Joint Elder Assisted Suicide in Switzerland to Avoid Widowhood

This article was published by National Review on September 26, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Once we decide that killing is an acceptable answer to suffering, the kind of suffering that qualifies us to be made dead continually expands. Now, an elderly British couple have committed joint assisted suicide at a Swiss termination clinic to avoid future widowhood and increasing fragility — in other words, to eliminate future suffering. From the Daily Record story:

A devoted couple who “couldn’t bear to be apart” have died together at a Swiss assisted dying clinic after sending emails to their relatives to let them know.

Neither Michael Posner, 97, nor his wife Ruth, 96, had a terminal illness, but had made the decision to die together because they were desperate not to be apart after 75 years of marriage.

This is far from the first such case as euthanasia consciousness has spread throughout the West. I even know of one joint euthanasia homicide in Belgium of an elderly couple who weren’t sick but worried about future widowhood. It was arranged by their son so the children could avoid future caregiving.

There was a time that joint geriatric suicides were considered tragedies. Now they are accepted by many without so much as a raised eyebrow. This is the “compassionate” world, favoring some suicides, that euthanasia advocates are conjuring.

More articles by Wesley Smith (Articles Link).

Alberta Justice Minister will legislate Provincial euthanasia (MAiD) oversight.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Hon. Mickey Amery with Premier Smith

Jack Farrell reported for the Canadian Press on September 25, 2025 that Alberta's Justice Minister, Mickey Amery, will introduce new legislation on euthanasia, (MAID), that would give the government greater control and oversight of the program. Farrell reports:

A new mandate letter to Mickey Amery from Premier Danielle Smith says the legislation should introduce "appropriate safeguards" and prohibit mental illness from being a sole eligibility factor.

The letter doesn't provide detail on what safeguards the province is looking to implement or what kind of oversight it wants to have.

Farrell reported that Amery did not provide specifics but stated in an email that:

health care falls under provincial jurisdiction and that federal rules are insufficient in "providing the necessary oversights and safeguards to protect vulnerable Canadians."

Mental illness has never been an approved sole eligibility factor for MAID, though the federal government has considered permitting it.

When Canada's parliament passed Bill C-7, in March 2021, the new law extended euthanasia to people with mental illness alone. Since then the federal government has delayed the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.

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

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

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

Farrell reported that Alberta statistics indicate that there have been just over 5000 Alberta citizens who have died by euthanasia since legalization. The provincial data, referred to by Farrell indicates that there were 5031 reported Alberta euthanasia deaths from legalization in 2016 until December 31, 2024.

Based on the fact that in 2024 there were 1117 Alberta euthanasia deaths, it is likely that Alberta is now approaching 6000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will comment on the legislation when the bill is released.

There were around 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024, 5% of all deaths.

There were around 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024 representing 5% of all deaths. There have been around 90,000 Canadian euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 11, 2024, Canada's Ministry of Health released the Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying which outlines the 2023 reported euthanasia data. 

The 2023 report indicated that there were 15,343 reported Canadian euthanasia deaths representing 4.7% of all deaths. The number of reported euthanasia deaths was up from 13,241 in 2022. I predict that there were around 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths representing 5% of all deaths in 2024.

British Columbia 2024 euthanasia report.

Recently, EPC obtained the 2024 British Columbia (BC) euthanasia data which indicated that there were 3000 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024 representing 6.7% of all deaths, which was up by more than 8% from 2767 in 2023.

There are some clear concerns in BC. 

One concern is the number of euthanasia deaths in the Island Health region. Island Health is primarily composed of Vancouver Island with Victoria being the largest city. Island health cares for a little more than 1 out of 6 BC residents, and yet the BC data indicates that there were 904 reported euthanasia deaths in the Island Health region accounting for more than 30% of the euthanasia deaths.

Why does Island health have higher euthanasia rates?

Euthanasia is supposedly popular in Victoria BC and there is a euthanasia clinic which provides access, but the data is more likely related to less stringent approvals for euthanasia in that region.

The BC Ministry of Health must assure the public that euthanasia guidelines are being followed by Island Health. Independent research into the reasons for the higher rate of euthanasia deaths must be done.

Another concern is that 35% of the 2024 BC euthanasia deaths were approved based on "other conditions" which was up from 32.9% in 2023.

The number of BC euthanasia deaths related to "other conditions" is further exasperated by the fact that (65.9%) or 691 of the people who died by euthanasia based on "other conditions" that the approval was related to frailty.  

Frailty is not defined in the report but it likely refers to an elderly person who is not dying but has comorbities. In other words, the term frailty can also encompass euthanasia for "completed life."

Euthanasia for "completed life" means that an elderly person is not sick or dying, but wants to die. "Completed Life" is being debated in the Netherlands, but in Canada, it has never been debated, but based on the lack of definition in the law, it is being done.

The BC Ministry of Health must assure the public that euthanasia is not inappropriately being done by conducting independent research into the reasons for the higher number euthanasia deaths related to "frailty."

Based on the 2024 data from Ontario, Québec, Alberta, and BC; I predict that there were approximately 16,500 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2024 representing 5% of all deaths. 

The 16,500 euthanasia death prediction for 2024 is based on data. By comparing the 2023 reported euthanasia deaths to the 2024 data you notice that:

• Ontario reported 4641 in 2023 and 4958 in 2024.
• Quebec reported 5691 in 2023 and 6058 in 2024.
• Alberta reported 977 in 2023 and 1116 in 2024.
• British Columbia reported 2767 in 2023 and 3000 in 2024.

Since Ontario, Québec, Alberta and BC represent 87% of Canada's population, and since there were 1056 more euthanasia deaths in those provinces in 2024, and since there were 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths in 2023, therefore it is safe to predict that there were around 16,500 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024. There was a 7.5% increase in euthanasia deaths in Ontario, Québec, Alberta and British Columbia in 2024.

As of December 31, 2023 there were 60,301 reported euthanasia deaths in Canada since legalization. I am predicting that there were approximately 16,500 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024. Therefore, as of December 31, 2024 there were around 76,800 reported euthanasia deaths since legalization. Since this article is published in late September, 2025, it is likely there have been around 90,000 Canadian euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Sadly, the number of reported euthanasia deaths continues to increase. From January 1 to June 30, 2025; there were 2551 reported euthanasia deaths in Ontario representing a 4% increase since 2024.

J.K. Rowling opposes assisted suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on September 24, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

I have always believed that liberals should be leading opponents of assisted suicide. After all, two of the core tenets of liberalism are (supposed to be) protecting vulnerable people from exploitation and promoting equality among all people.

But other than disability-rights activists, most liberals tend to support legalization based on “choice.”

Mega author J. K. Rowling, of Harry Potter fame, is definitely a political liberal. Indeed, her activism pushing against gender ideology is founded in protecting children and securing women’s private spaces.

J.K. Rowling

Now, with legalization having passed the U.K. House of Commons and the bill now being debated in the House of Lords, she has come out in opposition to state-sanctioned assisted suicide. From The Lion story:

Author J.K. Rowling has announced she no longer supports the legalization of assisted suicide, citing concerns about the risks of coercion and the message such laws send to vulnerable people.

Her comments come as the U.K.’s House of Lords debates the Assisted Dying Bill, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales to request physician-assisted death under limited conditions.

“I used to believe in assisted dying,” Rowling wrote in a post on X. “I no longer do, largely because I’m married to a doctor who opened my eyes to the possibilities of coercion of sick or vulnerable people.”

Her husband, Dr. Neil Murray, is a practicing physician who she says helped her understand the potential dangers.

Not to mention that with legalization, some suicidal people are offered facilitation instead of prevention, thereby transforming them into a perceived killable caste whose lives are of lesser value.

Good for Rowling. Liberal leaders of popular culture usually boost assisted suicide when they take a side. I hope her advocacy convinces the Lords to kill the bill instead of the ill.

Link to other articles by Wesley Smith (Articles Link).

Polling and Trolling from the Other Side

Only a quarter of voters identify as "strongly" in favor of assisted suicide.

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In this post, I am commenting on a recent opinion poll claiming that: 

"(American) voters broadly support medical aid in dying: including 60% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans".

Happily, I believe, the situation is much more complex.

In reality, assisted suicide is one of those things, like the death penalty, where strong opinions and majorities are easily formed around extreme hypothetical cases. But the more that people dig into the details of real implementation, the less support remains. This explains why lawmakers have so often frustrated the apparent will of the people as regards capital punishment, and why, even where that option does exist, its application is fraught with great expense and long delays, effectively limiting its use to a very few cases.

As noted above, assisted suicide support is in the same category, which clearly indicates that our strategy must be one of educating voters. For the more they know the less likely they will be to support legalization. And just as importantly, where legalization is achieved, implementation may be restricted, in this way, to a rare number of cases, just as the use of electric chair, lethal injection, and firing squad are now limited for criminal offenders.

That being said, it is instructive to more closely examine the nature of the "broad support" observed.

The poll cited usefully divides positive replies into two categories, "strongly" and "somewhat" in favor, and so also with the negative camp"strongly" and "somewhat" opposed.

Naturally, those in the "strong" groups will have the most political engagement.

On this basis, we see that only a quarter of voters identify as "strongly" in favor. In fact, there is only one proposition that actually generates majority support, and that is the possibility of assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In all other categories (severe disability, mental health, non-terminal chronic) there are more people opposed than in support.

Furthermore, again as with the death penalty, things become much more subtle when we speak of actual process. Only 17% believe that assisted suicide might be proposed as an option before "all other options have been offered". This is in comparison with 56% who believe that consideration of assisted suicide might only come after that of all other possibilities, or indeed, not at all 21%.

Very tellingly, also, the supposed bi-partisan consensus also breaks down in the comparison of "strong" to " somewhat". For whereas there are half again as many Democrats who are strongly in favor (as compared to those strongly opposed) that proportion is nearly an equal split among Republicans, even though the total of "strong" and "somewhat" is virtually the same in both parties (60% Democrat, 58% Republican).

This last fact explains what we already know: that it is much easier to prevent legalization in Red States, than in their Blue equivalents.

That said, however, I would like to stress, once again, how much these numbers change with accurate knowledge. For even in blue states, it has been possible to push off legalization from year to year, for decades, and in the cases where those battles have been lost, it has been with the smallest of margins.

The man behind the current

Quite apart from what a poll shows, it is always interesting to analyze the intention with which it has been produced.

The author of this poll, Data For Progress (DFP) describes itself as a progressive think tank which exists to produce strategic insight, inform policy making, and equip movements with the tools they need to advance their vision.

In common English, this means that they are using the poll as a tool for trying out different messaging, to see what works. Definition, of course, is everything.

In this poll, each question begins with a short descriptive definition: "Medical Aid in Dying — sometimes called "physician-assisted suicide" — is a practice in which a doctor helps someone end their life peacefully with a prescription medication, typically to avoid prolonged suffering."

The most important observation we might make here, is that "Death with Dignity" and "End of Life Option" are now yesterday's news. The assisted death lobby is now all in on "Medical Aid In Dying", more properly called medical homicide. This is the language of physician identification, suggestion and prescription, not the language of patient request.

At the same time, it is ironic to note that in informing their respondents of what MAID is (for it may well be the first time that typical citizens have heard that phrase), they use the generally understood term "assisted suicide", even though medical homicide advocates now claim that MAID has nothing to do with suicide.

That said, there is at least one bald faced lie in that description (beyond the very questionable claim that death will be "peaceful") and that is the assumption that such deaths are performed to prevent "prolonged suffering". They are not. At least not as people understand those words. From all studies, we now know that pain is not at all the principal reason for which people consent to MAID.

But aside from seeking maximum adhesion in the first line question of support / don't-support, the poll also serves, in more detail to see what policy makers can get away with.

The main example I noticed of this, is in the following question:

Do you think doctors should be allowed to offer each of the following individuals to end their life through Medical Aid in Dying? (terminally ill, disabled, mentally ill, chronic illness, simply wish to die)

What is interesting here, is the replacement of the more usual form "should (doctors) be allowed to provide..." with the new gambit "should doctors be allowed to offer...")

This very aggressively ties in with the transition from an idea of assisted suicide as something that must be spontaneously requested by the patient, to a medical treatment that is proactively proposed by the doctor.

These are not innocent word choices. This is the work of people who would obviously wish to maximize the standardized practice of medical homicide, and are seeking, through their poll structure, to figure out just how aggressive they might get --on the road to a truly systematic program of managed death-- in manipulating the opinions of a largely uninformed public.

Our job, of course, is to provide fuller information and context, to render that job as difficult as we can.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal

Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately dying by MAiD.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alexander Raikin

Alexander Raikin is a visiting fellow in Bioethics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Raikin, who has been published by multiple journals and news agencies. Raikin published this research article examining how Canada's euthanasia law violates the Carter Supreme Court decision which led to the legalization of euthanasia in Canada. (Link to this research article)

The question that Raikin answers concerns the impact of euthanasia on the lives of Canadians with disabilities. The lower court and the Supreme Court of Canada (Carter decision) insisted that legalizing euthanasia would not create a greater risk for people with disabilities. Raikin writes: 

In 2012, Justice Lynn Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court concluded in Carter v Canada (Attorney General) that an appropriately safeguarded physician-assisted dying program could be adopted in Canada without creating a “heightened risk” or an “inordinate” impact on vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities. On appeal, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Justice Smith’s reasoning, based on the trial judge’s review of evidence from international jurisdictions with assisted dying programs. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s ruling, which struck down the prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Criminal Code, resulting in the decriminalization of assisted dying in Canada.

A few years after legalizing euthanasia (Bill C-14) the Truchon decision came down from Justice Baudoin, (Quebec Superior Court) extended euthanasia to people who are not terminally ill based on the Supreme Court Carter decision that assured Canadians that euthanasia would not disproportionately affect people with disabilities.

In contrast to the insistence of the courts, Raikin explains how legalizing euthanasia has disproportionately affected people with disabilities. Raikin writes:

The national and provincial MAiD data support the findings from chart reviews of MAiD deaths, which is that those who died from MAiD were more likely to have been living with a disability than those who did not die from MAiD, even though both groups had similar medical conditions and experienced diminished capability. In other words, the evidence indicates that MAiD is increasingly driven by disability status, rather than by underlying illness.

Raikin explains the data:

Health Canada’s data demonstrate that people with physical disabilities are overrepresented in MAiD deaths when compared to the expectations established in Carter. From 2019 to 2023, 42 percent of all MAiD deaths involved people who required disability services, including over 1,017 people who required but did not receive these services. During this period, the type of person who was most likely to die from MAiD was one who required disability supports or who had an unknown disability status. Moreover, nationwide in some years, and in Ontario in 2023 (the only data point in Ontario), people with disabilities were the most likely type of person to die from MAiD.

The Health Canada report of 2023 indicates that, of those persons with disabilities who did not receive disability supports before their MAiD deaths, in five cases care was not accessible, in 158 cases care was accessible, and in 259 cases it was unknown if care was accessible. These data confirm that MAiD providers in Canada have indeed euthanized disabled patients who needed disability supports and were unable to access them. The data also show that a large number of MAiD deaths occurred even when the provider did not know if disability supports were available, despite the legal requirement to inform MAiD applicants of available disability support services. The adequacy of these disability supports is not assessed, however, in any of these metrics, and therefore these data should be understood as highly limited and partial in regards to gauging access to disability supports.

There is more information in Raikin's research study (Link).

Another question that Raikin investigates is euthanasia for people with mental illness. Euthanasia solely based on mental illness or for non-terminal conditions was already happening before Bill C-7 was passed in March 2021. Raikin explains:

Evidence of overrepresentation of depression in MAiD cases comes from a retrospective chart review of all MAiD requests at a single tertiary care centre in Toronto between June 2016 and April 2019. The review found “high rates of psychiatric comorbidity among requesters of medical assistance in dying,” though unlike in the Ganzini study, most of these requests ended in MAiD. Of the 155 patients requesting, sixty (39 percent) had a documented psychiatric comorbidity (most commonly depression); 117 patients in total received MAiD. Moreover, these sixty patients had a statistically indistinguishable rate of eligibility compared to patients without a psychiatric illness (p=0.363). Compared to the Ganzini findings, patients with a psychiatric comorbidity were much more likely to have requested MAiD than those without a psychiatric comorbidity.

Euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill increased after Bill C-7, which extended euthanasia to people who are not terminally ill, increased. Raikin explains: 

As Canada left behind the initial safeguards that restricted MAiD to those who were terminally ill, the number of MAiD deaths of non-terminally ill persons began moving steeply upward. The 2021 expansion to non-terminally ill and disabled persons led to 223 MAiD deaths for non-terminally ill persons in 2021, 463 deaths in 2022, and 622 deaths in 2023. In 2027, Canada will expand MAiD to permit access by reason of mental illness alone, portending further increase in the numbers of non-terminally ill persons seeking state-administered death.

Among other issues, Raikin examined the data concerning euthanasia based on "feeling like a burden." Raikin writes:

While the true number of socially vulnerable persons choosing to die through MAiD in Canada is unknowable without a rigorous review process, the current data paint a dismal image (figure 4). The expectation that most patients who feel themselves a burden to others would be prevented from accessing MAiD did not materialize in Canada—and even the initial optimistic data from Oregon (on which Carter was based) have degraded over time.

According to MAiD providers in 2023, the suffering of almost half their MAiD recipients included the perception of being a burden on others, 10 percent more than the previous year. Because of the nature of the reporting mechanism, we do not know whether this suffering primarily drove the request or was but one contributing factor. Yet federal data reveal that, according to MAiD providers, more than 38 percent of their patients who received MAiD from 2019 to 2023 voiced concerns that they felt like a burden. Such data imply that Canadian physicians are not reluctant to provide MAiD for suffering that includes social vulnerability.

The concern around euthanasia for loneliness is important. Raikin reports that 22% of all euthanasia deaths in 2023 were related to loneliness:

In 2023, however, MAiD providers reported to Health Canada that 22 percent of their patients chose death because of “isolation and loneliness,” up by 5 percent over the previous year. This is a marked increase, but despite the public nature of these data, it does not appear to elicit concern from Health Canada or other government entities.

These data suggest that not only do MAiD providers know that their patients perceive themselves to be a burden or socially isolated but that these same providers may believe these factors are not an obstacle for MAiD access and are potentially even qualifying reasons for MAiD. Notably, clinicians in charge of Vancouver Coastal Health’s assisted-dying team have told patients with chronic pain conditions that choosing to die from MAiD because of feeling like a burden to loved ones can be considered an “expression of love.” While social isolation is not a medical reason for requesting MAiD, the data indicate that it is an important factor within MAiD requests.

There is a concern that people with neurological conditions who are unable to consent would be killed by euthanasia. The Carter court case suggested that this problem could be avoided in Canada. 

Euthanasia for people who cannot consent is legal, happening and increasing. Raikin explains:

Canada has already expanded MAiD to include patients unable to consent to MAiD at the time of their death, through the 2021 provision for a waiver of final consent. In Quebec, the provincial government has now gone much further, having sent an order barring prosecutors from launching criminal investigations into physicians who violate the criminal law by administering euthanasia to patients who have made an advance request for MAiD. The “slippery slope” warning that was rejected in Carter has proved prescient.

Health Canada’s annual reports also show that MAiD deaths of persons with dementia have increased dramatically in Canada. The number of MAiD deaths with a neurological condition as a qualifying factor has more than tripled in number from 2019 to 2023, and increased from 10.4 percent to 14.9 percent of all MAiD deaths.96 In 2022, dementia deaths were 9 percent of neurological MAiD deaths or 150 cases. In 2023, the number of MAiD deaths of persons with dementia increased to 241, which included 106 deaths in which dementia was the sole underlying condition.

Raikin's study to proves that outcome of legalizing euthanasia contrasts greatly with the position of the Supreme Court of Canada (Carter decision) and the lower court decision by Justice Lynn Smith. This is an important study because it begins to create the evidence that will be necessary for overturning Carter but it also undermines the acceptance of Carter in other jurisdictions.

Raikin concludes: 

The data are clear: Since MAiD eligibility has become increasingly broad in Canada, it has increasingly and disproportionately affected Canadians with disabilities.

This report compared MAiD’s impact on people living with disabilities with the findings made by Justice Smith in Carter and upheld by the Supreme Court. Further analysis of the disproportionate impact of MAiD on seniors, the poor, and other vulnerable groups also warrants attention, but is beyond the scope of this report.

This report’s findings are contrary to the assumptions by Canadian courts and the claims frequently made by cabinet ministers and Parliament. It corroborates, instead, concerns shared previously and repeatedly by disability activists and groups, including testimony ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court in Carter.

The death of disabled persons is not a rare or incidental effect of Canada’s legalized euthanasia program; instead, disability is a remarkably common characteristic among those who access MAiD. The average natural life expectancy of MAiD patients belies the claim that assisted suicide is restricted to those whose death is “imminent,” and MAiD’s reach is not limited to those who are terminally ill. Those seeking MAiD do not encounter a consistently “rigorous standard of scrutiny” that prevents most requests from ending in death. Specialist screenings for depression do not appear to have materialized, even at the very start of the MAiD program. Persons with neurological conditions are seeking death in high numbers compared to the expectations established in Carter. And the socially isolated, far from being protected, are instead being approved for MAiD at high—and increasing—rates.

Previous articles concerning research by Alexander Raikin (Articles Link).

If MAiD for Mental Illness had been legal in 2011. I would not be here today.

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

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

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

The following letter was written by Andrea:

I found out about MAiD for mental illness alone (MIA) in February 2024. I had just started a new full-time job and went grocery shopping in the same area. I read a Magazine and where the cover article was about MAiD for MIA. I couldn’t believe that MAiD was intended to be legalized for MIA in a few weeks, though it had been pushed back three years. My reaction was visceral. I immediately knew that if MAiD had been part of the system when I was diagnosed with bipolar 1 with psychotic features in 2011, I likely wouldn’t be here today.

I’ve been to the psych ward six times. Twice in 2011, and three more times over 14 months in 2015–2016. The last one nearly broke me: a psychiatrist tried to put me on high doses of medications that gave me akathisia and worse suicidality. I experienced this as almost being killed by the system itself. I was so traumatized that I learned to get through flare-ups without hospital intervention, where I had no rights or control over how I was treated. Thanks to my own strategies and supports, I’ve only been back once in the years since (2019).

In retrospect, I am grateful for the awful experience, because it forced me to learn how to survive a crisis without the hospital. If what I learned didn’t save my life up to now, it sure will in the age of MAiD. And now that MAiD is looming, I see even more clearly: if it had been available as part of clinical treatment, I would not be here. Either from choosing MAiD directly, or from avoiding mental health services altogether out of fear. Every time I was in the hospital, no matter how bad it was or how bad I felt, at least I knew they were keeping me alive and encouraging me to stay alive when I wanted to die. That baseline mattered. If even a pamphlet about MAiD had been in the waiting room, I know I would not have gone back a second time.

The introduction of MAiD for MIA flips the foundation of mental health care upside down. When I was first diagnosed, I learned that no one can predict who, how, and when someone will recover. Yet under MAiD, a doctor can decide there is nothing more to be done and offer death instead. That is the system admitting failure. And when the system fails, it does not mean the person has failed. It means that alternatives must be offered. But instead of exploring them, the system labels us treatment resistant, blaming us instead of the system.

Why aren’t those alternatives invested in? I recently read a 2025 paper showing how, when Positive Psychology was founded in 2000, research discoveries about Flow States were never applied to people with serious mental illnesses, even though they were just as relevant and life-giving. Post-crisis growth is immeasurable and untapped, yet the resources that could cultivate it are withheld. We haven’t been given equitable access to our life-giving human potential — but now we are being given equitable access to death. This is backwards.

The legalization of MAiD for MIA will undermine the already flawed mental health system and the efforts of many caring people working in it. I can’t imagine how they will feel, forced to offer death instead of support. I certainly won’t go near the system again, nor work in it. I will have to adjust my life just to make certain I don’t get overwhelmed.

I am sad, disheartened, and still in disbelief that Canada is moving in this direction. The system is no longer subtle about its failures. Yet rather than admit it and reallocate resources toward alternatives and needs, it gives up on us. But life is bigger than what the system can lead us to.

Don’t give up on yourself. You matter. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.

Andrea 

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

The feeling of being in the way and to have someone help cause my death, pervades my life

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

No assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received the following message from Marie M, who is one of our supporters. Marie has lived most of her life in Canada but was born in the UK. She wanted UK politicians who are debating a bill to legalize assisted suicide to read her message:

"You've no idea what it is like for us who are older and have, or even haven't, health issues. I'm in my 70s and have a number of health issues. When I seek help I have the feeling that our health system, which is poor, might expect me to give "my place" to someone healthier and younger, thus taking my place out of the running for healthcare by my deciding to commit suicide; that's what I feel constantly as I walk around, realizing that I might be regarded as being "too old." When I see a doctor or have a doctor attend me or go for a test or surgery in a hospital, it's really on my mind."

This expectation for a patient to be euthanized or medically assisted to commit suicide is already happening among some healthcare workers; this opens the gates to having euthanasia/assisted suicide thrust upon any of us. This is what approving it in a country can do to an ordinary person. This feeling of being, in the way, expected to commit suicide or have someone help me to, pervades my life.

Assisted suicide is now called MAiD, a term I refuse to use; it's a euphemism for "someone helping you to commit suicide." That is what I call it.

I was born in the UK and just about all of my relatives live there, so I have visited the UK quite often."

Thank you Marie

• Canadian physician sends Open Letter to the House of Lords (UK) (Link). 
• A lawyer witnessed coercive end-of-life conversation (Link).