Join our EPC zoom event: Australia's experience with euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Australian Care Alliance for a live Zoom presentation on Monday January 21 at 3 pm (Eastern Time).

Register for the Zoom presentation. (Registration Link).

Canada legalized euthanasia by amending the federal criminal code to create a national exception to homicide (murder).

Australia is similar to the United States whereby states that legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide do so by amending state laws. Therefore every Australian state has a different law.

Richard Egan with the Australian Care Alliance will join Alex Schadenberg to provide an update concerning what is happening with euthanasia and assisted suicide in Australia.

The Australian laws require scrutiny now that Britain is debating the legalization of assisted suicide. 

British politicians who support assisted suicide have become interested in Australia's experience since Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law has become toxic based on the many negative stories and reports.

Register for the Zoom presentation. (Registration Link). Once you register, a confirmation email will be sent to you.

Why is the UK Labour party putting assisted suicide ahead of social care?

This article was published by Spiked on January 14, 2025.

Elderly and disabled people need a national care service, not a national suicide service.

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

The British government has announced a new commission that it hopes will build a ‘national consensus’ on social-care reform. Yet despite Labour’s talk of the ‘critical issues’ that face the social-care sector, the commission won’t deliver its first report until 2028, which is around the time of the next election. In other words, despite decades of debates, commissions and reports about social care, Keir Starmer and Co are kicking the can even further down the road. Plus, given the government’s already deep unpopularity, it may well be leaving the urgent problem of social care to whoever is next in power.

This offers an illuminating insight into Labour’s attitude towards the ill, elderly and disabled – particularly when contrasted with the government’s haste in legislating for assisted suicide. PM Starmer boasts an enormous parliamentary majority, and as a result has little trouble navigating the passage of bills. So why is Labour prioritising assisted suicide over social care?

After all, social care poses far fewer ethical concerns than assisted suicide. While MP Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill has already proven deeply controversial, a national consensus has long existed on the issue of social care. We all agree that care for elderly, ill and disabled people needs to be provided as widely as possible. The only real points of contention concern the amount of resources and public funds that should be allocated to this end, and how those funds should be raised.

The Leadbeater bill is far less straightforward. If it becomes law, it will fundamentally alter the UK’s moral terrain. By legalising ‘assisted dying’, it will transform the relationship between doctor and patient forever.

And this is far from the only problem with Leadbeater’s bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Commons back in November. Unlike assisted-suicide legislation in most other countries, the bill contains no conscientious-objection clause for doctors. In jurisdictions that have already legalised assisted suicide, only Canada, where euthanasia is now the fifth-leading cause of death, requires doctors to participate regardless of their views.

These details, and many others, bear thinking about – not least by our elected law-makers. But the assisted-dying bill was rushed through after just five hours of debate. Leadbeater herself betrayed a limited understanding of her own bill, and its implications, when she was arguing for it in parliament. MPs were given only 16 days to digest one of the longest private members’ bills in parliamentary history. What’s more, a committee stacked with assisted-suicide supporters and inexperienced MPs is now responsible for combing through the bill at break-neck speed.

The skewed priorities are grotesque. A third reading of Leadbeater’s shoddy legislation is already scheduled for April. Assisted suicide could be law by 2027, bringing in what Tory MP Danny Kruger has branded a ‘national suicide service’. Yet, at the same time, more than 10 and a half years after it was first proposed, a national care service looks no closer to becoming a reality.

It seems that this is a government keener on helping people to die than on ensuring they are cared for while they are still here. 

Kevin Yuill teaches American studies at the University of Sunderland. His book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

True Compassion vs the Faux Compassion of Assisted Suicide

We need social policies based in genuine empathy, not the “MAiD” movement’s pseudo “empathy.” 

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

One of the things I love best about my job is that it connects me to a community of other disabled people. All of the students and many of the staff have disabilities, and our insight into one anothers struggles allows us to model interdependence-people with similar experiences helping each other live with dignity and make positive choices.

Our mutual experience of disability also helps us have empathy for each other. We understand how hard it can be to be disabled, especially in an ableist world, so we’re able to provide peer support if one of us is feeling overwhelmed and sad. 

For instance, a few months ago a student who is partially blind wept because she was struggling to read important information on a whiteboard, and she said, “It’s so hard to be disabled sometimes!” “I know, sweetie,” I said. “We at E4 want you to not be ashamed of your disability and maybe even take pride in it, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it all the time.” Another day a colleague with bipolar disorder asked, “Is there a bug on that wall? I hope I’m not hallucinating.” I responded: “I don’t see a bug, but maybe it was just a shadow.” That seemed to alleviate her anxiety. “Yeah, that makes sense,” she said. Another time a student with a chromosomal anomaly and severe anxiety was talking to me and this same colleague and said with tears in her eyes, “What am I going to do? How am I gonna live with my disability? How am I going to get a job?” We both assured her that we understood her fears, and pointed out that we both live on our own and have jobs, even though we are disabled, and that she has a solid vocational goal that she is working for. One night I arrived at work feeling overwhelmed and depressed about the long day I had had trying to cope with the deficits related to my learning disability, and feeling frustrated about that disability’s impact on my life in general. When there weren’t any students in the room tears trickled down my cheeks and I said to a different disabled colleague, “I love my job, but sometimes it’s so hard to live and work with my learning disability; I hate it sometimes; I really do!” “I understand, Meg,” he said gently. “Do you want me to get you a tissue?” I am deeply grateful for that mutual support among staff and students, which gives us all an opportunity to function at our highest potential.

What the assisted suicide movement does to the disabled community is like if instead of commiserating with one anothers suffering one of us had said to the other, “Yeah, you’re right; your life sucks and things will probably never get any better. Have you considered killing yourself?”

Why don’t proponents of assisted suicide, especially proponents of regimes like Canada’s, understand how cruel that is to do to someone? What is the point of reaching out for help in your lowest moments if the people you reach out to are just going to suggest that you die?

The interactions I’ve cited model true compassion; the assisted suicide movement does not. My colleagues, students and I lift each other up, the assisted suicide movement kicks disabled people when we are down. 

We need social policies based in genuine empathy, not the “MAiD” movement’s pseudo “empathy.”

Previous articles by Meghan Schrader - (Articles Link).

Why I changed my mind about euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Leah Lebresco Sargeant

In her article: An Idol of Autonomy, that was published by The Dispatch on January 13, 2025, Leah Lebresco Sargeant explains why she changed her mind about euthanasia.

Sargeant explains that she support "death with dignity" so people could avoid the hardest part of dying before reading the article - The Death Treatment - that was published in The New Yorker in June 2015. Sergeant writes"

But then I read Rachel Aviv’s “The Death Treatment,” her feature on Belgium’s euthanasia regime for The New Yorker. Aviv told the story of a Belgian mother who had struggled on and off with depression for many years. When she switched doctors, her treatment goal became completing suicide, not avoiding it. She died without her family knowing she had chosen a date or having the opportunity to intervene. That story changed my mind.

Sargeant explains that since The Death Treatment was published, euthanasia and/or assisted suicide has been legalized in more jurisdictions, including Canada, and is now being debated in Great Britain.

Sargeant challenges the concept that you can have little bit of euthanasia.

I had thought that “death with dignity” might be appropriate for a small range of patients, and that it would be restricted to only those patients for whom pain control was inadequate. I was wrong on both counts. What Aviv’s feature revealed in Belgium has become the pattern of MAiD in most nations that have allowed it. A narrow, sympathetic category of patients forms a beachhead, but then, often on nondiscrimination grounds, more and more patients are allowed or even urged to die. Belgium and the Netherlands have both expanded their euthanasia regimes to include children. One of the first to be killed was an 11-year-old with cystic fibrosis.

Sargeant provides an analysis of why people ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide and explains that the data shows that it is not just about pain but rather it is about autonomy.

Sargeant states that it is hard to limit euthanasia.

Once the state officially agrees that some lives are not worth living—that it might be unfair to others to continue to draw breath—there can be a contagious effect. Canada, which has a particularly permissive law, has seen MAiD death rate surge until 1 in 25 Canadian deaths in 2022 came by medically legitimated suicide. The country has not yet hit a suicide ceiling—advocates want to allow “mature minors” (defined as children 12 and up) to be allowed to elect to die. It remains on the cusp of allowing MAiD for purely mental health conditions (depression, autism, schizophrenia) with legalization currently delayed until 2027. And advocates are suing to allow the depressed to die immediately.

Legalizing euthanasia creates competing interests in suicide.

The simplest framing of what is wrong with MAiD is that it leads to the government operating two competing suicide hotlines, and being, at best, indifferent about which one you call. On one line, people will tell you that every life is worthwhile and that your loved ones do not despise you for your frailties. On the other, a kind doctor will solicitously schedule you for a lethal cocktail or injection.

Sargeant discusses the recent Dying in Dignity poster campaign in the tube (subway) in London UK. Dignity in Dying, a U.K. euthanasia advocacy group, placed pro-assisted dying ads in the London Tube. In one poster, a fit woman leaps in the air with the uncanny joy most often on display in period product ads. Next to her in block capitals: “MY DYING WISH IS THAT MY FAMILY WON’T HAVE TO SEE ME SUFFER, AND I WON’T HAVE TO.”

Clearly this message countered the suicide prevention campaigns that are displayed in the subway systems world-wide.

Christine Gauthier

Sargeant explains her concern with reference to Christine Gauthier's story:

...A Canadian Paralympian who contacted Veterans Affairs for help getting a wheelchair ramp for her house received an unsolicited offer to be given MAiD instead. In seminars for MAiD assessors in Canada, they receive training on how to be emotionally prepared to greenlight requests to die from Canadians with non-terminal conditions for whom “poverty [is] the driver of her MAID request.” It’s a grim idea of what the healing profession is for.

Some people argue that euthanasia is good in theory but not in practise. Sergeant explains how the "ideal" cases get mixed in with exploitative cases. She then states that the BC Civil Liberties Association, who carried the Carter case to the Supreme Court of Canada to legalize euthanasia, are now saying they are concerned with how the law works.

Sargeant concludes that euthanasia should be opposed by caring for people. She writes:

There is already copious evidence that we cannot sustain a modest euthanasia regime. Though advocacy for euthanasia began with the avoidance of pain, it has inevitably slipped into making an idol of autonomy. But no human person has ever fully possessed bodily autonomy, and the legal right to destroy the body cannot make this aspiration achievable. Opposing euthanasia begins with care for the weak, but it ultimately depends on simply telling this truth about the human person.

I think that Sargeant is mainly correct, but she avoids the point, that euthanasia kills people. You cannot have a modest euthanasia regime, and expansion is inevitable, but the only way to prevent euthanasia is to oppose killing people.
 

Queensland euthanasia report indicates another 26% increase in deaths.

This report was published by the Australian Care Alliance.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in Queensland on 1 January 2023 under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021.

Numbers

A report on the first six months of legalisation states that there were 245 deaths under the Act - 139 deaths (56.73%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 106 by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide.

245 deaths in six months represents about 1.31% of all deaths - higher than WA after one year and twice Victoria's rate after 4 years.

A second report, covering 1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024 states that there were 793 deaths under the Act - 532 deaths (67%) by “practitioner administration”, that is euthanasia and 261 (33%) by “self-administration”, that is assisted suicide.

This represents about 1.9% of all deaths in 2023/24 – a 45% increase on the rate for the first six months of operation.

A quarterly report covering 1 July 2024 - 30 September 2024 states that there were 241 deaths under the Act – representing 2.4% of all deaths in Queensland in that period, a further 26% increase on the rate for 2023-24. 

One relevant factor in this higher rate compared to other Australian states could be that the eligibility criteria in Queensland include a prognosis that the condition is " expected to cause death within 12 months" whereas it is six months (except for neuro-degenerative conditions) in the other states.

Practitioners

Registered nurses are allowed to administer the prescribed lethal substance to cause a person’s death. 172 registered nurses have done the training (compared to 187 medical practitioners and 22 nurse practitioners).

Of the 120 practitioners involved in 2023-24 as coordinating or consulting practitioners 47 of them were involved in 21 or more cases (that is on average at least one case every 17 days).

20 nurses and nurse practitioners administered a lethal substance to a person in 2023-24, compared with 51 medical practitioners.

Of these 71 State trained professional killers, 28 are serial killers, having killed five or more people each in 2023-24.

Prognosis

Unlike other United States and Australian jurisdictions which limit assisted suicide (and, in Australian jurisdictions, euthanasia) to those with a prognosis of 6 months or less to expected death, the Queensland law allows access to those with a prognosis of expected death within 12 months.

This increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from errors in prognosis.

Refusing treatment and symptom management

The Queensland Government explicitly states that those seeking euthanasia or assistance to suicide may meet the eligibility criteria of a terminal illness that is causing suffering by refusing medical treatment and symptom management.

This makes it clear that this regime is about facilitating the intentional ending of life and not about relieving unavoidable suffering at the end of life. Under these provisions people with otherwise non-terminal conditions such as a young person with insulin dependent diabetes could be euthanased.

Timeframe

The law generally requires a nine-day period between a first and final request but this can be waived if two medical practitioners agree the person may die or lose decision-making capacity within that period.

In 2023-24, 275 people had the nine-day waiting period waived. This is 34.7 % of those who died under the Act.

Where a person is assessed as likely to imminently losing decision-making capacity there must be a real doubt as to the person ‘s current decision-making capacity so this provision increases the likelihood of wrongful deaths from lack of decision-making capacity.

Government facilitation of suicide and euthanasia

The Queensland Government has established Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Support Service which will only provide information and assistance on suicide and euthanasia and will not provide any assistance or information on “any other health concerns, including your underlying conditions”.

The QVAD-Support service will directly link a person seeking to end their life with a medical practitioner willing to help them do so.

Any registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to facilitating the suicide of or euthanasing his or her patients must if asked by any person for such assistance or information give the person either the details of QVAD-Support Service or of a registered health practitioner willing to facilitate the person’s death.

The Queensland voluntary assisted dying pharmacy is funded to supply the lethal poisons for suicide to individuals and for euthanasia to administering medical practitioners or nurses.

Reporting

Clause 8 of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Regulations 2022 requires the Voluntary Assisted dying Board to collect some minimal information that is then required to be published in an annual report to be provided by 30 September each year.

This includes basic demographic data (age, sex and region) of applicants and data on the underlying condition as well as the number of deaths from self-administration or practitioner administration of lethal poisons prescribed under the Act.

The time between first and final request is to be reported.

No data on referrals for additional assessments of eligibility or decision-making capacity is to be collected. Nor is there any provision for reporting on complications, the time between administration of the poison and loss of consciousness, or the time between administration of the poison and death.

Given the general complication rate of 7% or higher reported from other jurisdictions this is a concerning lack of transparency that undermines any future claim that there are no problems with the practice of assistance to suicide and euthanasia in Queensland. We will never know.

No safe space

The Act imposes on all hospitals, nursing homes and residential aged care facilities in Queensland the obligation to allow suicide and euthanasia by lethal poison on their premises for any permanent resident of the facility and for any other resident where a “deciding medical practitioner” determines transferring the person for this purpose is not “reasonable”.

This is a violation of the human rights of freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

The sick and elderly should be able to choose to be treated or to live in a place where no-one is intentionally killed or helped to commit suicide.

Lethal substances at large

One of the obvious risks of prescribing and supplying lethal substances to be kept in the community is that the lethal substance may be ingested by a person other than the person for whom it is prescribed.

The Queensland coroner investigated an incident, in which after a woman was prescribed lethal drugs under the Act but died in hospital before ingesting the drugs, her husband subsequently used the drugs to kill himself.

More articles about the Queensland experience with euthanasia.

• Coroner's report after man dies by taking his wife's assisted suicide drugs (Link). 
• Coroner examines case of Australian man who died after taking her assisted suicide drugs (Link).
• Man dies after taking wife's assisted suicide drugs (Link).

EPC Petition: We demand a review of Dr. Ellen Wiebe’s euthanasia practice.

Petition: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition petition to The Honourable Josie Osborne, the BC Minister of Health, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC

Link to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Petition (Petition Link).

Dear Hon. Josie Osborne,

We demand a complete review by the British Columbia Ministry of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC into Dr Ellen Wiebe’s euthanasia practice.

There have been many controversial euthanasia deaths associated with Dr Wiebe and we believe that there may be many more concerning deaths that were carried out by Dr Wiebe.

We believe that it is likely that Dr Wiebe has participated in non-compliant euthanasia deaths and legal sanctions or sanctions on her medical license are likely.

Until an investigation is completed, Dr. Wiebe’s medical license should be temporarily suspended in order to protect people.

Background information:

Ellen Wiebe

Brieanna Charlebois reported for the Canadian Press on December 19, 2024, that a Vancouver man who was on a psychiatric day pass died by euthanasia at Ellen Wiebe’s clinic(1):

The family of a 52-year-old man who received medical assistance in dying while on a day pass from a Vancouver hospital’s psychiatric ward has launched a constitutional challenge to the procedure’s legal framework.

The case filed in the B.C. Supreme Court says the businessman and father of three, who had chronic back pain and long-term mental illness, suffered wrongful death in December 2022. Charlebois reported that the case, “...accuses Dr Ellen Wiebe and her clinic of malpractice. None of the allegations have been proven in court.”

The family is seeking damages for an alleged wrongful death as well as a declaration that the man’s Charter rights were breached and that the MAiD framework is invalid and unconstitutional.

This was not the first controversial MAiD case associated with Dr Wiebe. On October 26, 2024, a Vancouver judge granted a 30-day injunction to prevent the euthanasia death of a woman (2). The woman’s common law husband petitioned the court claiming that the woman did not have an “irremediable” medical condition.

On October 29, Lisa Steacy reported for CTV News Vancouver that Justice Simon R Coval signed an injunction on Saturday October 26 preventing Dr Wiebe from killing an Alberta woman on Sunday October 27 by euthanasia (3). Steacy reported that the claim stated that the woman does not qualify for MAiD, not even for a Track 2 approval because the woman did not have an irremediable medical condition.

Some of Dr Wiebe’s deaths were not reported in the media but were reported by researchers. A research article by Alexander Raikin published by The New Atlantis in December 2022 tells how Ellen Wiebe provided euthanasia to a man who had been rejected for euthanasia in his own city (4):

In another CAMAP seminar recording, we learn of a man who was rejected for MAID because, as assessors found, he did not have a serious illness or the “capacity to make informed decisions about his own personal health.” One assessor concluded “it is very clear that he does not qualify.” But Dying with Dignity Canada connected him with Ellen Wiebe, a prominent euthanasia provider and advocate in Vancouver. She assessed him virtually, found him eligible, and found a second assessor to agree. “And he flew all by himself to Vancouver,” she said. “I picked him up at the airport, um, brought him to my clinic and provided for him,” meaning she euthanized him.

Amy Hasbrouck reported in May 2020 of a woman who decided to stop eating and drinking, and was euthanized by Dr Wiebe (5):

In June of 2016, just as medical aid in dying (MAiD) was adopted in Canada, a British Columbia woman known as Ms. S. who had Multiple Sclerosis was evaluated for MAiD by Dr. Wiebe. According to Jocelyn Downie, Dr. Wiebe concluded that Ms. S. met most of the eligibility criteria (incurable condition, advanced state of decline in capability, and enduring and intolerable suffering) but the doctor did not believe Ms. S. would die “in the foreseeable future,” so she was determined ineligible.

Dr. Wiebe exchanged correspondence with Ms. S. in December of 2016 and January of 2017, to the effect “that the patient’s life expectancy was not short enough to qualify for medical aid in dying.” Then in mid-February 2017, “Ms. S decided to starve herself to death at home, with the support of palliative-care nursing.”

Dr. Wiebe visited Ms. S. on March 3. At that time, Dr. Wiebe determined that she met all eligibility criteria, and she was euthanized on March 6, 2017.

Dr Wiebe has a history of controversial euthanasia cases. She is the doctor who entered a Jewish care home to complete a euthanasia death, even though she knew that the care home had a policy of not permitting euthanasia on the premises (6).

Dr Wiebe stated in an essay published in the Economist Magazine in August 2018 that she is not concerned about euthanasia errors (7):

“I agree that one day I may make an error in my assessment and not realise that someone has been pressured into a decision to hasten their death. And the other independent assessor might make the same error. That might mean a person would die earlier than she or he may have preferred.”

“Should that error be the reason hundreds or thousands suffer needlessly against their will at the end of life?”

We demand a complete review by the British Columbia Ministry of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC into Dr Ellen Wiebe’s euthanasia practice.

There have been many controversial euthanasia deaths associated with Dr Wiebe and we believe that there may be many more concerning deaths that were carried out by Dr Wiebe.

We believe that it is likely that Dr Wiebe has participated in non-compliant euthanasia deaths and legal sanctions or sanctions on her medical license are likely.

Until an investigation is completed, Dr. Wiebe’s medical license should be temporarily suspended in order to protect people. 

Link to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Petition (Petition Link).

Endnotes:

(1) Charlebois, B. (2024, Dec 19). Family who says B.C. man received MAID on psychiatric day pass files wrongful-death lawsuit. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/family-bc-man-received-maid-wrongful-death-lawsuit

(2) A.Y. v. N.B., 2024 BCSC 2004. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/20/2024BCSC2004.htm

(3) Steacy, L. (2024, Oct 29). B.C. judge halts woman’s medically assisted death. CTV News Vancouver. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-judge-halts-woman-s-medically-assisted-death-1.7091688

(4) Raikin, A. (2022, Dec 16). No Others Options. The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/no-other-options

(5) Schadenberg, A. (2020, May 29). Starvation led to approval for euthanasia in Canada. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Blog. https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2020/05/starvation-leads-to-approval-for.html

(6) Lazaruk, S. (2018, Jan 05). Jewish care home accuses doctor of ‘sneaking in and killing someone’. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/jewish-care-home-accuses-doctor-of-sneaking-in-and-killing-someone

(7) (2018, Aug 27). Canada’s example of assisted dying refutes those who argue against it. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/27/canadas-example-of-assisted-dying-refutes-those-who-argue-against-it

Care Not Killing Alliance UK seeks submissions concerning UK assisted suicide bill.

The Care Not Killing Alliance UK sent out an alert urging more people to send a submission to the UK parliament concerning their assisted suicide bill.

Care Not Killing Alliance

Five-and-a-half weeks after the second reading debate on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill and barely two weeks until Committee stage is due to commence, the call for evidence that was authorised in November has finally been issued. To quote a former director of legislative affairs at 10 Downing Street:

“We shouldn’t have to fight for the process to be taken seriously.”

No formal deadline has been declared which could lead people to think there's no hurry, but realistically, evidence should be submitted in the next two weeks (before committee stage begins in earnest) to stand a real chance of being seen and considered.

Please consider making a submission in the coming days, especially where you are able to speak from particular experience: as a doctor or nurse, as a lawyer, as a social worker, as a pharmacist, as a carer or loved one, as a disabled person, or simply as someone who doesn’t wish to ever have to justify saying ‘no’ to assisted suicide.

The committee's members were chosen by Ms Leadbeater having voted 13-9 for the Bill. Yet this remains an important opportunity to pose difficult questions, to air challenging evidence, and to highlight deficiencies that were neglected in the rush to second reading. Remember, many who are sympathetic to the principle of a change in the law voted no because they see that this is a bad bill, while dozens of MPs who voted for the Bill at second reading “could withdraw support at the next parliamentary vote.”

What do you need to know about the call for evidence?

The Committee exists to consider “the existing clauses of the Bill and of any amendments tabled to the Bill,” so submissions “should address matters contained within the Bill and concentrate on issues where you have expertise and on factual information of which you would like the Committee to be aware.”

Your submission should be a Word document, should not exceed 2,000 words (guideline), and should consist of numbered paragraphs topped (ideally) by a brief introduction to you (or your organisation) and a summary of your evidence. Essential statistics or further details can be added as annexes, which should also be numbered.

You should be careful not to comment on matters currently (or soon to be) before a court of law.

Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to (clearly referenced, preferably with a hyperlink.) Evidence which is accepted and published by the Committee becomes subject to parliamentary copyright, and you shouldn’t publish your evidence until the Committee has done so.

Most submissions are, at the Committee’s discretion, published online.

Your submission must be sent to tiabill@parliament.uk 

The covering email should include your name, address, telephone number and email address; if you don’t wish your submission to be published, you should also include your reasons.

Once the Committee is underway, amendments may be proposed and you may wish to submit further evidence on those, but you should not hold off on submitting other evidence now.

What should your evidence say?

This is not a consultation on the overarching principles of the debate – the Committee’s task is to scrutinise the Bill’s make-up, cause by clause. No-one expects you to be an expert on this bill or in the surrounding policy areas; with no set questions, we advise focusing on a select number of key areas.

Your personal or professional experience may make you well placed to explain why particular provisions in the Bill are inadequate, unworkable, or not properly thought through – for example, healthcare professionals could speak to the difficulty of predicting a six-month life expectancy, while social workers (who are overlooked by the Bill) could talk about difficulties in assessing capacity and coercion.

Non-specialists could highlight the aspect(s) of the Bill they find most startling – for example, the heavy reliance on the role of the High Court despite this being ill-defined and the courts having nowhere near the capacity needed to handle the anticipated workload.

Our briefing may give you a steer, but must not be reproduced verbatim: your submission must be an expression of your own concerns about the work ability of the Bill.

• Read the UK assisted suicide bill (Bill Link). 
• Read the Care Not Killing UK assisted suicide bill briefing (Briefing Link).

Your submission must be sent to tiabill@parliament.uk 

Links to previous articles about the UK assisted suicide bill.

• Assisted suicide is not the answer to the NHS financial crisis (Link).
• The British assisted suicide bill can be defeated (Link).
• The British parliament passes assisted suicide bill at second reading (Link).

Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

Dr Ramona Coelho is a Family Physician; Senior Fellow of Domestic and Health Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Member of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee

Dr Coelho has written an excellent commentary on Canada's experience with euthanasia (MAiD) that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on January 8, 2025. 

Dr Coelho is commenting on Health Canada's Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying. Coelho writes:

Health Canada’s recently released Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2023 reveals that 15,343 individuals died by MAiD, 622 of them following Track 2. By the end of 2023, the cumulative number of MAiD deaths reached 60,000 – 4.7 per cent of all deaths nationally since the program was launched. The annual growth rate continues to rise significantly, at 15.8 per cent.

Regional reported trends highlight extreme increases in growth, with Quebec experiencing a 36.3 per cent increase, Ontario at 30.3 per cent, and British Columbia at 18.0 per cent. These provinces account for 85 per cent of all MAiD provisions. In Quebec, where only euthanasia is allowed, it accounted for more than 7 per cent of all deaths. Quebec’s government recently commissioned a study to better understand why so many people in the province are resorting to euthanasia.

Canada legalized MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) in June 2016 by creating an exemption in the Criminal Code for homicide or aiding suicide. Coelho mentions that in 2023 there were 15,343 MAiD deaths whereby 5 of the deaths were assisted suicide while the rest were euthanasia.

Some of the MAiD deaths were based on discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports and social care. Coelho explains:

Supporters of MAiD often cite autonomy and compassion as validations for the practice. However, as a society, we cannot ignore the troubling reality that, for many individuals, the desire for assisted death can often reflect systemic failures: discrimination, inadequate access to health care, mental health services, disability supports, and social care.

Even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), which filed the Carter case that led to the 2015 decriminalization of physician-assisted suicide in Canada, has now expressed concerns about the misuse of MAiD. They acknowledge reports of individuals being offered MAiD in circumstances that might not meet the legal criteria, as well as cases where people may resort to MAiD due to intolerable social conditions, and have asserted that they will hold the government accountable.

Suffering was not necessarily related to physical suffering.

As the Health Canada report cites, the overall drivers of intolerable suffering include loneliness and isolation (21 per cent for Track 1 vs. 47 per cent for Track 2), emotional distress, anxiety, fear, or existential suffering (39 per cent for Track 1 vs. 35 per cent for Track 2) and a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers (45 per cent for Track 1 vs. 49 per cent for Track 2). It is deeply troubling that loneliness, the fear of being a burden, and general fear are leading people to choose death. All of these issues should be addressed with better care, not with the provision of death. When people lack timely access to adequate health care, housing, or proper support – or even simply genuine care and love – offering death as a “choice” is not compassionate, it can be a form of neglect.

Euthanasia in Canada is often presented as an option when the person is at their lowest. Coelho explains:

Consider patients in palliative care. Cancer patients, for instance, often face significant barriers to accessing mental health support and proper symptom management. How can a request for MAiD be free and informed when better support isn’t available? Alarmingly, Health Canada suggests that health care providers should consider proactively raising MAiD as an option, but this approach raises serious ethical concerns. Are we genuinely prioritizing care, or are we normalizing death as a default?

This tension illustrates how systemic neglect can muddy the waters of autonomy. When cases of euthanasia are documented for persons whose pain is poorly managed, or whose care is inadequate, is the decision to request MAiD truly autonomous? When feeling like a burden, or when loneliness or fear of prolonged suffering are the factors driving the decision, the choices are not made in true freedom but are borne of anguish and desperation, reflecting the reality of unmet needs. These dynamics demonstrate that suffering can distort autonomy and can turn MAiD into the result of systemic failures rather than an expression of true choice.

Euthanasia is not a type of medical treatment.

MAiD does not align with medicine’s core purpose and has been incoherently integrated into medical practice. As Harvey Chochinov and Joseph Fins argue, medicine is fundamentally about healing, restoration, and tailoring care to address specific conditions. In contrast, MAiD offers no pathway to healing; it ends life, removing the possibility of further care, closure, or recovery. Unlike standard medical practice, which relies on evidence-based guidelines and individualized decision-making to manage symptoms and diseases while minimizing harm, MAiD is legislatively mandated, lacks nuance and adaptability, and serves only to end the sufferer’s life.

This overemphasis on autonomy represents a troubling shift in medical ethics. Autonomous choice, when stripped of adequate support and resources, ceases to be a form of empowerment and instead becomes a hollow justification for abandonment and the exercise of privilege and power over consideration of the common good. By focusing on “choice” while failing to address the suffering that underpins it, MAiD shifts the medical profession’s role from healing to facilitating death.

The expansion of euthanasia affects the nature of medical treatment.

The expansion of MAiD – from individuals who are near the end of their lives to those with disabilities, mental illness (beginning in 2027), and likely soon for those lacking capacity – raises profound questions about how we define medical treatment. Unlike other procedures, performing euthanasia or assisted suicide does not mandate any specialized training, nor are there legislative safeguards ensuring that all of the less invasive or less risky treatments have been thoroughly tried first. This begs the question of whether we are shifting the focus of care from alleviating suffering to merely ending the lives of those who are suffering prematurely.

Engaging in this debate has revealed an interesting dynamic among experts. Mental health professionals often highlight the complexity of their field and the current impossibility of accurately determining whose suffering is truly irremediable. Many argue rightly that MAiD is not an appropriate response to mental illness and advocate for evidence-based care. Disability experts emphasize that their patients often face systemic barriers and unmet needs and that recovery takes time, suggesting that compassion lies in improving support, not offering death. Palliative care specialists stress that end-of-life suffering can be alleviated, provided the resources to provide skillful, holistic care are available, which allows patients and their loved ones to find closure and meaning in their final days. While physical pain can often be effectively managed with medication, the psychological aspects of suffering should be addressed through therapy. Furthermore, choosing death out of fear – whether to avoid future pain, suffering, or material hardships – should be met with compassion and improved support.

The overemphasis of autonomy displaces the core principles of medicine.

This shift from the balancing of ethical principles of medicine to an overemphasis on autonomy reveals a deeper issue: autonomy and choice can displace core principles of healing, patient safety, and alleviation of suffering. Fear, isolation, and a lack of sustained support can make MAiD seem like an appealing option – not because it is the best solution, but because better alternatives are either overlooked due to the limited knowledge or are unavailable and inaccessible.

The report indicates that Track 2 euthanasia deaths (euthanasia for people who are not dying) predominantly affects women and people living with poverty.

According to the Health Canada report, those receiving MAiD under Track 2 were predominantly women (58.5 per cent) and slightly younger than those receiving it via Track 1. Further, the report indicates that proportionally more women than men were living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods (both Tracks 1 and 2). The Health Canada report aims to reassure Canadians by stating that the higher rate of younger women receiving MAiD can simply be linked to, “overall population health trends where women experience longterm chronic illness, which can cause enduring suffering but would not typically make a person’s death reasonably foreseeable.” However, the report fails to mention international research that women are disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence, more likely to receive inadequate medical care, and twice as likely to attempt suicide as men. These women may feel trapped in their suffering, leading them to see euthanasia or assisted suicide as an escape when other supports or interventions are unavailable, effectively replacing suicide prevention efforts with assisted suicide.

Lastly, an unexplained 6.7 per cent of those who died under Track 2 had no fixed address, raising the possibility of housing insecurity, a concern that has recently been underscored in leaked discussions from MAiD practitioner forums. These documented issues highlight that euthanasia and assisted suicide risks preying on systemic neglect and the intersections of gender, poverty, and isolation – conditions that distort the notion of true choice.

The Health Canada euthanasia report seems to promote the position of the euthanasia lobby.

The Health Canada report reads at times like a defence of the MAiD regime, placing greater emphasis on reassuring the public than on sober and fulsome analysis. The report even concludes with what seems like an endorsement for Dying with Dignity’s (DWD) position in a BC court case, which aims to mandate MAiD in all health facilities. The report notes that “institutional objection to MAiD resulting in patient transfers is a fraught issue. Since the legalization of MAiD in 2016, several faith-based hospitals, long-term care facilities, and hospices in Canada have enacted policies to prohibit MAiD from taking place on their premises,” further noting that a relatively high proportion of transfers were made following institutional policies. However, their analysis fails to acknowledge that transfers from facilities with institutional policies are necessary to enable individuals with disabilities to choose care in MAiD-free safe spaces. Further, hospital transfers occur frequently and for a variety of reasons, including patients requiring specialized services. Framing this as a “fraught issue” seemingly reflects ideological bias.

The Health Canada report seems to support removing "safeguards" for euthanasia.

Several disability organizations, supported by the larger disability community, have launched a court challenge to try to limit MAiD. The organizations assert that Track 2 has resulted in premature deaths and an increase in discrimination and stigma towards people with disabilities across the country. While they are not challenging Track 1 in this case, they recognize that it too can pose significant problems for people with disabilities.

Health Canada suggests that even modest delays can interfere with a person’s ability to access MAiD, emphasizing how important it is to avoid hindrances for those seeking it. However, they equally fail to highlight that 41 cases were stopped because external pressures were identified that were driving patients’ requests. In this regard, the report misses a critical point: providers who take the time to deeply understand and address a patient’s suffering may be offering true medical care, even if the patient dies naturally. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, as universal solutions, is a simplistic, cost-effective approach that overlooks the many complexities and challenges that their broad legalization has created.

Coelho completes her commentary by calling for a truly compassionate response.

Compassion does not abandon people to their despair. It does not normalize death as a solution to poorly controlled pain, fear, poverty, loneliness, or inadequate care. It invests in palliative care, mental health services, social support, and community life to make life worth living.

If Canada continues down this path, we are de facto normalizing the idea that some lives are less valuable and less deserving of care and that certain types of people are better off dead. The promise of autonomy can be a front, masking systemic neglect while utilizing the language of choice. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not compassionate solutions if we have failed to meaningfully address the causes of suffering at its root. A compassionate society does not encourage its citizens to choose death simply because it has failed to help them live.

Previous articles by Ramona Coelho:

• Discrimination driven deaths. Analysing Ontario Coroner Reports on Euthanasia (Link). 
• Heart wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).