Euthanasia for Canadians who are not terminally ill.

Kindness or Cruelty?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paula Ritchie died by euthanasia

An article by Katie Engelhart that was published in the New York Times on June 1, 2025 asked the question: Do patients without a terminal condition have the right to die?

Engelhart's article features Paula Ritchie, a woman with disabilities related to post concussion syndrome, who sought and was approved for euthanasia (MAiD) by Dr Matt Wonnacott in Ontario.

This is not a new story, but I decided to write about it based on other concerning stories that have also recently published, such as a person with dementia, in Ontario, who died by euthanasia, even though it was her family that made the request, a Nova Scotia woman who was offered euthanasia, but is now receiving treatment in the US, an obese Ontario woman, died by euthanasia, after refusing any treatment for her eating disorder.

Matt Wonnacott

Engelhart interviewed Dr Matt Wonnacott, the primary assessor for Ritchie who determined that she qualified for euthanasia, and then killed her. Engelhart reports:

“You’re a difficult case,” Wonnacott admitted. Another clinician had already assessed Paula and determined that she was ineligible — but there was no limit to how many assessments a patient could undergo, and Paula had called the region’s MAID coordination service every day, sometimes every hour, demanding to be assessed again, until the nurse on the other line had practically begged Wonnacott and his colleagues to take Paula off her roster.

Engelhart later reports:

Wonnacott already believed that Paula met most of the criteria for MAID, on the basis of her neurological disorder and lingering symptoms. Still, he wondered if there was anything he could do to make her life better, or at least good enough that she wouldn’t want to die. In particular, Wonnacott wanted to know if Paula would consider seeing a neuropsychiatrist, a specialist who worked at the intersection of chronic pain and brain injury

Wonnacott further explains his reason for approving Ritchie for euthanasia.

“That’s a great question,” Wonnacott said. The answer was: at any point she wanted. There wasn’t a specific number of treatments she was required to undergo before she could get MAID, or some specific period of time she had to suffer before she was deemed, under the law, to have suffered enough. Paula was allowed to say no. To say enough is enough.

“It’s not my role to force you to do anything, even if I genuinely think it would really help you,” Wonnacott said. In the doctor’s opinion, Paula’s understanding of her injury was not perfect, but it was not distorted by her mental illness either. Her MAID request didn’t seem to be a cry for help, or a lashing out, or a manipulation. She had tried to get better, after all. She seemed to be thoughtful about the costs and benefits of dying. “I think you have capacity,” he told her.

Wonnacott approves euthanasia for Ritchie, an irreversible decision, for next week, even though treatment options are available. Wonnacott emphasizes that she is not required to attempt effective treatments. 

Donna Duncan's daughters

This case is very similar case to the euthanasia death of Donna Duncan.

Paula Ritchie does not have a physically or terminally illness, but rather she was suffering from a concussion, which is serious and debilating, but, does it qualify for being killed? Wonnacott approves the euthanasia.

Engelhart offers an assessment of the changes to Canada's euthanasia after it was legalized and emphasizes Wonnacott's support for euthanasia by writing:

But Wonnacott, Paula’s MAID assessor, started seeing Track 2 patients right away. He believed that bodily autonomy and patient choice should be the guiding tenets of his practice, and that many doctors didn’t respect these things enough. Every week or so, he would receive an email from the regional case-coordination service with a list of prospective patients, and when he had the time, he would take a few names from the bottom of the list: the people who had been waiting the longest for an assessment — sometimes because they were difficult cases.

Engelhart's article is actually designed to promote the expansion of euthanasia in Canada by justifying the killing of people, who are not dying and sometimes not even physically ill. These are the hard cases. 

I thank Engelhart because her aggressive support of euthanasia actually proves that some doctors, such as Wonnacott, are literally out-of-control and should be investigated based on the controversial nature of the euthanasia deaths that they carry-out.

Further to that, who is the gate-keeper for people who are on the outskirts of the care system and wanting to die.