3%) showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.

• At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated—raising serious ethical and legal questions.

• Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases.

Yikes!

HHS is demanding that the OPO reform its practices:

Vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. In response to these findings, HRSA has mandated strict corrective actions for the OPO, and system-level changes to safeguard potential organ donors nationally. The OPO must conduct a full root cause analysis of its failure to follow internal protocols—including noncompliance with the five-minute observation rule after the patient’s death—and develop clear, enforceable policies to define donor eligibility criteria. Additionally, it must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise.

Indeed. Uniformity of medical approach — both in heart- and brain-death cases — is often lacking. Time for that to change all across the country!

This isn’t the first such warning about the potential perils of the Pittsburgh Protocol. For example, I posted this piece issuing a similar alarm in 2009.

I have worried often that there is a temptation to treat organ donor patients — who are subjects as long as they are alive — as objects once they are seen as dying, toward the perceived greater good of saving the lives of people who need organs. That can’t be allowed to happen. It is not only wrong, but from a purely utilitarian perspective, if people lose faith in the donation system, the number of available organs will decline as fewer people sign up to donate. In such a circumstance, recipients will become the primary victims of popular distrust.

Washington State Ceases Publishing Legally Required Annual Assisted Suicide Reports

This article was published by National Review online on July 20, 2025.

By Wesley Smith

The legalization law requires annual reports to be issued by the state to promote transparency. Well, from now on, opaqueness will be the order of the day. From the Medical Futility blog, by pro-assisted-suicide activist Thaddeus Mason Pope (whose blog is a reliable source of information on these issues):

Like almost all other aid-in-dying jurisdictions, the Washington State statute requires the “department of health shall generate and make available to the public an annual statistical report of information collected.” In response, the Washington DOH dutifully published 15 reports between 2009 and 2023.

But because of funding cuts, the DOH announced that the 2023 report was its last. There will be no more reports on how many patients are using MAID in Washington. No more demographic information about these patients.

Some states are slow in publishing their data. For example, we have yet to see a report from New Mexico even though the law was enacted in 2021. Other states have not published any data for over a year or more. But only Montana has never even promised to provide public data. Now Washington will similarly provide no public data.

Just remember: when activists tell you they want strict controls on assisted suicide to induce you to go along, they don’t mean it. Their goal is to effectuate wide-open euthanasia through incrementalism — a tactic that begins almost as soon as the laws go into effect.

But many people don’t seem to care much about that, perhaps preferring a comfortable pretense to grappling with the inevitable consequences that flow from such a radical change in law and morality.

Society Should Treat Disabled People Like My Cousin Treats Me And "It"

Meghan Schrader

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

In early June I was with a group of protesters at a Massachusetts C&C lobby day and a death doula cited reasons for why someone might want “aid in dying.” In addition to various other motivations, she approvingly cited, “I don’t want to be a burden,” which elicited murmurs of assent from the crowd. That statement was obnoxious, both in terms of its reinforcement of our culture’s attitude that people with significant medical needs are “burdens” and the speaker’s privileged ignorance that that’s what she was doing.

Compassion and Choices’s employee Dan Diaz said something similar when he asserted:

“If I find myself in a situation where I can’t go to the bathroom on my own, where someone has to change my diapers, where I can’t feed myself, where I can’t care for the people around me, where other people have to move me around to keep me from having bedsores, is that really living?”  

Whatever the context of that quote, these are things that many disabled people without terminal illnesses experience every day. Disabled people trying to live with dignity don’t need people like Dan Diaz implying that they are not alive.

As I’ve indicated, I think that there’s a good chance that the death doula and Dan Diaz didn’t understand that their statements were ableist. In contrast, I think a willfully hateful statement about “MAiD” can be found on the blog of formerly closeted white supremicist Richard Hanania. In his blog post “Canadian Euthanasia As Moral Progress,” Hanania writes: 

“One could just as easily say that people who want to kill themselves after becoming disabled are seeing things more objectively, and when they accept their condition they’re coping and living under a kind of false consciousness. I’m pretty sure I would want to kill myself if I was ever paralyzed, and I grant it’s possible that maybe I would change my mind after a while. But I wouldn’t want to become reconciled to living with such a condition. The idea that I might accept it would for me be even more reason to commit suicide, lest I get used to accepting a defective version of myself. I’m sure Raikin and many others feel differently, and would want to hang around in a vegetative state and burden everyone else in their lives as long as possible.”

Wow, that’s pretty vicious. Why doesn’t Hanania just replace that blog post with the text of Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens? 

I understand that in contrast to Hanania, the death doula and Dan Diaz’s statements occurred in the context of advocacy for the Oregon model. Both Diaz and the death doula likely experienced their statements as expressions of sympathy for terminally ill people. I doubt that either Dan Diaz or the death doula are closeted white supremacists, as Hanania was. Nevertheless, all three people’s rhetoric draws on the ableist trope that being a “burden” makes killing yourself a commendable act. That’s the cultural and historical milieu of “MAiD,” regardless of individual context or intent.

As I consider these ableist statements, my mind contrasts them with the love I receive from my sweet older cousin Amy, who cares for me like an older sister. For instance, Amy has stood by me during my bouts of severe mental illness, even when that process wasn’t particularly convenient or fun. 

One of the things I most appreciate are Amy’s expressions of affection for my cat Lucy, even though she loathes cats. When Amy flew to Texas to help me during my manic episode in 2019, she took care of Lucy while I was in the hospital, and when Amy picked me up from the hospital, she remarked, “I pet It.” “It? You mean Lucy?” I asked. “Yes,” she said. “I thought It might be lonely, so I petted It on the head, and I said, ‘I think you’re disgusting but Meghan loves you so I guess I have to pet you.’” So now Lucy’s nickname is “It.” About a month ago I was talking to Amy on FaceTime and I jokingly showed her “It” sleeping on the porch. I asked her what she hated about cats. “I hate the way they rub up against your legs, I hate the way they cram themselves into small spaces, I hate the way they jump in your lap & turn around looking for a place to lie down-Yeah, I pretty much hate everything about It, but I know you love It, so I guess I have to accept It.” 

LOL.

I know very many Oregon model proponents would gladly fly across the country to take care of a sick loved one’s “It.” And obviously Amy wasn’t caring for me while I was dying. But unfortunately the Oregon model is still linked to the idea that maybe people should kill themselves because caregivers having to do things they hate is a pain in the head.  This ideology is poisonous for disabled people, as illustrated by situations like Canada’s “MAiD”  program and the high rate of suicide among people with disabilities.

Living in a culture where disabled people are treated as “burdens” makes it more difficult to cope with systemic ableism, overwhelming medical needs or both. In contrast, I think the way Amy treats me and “It” models disability liberation. Sometimes care work is very uncomfortable or painful. But true compassion and justice means that we don’t abandon disabled or dying people, even if we must change their diapers. Or visit them in the hospital. Or take care of their disgusting cats. 

Previous articles by Meghan Schrader (Link).

Story of an assisted death without request or consent.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The following story was shared on X by Samantha Smith on July 2, 2025.

Canada's euthanasia law does not allow killing without consent, but the story does not suggest that this was a legal act. 

I have been asked if it is a true story? (published below) I can't answer the question but we have published a true story about a similar tragic death. (Link to Aunt Mary's Story)

Medical decisions are regularly made to intentionally deny food and fluids to a person who is not otherwise dying, resulting in death by dehydration. Morally, this is euthanasia (slow euthanasia or euthanasia by dehydration) but legally it is not euthanasia because food and fluids have wrongly been defined as "medical treatment." 

Withdrawing food and fluids from someone who is not otherwise dying is different than withdrawing food and fluids from someone who is dying and nearing death. The first act causes death by dehydration, the second act recognizes that the person's body is unable to benefit from food and fluids and the withdrawal is part of a natural death.

Based on the post by Samantha Smith this man appears to have been dehydrated to death. The medical community might state that they were withdrawing treatment, in fact they killed someone by dehydration who was not otherwise dying.

Terri Schiavo with her mother.

Terri Schiavo was killed by dehydration, even though she was not otherwise dying.

There is a error with the comment that 40% of the Netherlands euthanasia deaths are done without consent. The 2021 government death study found that 517 assisted deaths were done without consent which is not 40% of the assisted deaths but rather 5.2%.

Link to the story by Samantha Smith on X.

A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada.

They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue.

In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised.

He didn’t want to die.

But my family member was legally forced to end his life.

They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty”.

That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily.

He wasn’t terminally ill.

He wasn’t particularly old.

He wasn’t dying.

He didn’t want to die.

But he didn’t have a choice.

Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.

And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures — that their conscience wouldn’t allow it — they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse.

They still refused.

But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to.

It starts with “choice” and “dignity”.

But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it”. And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality.

In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid.

If it can happen there; it will happen here.

People 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 be killed against their will. 

More articles about euthanasia without explicit request (Articles Link)

More articles about euthanasia by dehydration (Articles Link).

Suicide Pushers Celebrate Elderly Suicides in Swiss Death Clinics

This article was published by National Review online on July 14, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

Geriatric suicides used to be considered a tragedy. But these days, increasingly, they are celebrated — whether Compassion and Choices (formerly, the more honestly named Hemlock Society) teaching elderly people to starve themselves to death (VSED), joint lethal jabs of aged married couples in places like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, or suicides facilitated at Swiss death clinics.

These clinics are proud of their toll. One Swiss clinic even “prioritizes people who are elderly but not seriously ill,” while others willingly engage in geriatric assisted suicide of depressed elders if they have other conditions. From the odious Exit International’s newsletter:

“Conscious suicides are different from others,” says Jean-Jacques Bise, Co-President of Exit in French-speaking Switzerland.

The figures from RTS suggest that the two types of suicide could be linked.

In very old people, the statistical curves of the two types of suicide cross at the beginning of the 2010s, an indication that from then on there was a shift from unaccompanied to accompanied suicides.

Exit has been offering its members assisted suicide since 1982.

Since 2014, people suffering from multiple illnesses without imminent danger to their lives have also been able to take advantage of this service, provided they are fully capable of judgement.

“We don’t help people who are tired of life,” emphasises Jean-Jacques Bise from Exit.

Is it possible to make use of Exit in cases of depression?

Yes, says Bise, but if a mentally ill person is helped to die, “then because of the illness, not because of the depression”.

Suicide prevention? What’s that?

This is what we are becoming: Pro–some suicides. What a cultural tragedy.

More articles about Switzerland assisted suicide (Articles Link).

Corporate Killers. How Bell Donates and Meta Profit From Canada's MAiD Suicide Crisis

Kelsi Sheren

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on July 14 on her substack.

Dying With Dignity Canada is aggressively marketing suicide on social media, with Bell Donating and Meta profiting. It's corporate-sponsored death disguised as compassion.

By Kelsi Sheren

Did you know since June 2019, Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) has poured an outrageous amount of money $617,840 of tax payer and donor dollars into Facebook ads explicitly pushing their dangerous pro-death, pro quit agenda. Meanwhile, suicide prevention efforts that will save you and help get you the real help you deserve received significantly less funding ……only $394,286. Let that sink in, I’ll wait.

This isn't just an issue of ad spend, this is outright horrifying; it's absolutely disgraceful and nauseating at it’s core. DWDC claims to advocate for “compassion and dignity”, but their actions reveal a very disturbing truth, one that we already knew if you’ve read this Substack before. They’re aggressively marketing death. Facebook (Meta) isn't just a passive observer here, they’re actively profiting from these promotions. They take DWDC’s money without a second thought about the devastating consequences or how they are helping to shape an entire culture and generation into wanting death over life.

Ask yourself, why is promoting death now more lucrative and prioritized than saving lives? What twisted message does this send to Canadians struggling with mental health or chronic illness? Instead of hope, we're being fed a steady diet of despair, painting suicide as an easy and acceptable escape. This isn't compassion…. it’s exploitation of the vulnerable.

Now here's the disturbing kicker, because you know there’s always more dark disgusting people willing to promote a pro death organization like DWDC, so of course they don't stand alone. They're backed by Bell Canada, the very same company behind the widely publicized "Bell Let’s Talk" campaign for suicide prevention and mental health awareness. Yes, the same Bell Canada that presents itself as a champion for mental health quietly funnels money into an organization actively promoting medically assisted death.

This shocking contradiction isn’t just hypocritical, it’s a betrayal of every Canadian who believed in their sincerity. Which at this point is almost no one.

I want to be clear as to exactly what is happening and for the readers the link to look this up yourself (fully public information) is available below. DWDC’s promotional spending isn’t just irresponsible; it's dangerous and morally bankrupt, but we already knew that.

Canada is currently facing a moral crisis and has for sometime including a mental health crisis and opioid crisis, unlike anything we've seen before. With the rapid normalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), we should all be terrified. Initially intended as a compassionate option for unbearable suffering, it's been warped into an aggressively marketed solution for vulnerable people, pushed relentlessly on social media. I was never for this then, and I’m sure as hell not for this now. The place people go to escape reality and find narratives to support their view point are online are on platforms like Facebook. So of course DWDC would target Canadians through Meta.

This aggressive social media campaign is no accident. DWDC, with deep pockets, connections to liberal MP’s and corporate allies, has turned the act of dying into a mainstream solution. They exploit vulnerable individuals, subtly suggesting their lives hold less value. It's morally indefensible, yet they continue unchecked.

So…. eugenics.

Bell Canada and Meta have blood on their hands, and have for some times. Bell’s dual roles as suicide prevention advocate and DWDC donor, are shockingly contradictory but I don’t hear anyone calling Bell out?? Meta’s willingness to profit from these ads speaks volumes about their ethical stance. Both entities need to be held accountable, publicly and immediately.

The corporate-backed promotion of suicide is one of Canada's darkest issues, representing an existential threat to our national ethics and integrity or what’s left of it. Instead of desperately needed healthcare reform, expanded mental health support, or improved counselling services, access to cutting edge treatment like psychedelics millions are spent nudging vulnerable Canadians toward death. I need people to step up with me here, no more silence, no more passive overly Canadian bs polite acceptance.

Canadians deserve real support and care, not corporate-sponsored coercion masquerading as dignity. I think its about time we expose these alliances publicly and demand immediate action. Every Canadian should be outraged and actively demanding transparency from DWDC, Bell Canada, and Meta.

This isn't just another controversy, it’s a battle for what’s left of the already broken soul of Canada. The aggressive marketing of medically assisted suicide through META has to stop.

Bell Canada and Meta are profiting from death. It's not dignity, never has been. It’s suicide porn and it’s influencing our next generation, convincing them that you cannot heal from treatment resistant illness.

Sorry Bell, DWDC. Unfortunately for you, I am someone who has.

I won’t stop until people see you for who you really are. Purveyors of corporate, state sponsored suicide and killing.

LINKS:

https://m.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=onboarding

I am so thankful to be alive. Support Bill C-218

The following true story was sent to our EPC "Story Contest"

Please visit our "contributor info" (Link). "recent stories" (Link). and "story index" (Link). We would be thrilled to receive your own story (whether fact or creative fiction) at: story@epcc.ca

All formats are welcome, including short videos. 

Tamara Jansen (MP) introduced Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to reverse the law permitting euthanasia for mental illness (that is scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027 in Canada). (Article Link). Sign our EPC petition No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).

--------------------

Supporting Bill C-218 - Opposing Euthanasia for mental illness.

To Whom it May Concern

By Kathryn D'hondt

It's been 4,620 days since my suicide attempt. Leading up to it, I'd been diagnosed with a cornucopia of mental illnesses (including, at different times, schizo-affective disorder, bipolar disorder type II, agoraphobia, panic disorder, and others). I felt, at the time, that even if my situation could get better in the future, I was too exhausted to continue to live until it did improve. I had been so highly medicated and sleep deprived that I was convinced, beyond all arguments, that I needed to die to end my suffering. My support team, recognizing my severe issues, understood this perspective and knew how common it was. They did not dissuade me from doing so, although, at the time, they never outright encouraged it. However, I had been told by hospital staff that in order to get better care, I would need to come back in an ambulance. It was only a few weeks later that I did exactly that. I cannot imagine what I might have been told in a world where Canada permits euthanasia on the basis of mental health.

At the time of my suicide attempt, I was unable to attend school (I was 16 years old). I was unable to regularly sleep through the night due to night terrors and a psychotic detachment from reality. While awake, I experienced almost hourly panic attacks, which wreaked havoc on my already underweight and exhausted body. I could not have dreamed of ever being capable of working, of living a life without extreme support measures, or considering myself to be a generally happy person.

But.

9 weeks ago, I got married, and my husband and I are expecting our first child. I was able to finish high school, I got my college diploma and have maintained ongoing full-time employment for 4 years. I received the support I truly needed, and no longer require medication to live a fulfilling, beautiful life. I cannot remember the last time I had a panic attack. I look forward to the years ahead of me now, and enjoy the days as they come, even when I might feel tired or discouraged. I am so proud of the 16 year old girl I was, who endured so much hardship to overcome the seemingly endless, and utterly hopeless pit of mental illness I was trapped in. I am so grateful for a medical system that could not suggest that my suicidal desires might have actually been good, true or helpful. I am so thankful to be alive. I do not doubt that had euthanasia been a lawful option, I would have sought it wholeheartedly, and I am moved to grief when I consider that the difference between life and death, for me, could have so easily had a different outcome.

Canadians deserve better mental health care than death. Canadians deserve the dignity of our suffering and burden being shared and earnestly helped. Canadians deserve more than euthanasia.

Netherlands: 517 people died by euthanasia without request in 2021.

Netherlands: 22% of the assisted deaths were not reported in 2021.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands has had a problem with euthanasia without request (LAWER) and the under-reporting of euthanasia since the inception of its euthanasia law.

Every five years the Netherlands government has commissioned a study to determine the number of deaths by medical and end-of-life decisions. The study is done by researchers who send questionnaires to physicians to determine how a random person died within a given year.

The questions seek to determine the number of deaths from all causes, including euthanasia, assisted suicide and ending of life without explicit request. The questionnaires allow the physician to respond anonymously, the data effectively uncovers the actual number of assisted deaths within a given year.

The Netherlands 2021 study (one year later than usual) found that there were 9,799 assisted deaths representing 9038 euthanasia deaths, 245 assisted suicide deaths and 517 ending of life without explicit request (LAWER).

LAWER involves the intentional ending of a person without an explicit request. I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide but I recognize that killing someone without request or consent remains a criminal homicide in nearly every jurisdictions, even when it is tolerated.

The 2021 study indicated that there were 517 LAWER deaths in the Netherlands representing approximately 0.3% of all deaths or 5.2% of all assisted deaths.

It is important to note that 6 of the deaths were newborns, also known as infanticide who would have been killed based on the Groningen protocol. Newborns with disabilities can be injected with lethal drugs in the Netherlands when a parent and doctor agree that the prospects for the child are poor or the child is considered "incompatible with life."

As stated, the Netherlands government commissions a study every five years. The 2015 study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in an article titled: End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years. The researchers published the 2015 study as a comparison to the previous studies.

The data from the 2015 study indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths representing 6672 euthanasia deaths, 150 assisted suicide deaths, 431 ending of life without explicit request.

The 517 LAWER deaths in 2021 and the 431 LAWER deaths in 2015 represent a similar percentage of all deaths in the Netherlands meaning that doctors in the Netherlands continue, at a similar rate, to kill people without an explicit request or consent.

Do physicians in other countries, including Canada intentionally kill people without an explicit request or consent. The answer is likely YES, but unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, other countries are not commissioning studies with specific questions to uncover the truth.

The issue of under-reporting of euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands 2021 euthanasia report stated that the number of reported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands was to 7666. The report also indicated that there were 206 reported euthanasia deaths for early stage dementia and 6 reported euthanasia deaths for late stage dementia and 115 reported euthanasia deaths for "severe" mental illness.

The data from the 2021 Netherlands government study found that there were 9,799 assisted deaths but the data from the Netherlands 2021 euthanasia report indicated that there were 7666 assisted deaths. Therefore (9,799 - 7,666) there were 2133 unreported assisted deaths in the Netherlands in 2021 representing approximately 22% of all assisted deaths.

Has under-reporting of euthanasia been a consistent problem in the Netherlands?

The 2015 study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths in 2015.

The Netherlands 2015 official euthanasia report stated that there were 5561 reported assisted deaths but the data from the 2015 Netherlands government study indicated that there were 7254 assisted deaths meaning that there were 1693 unreported assisted deaths in 2015 representing about 23% of all assisted deaths in 2015.

When examining the data from previous Netherlands studies, it appears that more than 20% of all assisted deaths are consistently not reported.

Does Canada have a similar problem with under-reporting?

Canada legalized euthanasia (MAiD) in 2016. The Canadian government has not commissioned a death study to determine if abuse of the law occurs. The Québec euthanasia data indicates that there is under-reporting of euthanasia.

Amy Hasbrouck, the past president of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the leader of Toujours-Vivant (Not Dead Yet) analyzed the Quebec 2021-22 euthanasia report and found a discrepancy of 289 euthanasia deaths. Hasbrouck reported:

The Commission reported 3,663 euthanasia deaths declared by doctors during the fiscal year (p. 13), while the number of euthanasia deaths reported by facilities (3,629) and the Collège des Médecins du Québec (323) totalled 3,952 (p. 25 at note 25); a discrepancy of 289 deaths.

Hasbrouck found in the 2021 - 22 Québec annual euthanasia report a 7% likely under-reporting rate. Under-reporting of euthanasia may be occurring in the rest of Canada, but it is impossible to determine what is actually happening unless the Canadian government commissions a similar study to the Netherlands 5 year studies.

American assisted suicide laws.

There is evidence that under-reporting of assisted suicide is likely occurring in the US states that have legalized assisted suicide. 

For instance, the 2024 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that there were 376 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. (There were likely close to 400 reported assisted suicide deaths since every year a percentage of the assisted suicide reports are received late).

The 2024 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that the ingestion status is unknown in 178 cases. When the ingestion status is unknown, it means that the 178 people were approved for assisted suicide and received the lethal drugs but the Oregon Health Authority OHA does not know if they died by assisted suicide. Since no oversight exists and no research has not been done to confirm how these people died therefore it is impossible to say with certainty that unreported assisted suicide deaths are happening, but it is likely.

My conclusions.

The Netherlands 2021 study indicates that euthanasia without explicit consent and unreported euthanasia deaths continue.

In August 2013 I published the book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide which examined the data from the Netherlands and Belgian euthanasia studies. The purpose of the book was to warn the world that the legalizing euthanasia did not eliminate medical homicide, that in fact normalizing euthanasia appeared to increase the number of medical homicides.

Exposing Vulnerable People concluded that - when an assisted death was done "outside of the parameters of the law" that the death was rarely reported. It is likely that, if the researchers closely examined the 517 life-ending without request assisted deaths in 2021 they would likely find that most of these deaths were not reported.

Exposing Vulnerable People also concluded that the majority of LAWER deaths were done in a hospital to an incompetent person who was unable to consent. 

Without a data breakdown of the 2021 study data I cannot assume a similar conclusion but earlier data clearly indicated this reality.

I found it interesting that unlike the previous Netherlands government death studies (every 5 years), there was no analysis of the data which is why I am writing this article in 2025.

The 2021 Netherlands study proves that euthanasia deaths without explicit request or consent continues to happen and that more than 20% of the Netherlands euthanasia deaths continue to be not reported.

The data from the study should also ask the question, is there a similar phenomenon of killing patients without explicit request or consent happening in Canada or other countries and it should ask how many unreported euthanasia deaths happen in Canada and other countries? A study needs to be commissioned by neutral researchers to determine the answers to these questions.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide does not eliminate the phenomenon of medical homicide and the normalization of euthanasia seems to justify these acts.