Monday, April 14, 2025

Conservatives pledge to not expand Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

At a Ottawa campaign event on April 12, Pierre Poilievre, stated that, if elected, a Conservative government would not expand eligibility for (MAiD) euthanasia, but pledged that Canadians would continue to have access to MAiD.

The Globe and Mail report on April 12 emphasized that Poilievre will not expand euthanasia, in March 2027, to include people with mental illness alone.

Krista Carr
An article by Stephanie Taylor that was published in the National Post on April 12, interviewed Krista Carr, the CEO of Inclusion Canada. Taylor wrote:

Krista Carr ... welcomes Poilievre’s commitment not to expand assisted dying any further, she hopes he means that Canadians who are terminally ill would continue to have access, not those whose deaths are not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.”

She wants all federal parties, including the Conservatives, which Carr noted fought against widening access when the bill was before Parliament, to change the law to return the eligibility criteria to require that someone be determined to be close to death to qualify for an assisted death.

The current law is “very discriminatory” towards the disabilities community, she said.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes all euthanasia deaths, but we recognize that stopping the expansion of euthanasia is necessary.

On April 1, 2025 I published an article titled: Elections have consequences. Vote for candidates that will oppose further expansions to euthanasia.

This is an important election for Canadians who oppose killing people.

Canada's euthanasia law has continually expanded. Canada's 2023 euthanasia report stated that there were 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths representing 4.7% of all deaths.

The Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario released a report from the Ontario MAiD Death review Committee indicating that there were at least 428 non-compliant Ontario euthanasia deaths from 2018 to 2023.

Canada's federal government has scheduled to allow euthanasia for mental illness (alone) beginning on March 17, 2027. A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) that was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 called for an expansion of euthanasia to include children "mature minors" and patients with mental illnesses and that patients with dementia be permitted to make advance requests for euthanasia.

On March 21, 2025 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee report urged Canada's federal government to:

  • Repeal Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including the 2027 commencement of Track 2 MAiD for persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness”;
  •  Not support proposals for the expansion of MAiD to include “mature minors” and through advance requests;
Before you vote remember that elections have consequences.

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide are about killing people.

Alex Schadenberg
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I received a message asking me:
Do you oppose a peaceful end to life?
The message assumed that I lack compassion by stating:
You'd rather see your loved one suffer in unimaginable pain and agony, by blocking their decision for a peaceful exit?
The message ended by expressing his pain:
I just hope that you never have to experience a loved one suffering as I have.
Yes, I oppose killing people, but I don't want people to suffer. 

The death lobby creates a false dichotomy. They want you to believe that there are two choices, to suffer to death or be killed.

The medicine has the ability to relieve pain and symptoms without killing people. We urge the medical system to make the relief of suffering a priority. (Article Link).

It is easier to attack me for being opposed to killing people than it is to challenge the medical system for not providing effective pain and symptom relief. Nonetheless:
  • Yes, the improvement of good end-of-life care is a necessity, but
  • Yes, euthanasia is discriminatory towards people with disabilities,
  • Yes, euthanasia is the abandonment of people in need, and more.
There is need for better end-of-life care but there are also people, who die by euthanasia, while on a waiting list to receive treatment. (Link). Improving medical care is significant.

Legalizing euthanasia has greater societal effects.

Legalizing euthanasia effects attitudes towards people with disabilities, elderly frail people and people living with chronic conditions. (Links to Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4)

As much as I oppose killing people, it is also not safe to give medical practitioner the right in law to kill their patients.

When a person asks a medical practitioner to end their life, that person may or may not be living with a terminal condition. But if the medical practitioner agrees to euthanasia, the doctor is actually saying that he/she agrees that your life is not worth living.

The doctor is also saying you are not worth treating, you are not worth providing excellent pain and symptom management for, you are not worth the time and effort to care for you.

They say it is about choice, but really it is about abandonment.

Why are people asking to be killed?

Most people who ask to be killed are living with a difficult physical and/or psychological condition. They often: 
  • feel alone and are lonely,
  • fear possible future pain and symptoms, 
  • fear being a burden on others,
  • feel that their life has lost meaning or value,
  • feel that they are better off dead.
Legalizing euthanasia has given medical practitioners the right in law to kill people rather than care for people, in their time of need. Euthanasia is not about freedom, choice or autonomy rather it is about abandoning people in their time of need.

There are a lot of valid reasons to oppose euthanasia that are not included in this article, but it primarily comes down to opposing the killing of people.

Friday, April 11, 2025

Britain and Scotland will vote on assisted suicide bills in May

The Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK sent an update urging supporters to contact elected representatives in (London UK) and in Scotland, to oppose the assisted suicide bills. The message stated:

Dear Friends:

We learned this week that the Leadbeater Bill’s Report Stage will now commence on Friday 16 May, a delay of several weeks, while the Scottish Daily Express reported today that ‘a vote on the private member's Bill from Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur is expected in the first two weeks of next month, and it must take place before May 23.’

In these next few weeks, we all have an opportunity to influence politicians as they weigh up the risks posed by these bills, and while it’s easy to be cynical, a great many are giving this serious and sincere thought. As SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said today:
‘I started looking at it and instinctively, I was in favour of it. I saw my mother die of cancer and all that she went through… But I’m not making decisions just for my mother, I’m not making it just for me, I’m making decisions for huge sectors of society and that’s why I hope that everybody will look into the matter really carefully and consider all these constituent groups too.’
Care NOT Killing urges their supporters to contact elected representatives. The letter continues:
It was reassuring to hear that Health Secretary Wes Streeting will once again vote against the Leadbeater Bill. Remember, he voted FOR a similar bill in 2015 — parliamentarians can and do change position in light of the evidence.

If the law did change, how would legalised assisted suicide sit alongside existing healthcare concerns? It was reported this week that:

‘Hospitals will receive an “incentive payment” for each patient they remove [from their waiting lists], and a payment cap of 5% of a trust’s waiting list is being scrapped, according to documents seen by the Guardian. It means there is no limit to the payments NHS trusts could receive for taking patients off their lists… The strategy is likely to raise concerns among patient charities that some people may be wrongly removed.’
The letter continues with Professor Kevin Yuill of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia commented:
‘Nothing bad could possibly come of [the Leadbeater Bill’s] provisions that doctors can bring the topic [of assisted suicide] up and that it will be outsourced to for-profit companies. Everything is fine!’
The letter then looks at what is happening in Canada:
Ultimately, what could healthcare look like a few years after legalisation, when the law has already been extended and people have become desensitised? Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of Ontario (Canada)’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC), pointed this week to this story:
‘Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, [who had] initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.’

‘If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.’

They conclude their letter with a statement from former Peterborough MP Lord Jackson has written this week:

‘Vulnerable people across the UK require MPs to survey the horizon, assess the risks and legislate for the weakest. The Bill process so far has proven us to be inept in this. We must do better. Kim Leadbeater must do better. Objectively, this Bill deserves to fail.’

More articles on the topic: 

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

Thursday, April 10, 2025

Delaware Assisted Suicide Bill to be voted on in the State Senate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Delaware Legislature.
On March 18, Delaware assisted suicide Bill HB 140 passed in the State House by a vote of 21 to 17. HB 140 is now being debated in the Delaware State Senate.

In 2024, an identical assisted suicide bill passed in the State Senate by one vote (11 to 10). Last September Delaware Governor John Carney vetoed the assisted suicide bill, protecting Delaware citizens from assisted suicide.

Governor Carney completed his term as Governor. The current Delaware Governor, Matt Meyer, has stated that he supports assisted suicide.

Based on last year's assisted suicide vote, newly elected State Senators: Dan Cruce (D-Wilmington) and Ray Seigfried (D-North Brandywine) may decide if the assisted suicide bill passes.

Everyone needs to contact members of the Delaware State Senate, with attention to Senators Cruce and Seigfried, to urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide bill HB 140. There are 21 members of the Delaware Senate. (Delaware State Senator Contact List).

The Delaware assisted suicide Bill HB 140 must be defeated in the Senate. 

Assisted suicide bill HB 140 was debated on Wednesday April 9 in the Senate Executive Committee. Sarah Petrowich reported for Delaware Public Media that:

40 members of the public took advantage of potentially their last time to speak on the bill during its final hearing, constituting nearly two hours worth of comments.

21 commenters spoke in opposition of the bill while 19 spoke in favor.

Petrowich further reported that:

Sen. Minority Whip Brian Pettyjohn (R-Georgetown) brought forward Dr. Neil Kaye of Hockessin, a physician and past president of the Psychiatric Society of Delaware, to speak on the bill.

Dr. Kaye noted the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA), American College of Physicians (ACP) and National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization all oppose medical aid in dying.

In his comments, Dr. Kaye also said the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine are also opposed to the legislation, although both organizations have adopted varied stances of neutrality.

Dr. James Ruether of Newark, speaking on behalf of the American College of Physicians, expressed sentiments similar to the various healthcare providers who came to speak in opposition of the bill: “The ACP believes that no physician should act, whether as the agent or as an assistant, to cause the death of any patient, and assisted suicide is no exception.”

If all of the Senators vote the same way as in 2024, then the newly elected State Senators: Dan Cruce (D-Wilmington) and Ray Seigfried (D-North Brandywine) will decide if the assisted suicide bill passes.

EPC-USA hand delivered our position on HB 140 to every Delaware State Senator.

Montana bill preventing assisted suicide was defeated.

Alex Schadenberg
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have bad news.

Montana Bill SB 136 was defeated in the Montana House on Wednesday April 9 by a vote of 58 to 42. SB 136 would have reversed Montana's permitting of assisted suicide and returned it to protecting it's citizens.

All of the 42 Democrats and 16 Republicans 
in the Montana House voted against SB 136. 42 Republicans supported the bill.

Montana was the third State to permit assisted suicide in America. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montanans have a right to assisted suicide.

The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that there is no right to assisted suicide in Montana but the Court found a "defense of consent" meaning a Montana physician who assists a suicide must prove that there was consent.

After several legislative attempts to undo the wrongly decided and dangerous Baxter decision, it may require another court case to reverse the Baxter decision.

On March 24, the Montana House Judiciary Committee passed SB 136 by a vote of 11 to 9. SB 136 will go to a full vote in the Montana House.

On February 7, The Montana Senate voted 29 to 20, to pass Senate Bill 136 a bill that legislatively declares that there is no defense of consent in Montana.

Article: Montana bill that prohibits assisted suicide passes in the Senate (Link).

UK assisted suicide bill relied on Australian pro-euthanasia witnesses.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Anscombe Bioethics Centre (UK) published a research document concerning the emphasis on pro-euthanasia witnesses from Australia who testified in favour of assisted suicide in England and Scotland.

The document titled: Wrong Side of the World: The Misplaced Reliance on Australia in the UK Debate on 'Assisted Dying' focuses on how UK governments relied on Australian witnesses in the assisted dying debate.

David A Jones
Anscombe challenged the reliance on Australian witnesses by stating:
  • The fact that the witnesses were all supporters of and most also involved in delivery of ‘voluntary assisted dying’ (VAD) gave the Committees a very one-sided view of the limited evidence;
  • There is in fact very little evidence of the impact of these laws in Australia since Victoria has only five years of data and most other Australian jurisdictions have only one or two years;
  • Other Australian jurisdictions have diverged from the law in Victoria, so data from Victoria is not a reliable guide to what is happening in those other jurisdictions; 
  • VAD in Australia is very different from what is proposed in the Bills in Scotland and in England and Wales – practice in most Australian states is predominantly euthanasia;
  • Many of the safeguards enacted in the VAD law in Victoria have been abandoned by other States – increased access has been given priority over safety;
  • While Australian witnesses stressed that, in Victoria, ‘there have been no changes to the Act at all’, and claimed that the Government in Victoria ‘will not be reopening the law’, the Minister of Health in Victoria has now announced plans to ‘rewrite’ the law.

Anscombe explains who that the Australian witnesses universally supported legalizing assisted suicide. No Australian witnesses who oppose assisted suicide were invited to the UK.

Ancombe pointed out that:

Remarkably, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee did not hear oral evidence from the United States. Similarly, the Public Bill Committee did not hear oral evidence from Canada, and neither Committee heard from witnesses from the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland.
They then point out that: Alex Greenwich MP gave evidence on the implementation of VAD legislation in New South Wales, he was speaking on the basis of less than one full year of data.

Anscombe points out that Canada was more relevant than Australia. They state:
However, the law in Canada has since been amended to take it closer to the law in Belgium, and further changes are scheduled. It already overtly includes death for people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, and it is scheduled in March 2027 to expand this further, from chronic physical conditions to mental health conditions. Quebec has already overtaken Belgium in legislating for advance decisions to end the lives of people with dementia who are not able to provide contemporaneous consent. The rest of Canada is on the same path.
From the Canadian point of view, I noticed how UK governments were originally interested in Canada's experience with euthanasia. When stories related to the negative effect of Canada's euthanasia law were published invitations to speak in the UK dried up for me and for other Canadians.

When the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was introduced it became clear that UK governments were intentionally ignoring the reality of Canada's euthanasia law

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

British assisted suicide bill has been delayed

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have good news. The UK assisted suicide bill that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP) will be delayed. The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was originally scheduled for its report stage on April 25, 2025, but it has now been delayed until May 16, 2025.

Altha Adu reported for The Guardian on April 8, 2025 that:

The bill, which has undergone a significant number of changes since the initial vote in November, will now return to the Commons on 16 May, instead of 25 April, for its report stage and votes if time allows.

In a letter to parliamentary colleagues, the day before Easter recess begins, Kim Leadbeater said she was “absolutely confident” that postponing the vote would not delay the bill’s passage towards royal assent.

Labour MPs opposed to the legislation had raised concerns with the timing of the vote, fearing their colleagues would not have enough time to consider the bill’s changes during their final week of local election campaigning.

The delay is significant since, if passed in the Commons, the bill will still need to be debated and passed in the House of Lords. 

There were significant changes to the assisted suicide bill, in committee, including the removal of the judicial approval for a death being replaced with a panel of experts (death panel) and the delay in implementation of the bill until January 2029.

There have been many complaints concerning amendments to the bill that would have prevented assisted suicide for vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, people with mental illness and people with Anorexia, being rejected.

The delay also provides more time to defeat the bill.

The 2024 Netherlands euthanasia data, that was recently released, proving that once euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are legalized that the number and types of approvals for death will continually increase.

Lessons from the Netherlands 2024 euthanasia report.

"once legal euthanasia and assisted suicide will expand in both numbers and reasons for approving and providing death."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 26, 2025 I published an article concerning the 2024 Dutch euthanasia report. My article was based on an article by Bruno Waterfield who reported for The Times on March 24 that there were 9958 reported euthanasia deaths in 2024 in the Netherlands which was up by 10% from 9068 in 2023. According to the report, Netherlands euthanasia deaths have increased by 88% since 2014.

Waterfield also reported that there were 219 psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2024 which was up from 138 in 2023 and 115 in 2022. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has increased by 59% since 2023 and nearly 250% since 2020.

The growth of euthanasia and the acceptance of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands is concerning. 
The Netherlands experience indicates that euthanasia must never be extended to psychiatric reasons. 

Canada is scheduled to expand euthanasia to psychiatric reasons alone on March 17, 2027. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD Committee) recently condemned Canada's intention to expand euthanasia to psychiatric reasons alone

Canada needs to heed the United Nations Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities warning and acknowledge the experience with euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

But there is more.

Professor Theo Boer
On April 8, 2025 I published an article by Theo Boer who is a professor of health ethics at the University of Groningen and a former member of a Netherlands government euthanasia oversight committee. 

Boer wrote a profound article that was published by Le Monde on April 8, 2025 urging France to learn from the Dutch and not legalize euthanasia. (The text was google translated).

In his article Boer explains the euthanasia trends in the Netherlands. Concerning the growth of euthanasia Boer points out that the trend will likely continue. He wrote:
...the (Netherlands government euthanasia oversight) committee's chairman, Jeroen Recourt, predicts that the curve will continue to rise in the years to come. This is no longer a fluctuation: it is a structural trend.
Boer explains that even though the number of total deaths in the Netherlands is increasing that the percentage of euthanasia deaths is also increasing:
from 5.4% of deaths in 2023 to 5.8% in 2024. In 2017, in some regions, this percentage had already reached 15%, and it is expected to have increased since then. Euthanasia is no longer exceptional: in many cases, it is becoming just another end-of-life option.
Concerning the phenomenon of couple euthanasia Boer writes:
The emergence of "euthanasia for two," which allows couples or siblings to die together, is one such trend. In one year, the number of these planned deaths in tandem has jumped by 64%, reaching 108 deaths in 2024.
Boer also comments on the growth of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons:
Above all, euthanasia for psychiatric disorders has increased by 59%, affecting people who are sometimes very young. Patients who are physically healthy, but plunged into mental suffering that medicine struggles to alleviate, are now asking to die – and are succeeding. The number of cases related to dementia is also increasing rapidly.
Boer completes his concerns by stating:
With increasing "normality," healthcare workers are asking themselves: "How far will we go? At what point will this stop being an act of compassion and become an automatic response to patients who refuse to accept a refusal?"
Boer states that the government has launched an investigation into the reasons for this increase and comments on the fact that the government is investigating the reasons for the increase in euthanasia deaths while they are also considering future expansions of the law to include:
assisted suicide to anyone over the age of 74, even in the absence of serious illness. The sole criterion would be age.
Based on the Netherlands euthanasia data and the warnings from Professor Boer, it is wrong to suggest that the euthanasia "slippery slope" is a fallacy. 

Boer also points out that it is wrong to suggest that the same won't happen in other countries. As Boer states:
all countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized, we observe a continuous growth in the number of cases. This is not a Dutch exception. This is a dynamic at work everywhere medically induced death becomes an option.
Canada needs to  heed the Netherlands warning. In Canada euthanasia has grown and expanded significantly. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons alone remains prohibited until March 17, 2027. When examining the Netherlands euthanasia data it is clear that no country should follow their path.

Countries that are currently debating the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide must change their direction. Caring is always good and necessary killing is dangerous.

Based on the Netherlands, Belgium, Canadian, Oregon and California data, it is clear that once legal euthanasia and assisted suicide will expand in both numbers and reasons for approving and providing death.

Let's be clear. There is another way. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is not necessary for providing care and comfort in difficult cases. Further to that, no one is required to accept medical treatment to prolong their life, especially when the treatment has questionable benefits or has onerous outcomes.

Killing is not compassionate, but rather it is abandonment. Killing is not a solution. O
nce killing is approved that the acceptance and promotion of killing expands.

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

Maclean's Magazine: Canada's New Home for Death Porn?

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on April 8, 2025

Kelsi Sheren
By Kelsi Sheren

Yes, Yes they are.

Maclean's recent article advocating for the inclusion of individuals with mental disorders in Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program isn't just controversial—it's dangerously unethical, manipulative, fundamentally dark and sinister.

Maclean’s is very quickly gaining a reputation for promoting death porn and suggesting that those suffering mental illnesses should have access to assisted dying. They are once again choosing to send a chilling message to it’s readers, which at this point I doubt are many. They implicitly suggests that lives affected by mental health conditions are less valuable, less deserving of intensive care, treatment, or societal compassion.

In the most recent article promoting and manipulating it’s readers is their attempt to frame suicide as a legitimate option for those struggling with mental health, when all this really shows is Maclean's constant attempt at devaluing the lives of the mentally ill, effectively promoting hopelessness rather than hope.

Imagine the devastating effect on a vulnerable individual reading that their life is considered disposable or irrecoverable by society. This undermines decades of work aimed at destigmatizing mental illness and reinforces dangerous stereotypes about mental health struggles being inherently hopeless. While reading there most recent article I couldn’t help but notice the add for “war amps” on their site, which makes me laugh a bit because people who aren’t perfect are exactly what this magazine is attempting to suggest are disposable.

This magazine continues to frame the argument that people with mental illness are “irremediable”. In the Maclean’s article the concept of "irremediable" mental illness is a wild one. This position is scientifically and ethically unsound. Mental illness, unlike terminal physical illness, is complex, dynamic, and subject to significant change and improvement over time.

Mental illnesses such as depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia can indeed be severe and debilitating. But the nature of these illnesses is often fluctuating, with many sufferers experiencing meaningful recovery after proper care, therapy, medication, lifestyle changes, and even innovative treatments like psychedelics.

To label someone’s mental condition as "irremediable" is both wildly misleading and irresponsible, but this magazine seems to have no soul and seems quite alright with removing the very hope necessary for recovery and invalidates the lived experiences of countless individual’s who have successfully recovered from severe mental health episodes.

As someone who has personally overcome suicidal thoughts and severe mental health struggles, I can affirm that recovery and healing are possible. At my lowest point, it felt impossible to see a way forward, but with appropriate support, therapy, community, plant medicine and determination, I found a path out of that darkness. But according to this article Maclean’s wrote, I would have been considered “irremediable” and If I had seen this story over the 10 years of struggling with my mental health, then I'm sure I would have lost hope too. They are contributing to the idea that there is nothing left to live for so why the fuck should we even try mentality.

The thing is my story isn't unique; countless others have walked similar journeys, reclaiming their lives and thriving beyond their struggles.

To advocate for MAID as an option for mental health conditions fundamentally denies stories like mine and many others, wrongly presenting death as an inevitable or acceptable outcome rather than encouraging genuine healing and recovery.

Expanding MAID to mental illness sets a dangerous and dark cliff people will easily jump off of once we remove the responsibility of being the person to take our own life. A lot of the reason people stop before they attempt suicide is the FEAR or pain and what death will feel like. MAID and the “Dr’s” that do this dangle the carrot like a prize, removing the burden from the person and offering an easy way out.

Initially positioned as compassion, this policy change quickly risks becoming a tool of coercion, especially for marginalized and economically vulnerable groups, something we are continuously seeing in Canada and will continue to see as our healthcare system and country crumble to the ground.

Individuals suffering from severe mental health issues also face compounded struggles—economic hardship, isolation, lack of family support, or chronic homelessness. Offering MAID to these individuals coerces vulnerable people into viewing suicide as a reasonable escape from systemic failures and insufficient social support.

This has never once been about compassionate care. It’s darker than that more sinister and the reality is, is that it’s an abandonment of society’s moral responsibility to provide robust and holistic support systems. MAID has becomes not a tool of autonomy but a grim solution offered by a liberal government who is unwilling to invest adequately in mental health care but will send hundreds of millions of dollars overseas, to support ANYONE BUT it’s citizen’s.

The role of psychiatrists and mental health practitioners is to preserve life, treat illness, and support recovery. Maclean’s advocacy fundamentally conflicts with these professional ethics. Asking mental health professionals to facilitate MAID turn’s healer’s into facilitators of death and we are essentially making all healthcare practitioners EXECUTIONERS. Trained killers, guns for hire and instead of using a gun which would be more humane in my opinion. We are giving them government funded-non FDA approved drugs to inject into the veins of the vulnerable victims of people that have been convinced that death is the only option by people DWD and Macleans.

This ethical dilemma isn't abstract. It poses real-world risks of eroding trust in mental health services. People are hesitating to seek help, fearing their mental health struggles might qualify them for assisted dying rather than compassionate treatment, and we are seeing this time and time again. This scenario undermines the very fabric of mental health care, turning hospitals and therapists’ offices from sanctuaries of healing into environments potentially perceived as threats.

Beneath the surface, this debate is marred by an alarming economic incentive. Promoting MAID as an acceptable choice for mental illness is conveniently become a cost-saving measure for overwhelmed healthcare systems and governmental budgets by the liberal government.

Providing comprehensive mental health support, including therapy, long-term care, psychiatric assistance, and social programs, requires substantial investment, an investment the Canadian government is unwilling to make. Although they seem to have no issue making that investment on illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes, lining the CBC’s pockets, and helping any country besides it own. MAID, by contrast, is inexpensive and expedient. Allowing individuals struggling with mental illness to access MAID has become a financially attractive alternative to addressing underlying systemic and societal shortcomings.

This hidden economic agenda is morally reprehensible, sacrificing human dignity and life at the altar of fiscal expediency, but at this point no one is surprised.

The language used in Maclean’s and similar articles often subtly manipulates public opinion, masking a morally and ethically complex issue behind words like "compassion," "dignity," and "choice." But true compassion would emphasize support, care, and recovery—not present suicide as a rational option.

Macleans is no longer rational journalism and frankly hasn’t been for some time. It’s now bought and paid for suicide porn for the sick, unwell and sad.

Dutch ethicist urges France to learn from the Dutch experience and reject euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

While a law on "assisted dying" will be debated in the French National Assembly starting May 12, a Dutch academic expresses his doubts about the continued expansion of the scope of its application in the Netherlands.

Professor Theo Boer
Theo Boer is a professor of health ethics at the University of Groningen, and a former member of a Netherlands government euthanasia oversight committee. Boer wrote a profound article that was published by Le Monde on April 8, 2025 urging France to learn from the Dutch by not legalizing euthanasia. (The text was google translated).

Boer begins by outlining the current situation in the Netherlands:

For more than twenty years, the Netherlands has been experimenting with euthanasia within a framework presented as strict, regulated, and ethical. However, the figures published in the latest report of the review committee, dated March 24, tell a different story of constant expansion, gradual trivialization, and a silent cultural shift. In 2024, the number of euthanasia cases increased by another 10%. One might have thought that the phenomenon would reach a plateau, especially after modest growth of 4% in 2023. This is not the case. The trend is picking up again, and the committee's chairman, Jeroen Recourt, predicts that the curve will continue to rise in the years to come. This is no longer a fluctuation: it is a structural trend.
Boer outlines the trends in the law:
It might be argued that this increase follows the aging of the population. But even as a proportion of overall deaths, the phenomenon continues to grow: from 5.4% of deaths in 2023 to 5.8% in 2024. In 2017, in some regions, this percentage had already reached 15%, and it is expected to have increased since then. Euthanasia is no longer exceptional: in many cases, it is becoming just another end-of-life option. But beyond the raw statistics, other developments are causing deep concern. The emergence of "euthanasia for two," which allows couples or siblings to die together, is one such trend. In one year, the number of these planned deaths in tandem has jumped by 64%, reaching 108 deaths in 2024. Above all, euthanasia for psychiatric disorders has increased by 59%, affecting people who are sometimes very young. Patients who are physically healthy, but plunged into mental suffering that medicine struggles to alleviate, are now asking to die – and are succeeding. The number of cases related to dementia is also increasing rapidly. Here, a request for euthanasia is often based on fears of dependency, a loss of dignity, or on a living will signed well before the first symptoms. We are entering a field where the patient's current wishes are sometimes unclear, and the medical procedure is based on interpretations. In my conversations with many Dutch doctors, one constant theme emerges: the pressure is increasing. It's no longer just an individual demand, but a social expectation. With increasing "normality," healthcare workers are asking themselves: "How far will we go? At what point will this stop being an act of compassion and become an automatic response to patients who refuse to accept a refusal?" For good reason, the government has now launched an investigation into the reasons for this increase.
Boer explains that the government continues to debate further expansions of euthanasia.

And yet, in the face of these doubts, the legislative movement continues. The Dutch Parliament will soon consider a bill to grant assisted suicide to anyone over the age of 74, even in the absence of serious illness. The sole criterion would be age. A major symbolic shift: we no longer die because we suffer, but because we feel we have lived enough. It's a radically new vision of old age and the value we place on our society.

As a former member of a euthanasia review committee, I believed, at the time, that a rigorous framework could prevent abuses: I'm no longer so sure. What I see is that each opening of the euthanasia field creates new expectations, new demands and a new normal. The internal logic of the system always pushes for expansion. Suffering deemed "unbearable" today is sometimes less so than that of yesterday, but the outcome remains the same.
Boer ends the article by urging France to reject euthanasia:
In France, some insist that "France is not Holland," and that these developments will not occur there. This is a risky bet because, in all countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized, we observe a continuous growth in the number of cases. This is not a Dutch exception. This is a dynamic at work everywhere medically induced death becomes an option. I am not a fierce opponent of euthanasia. In certain extreme cases, it can be a last resort. But I am convinced that its legalization does not calm society: it worries it, transforms it, and weakens it. It changes our relationship to vulnerability, to old age, to dependency. It introduces the idea that certain lives, under certain conditions, are no longer worth living—or even worth caring for. I address the French here, not to lecture, but to share my country's experience. Look at what's happening in our country. Listen to the voices, however quiet, of those who doubt. Before opening that door, ask yourself a simple but fundamental question: are we ready for killing to become a medical option among others, even in the presence of cutting-edge palliative care, and even in the absence of illness? Are we ready to burden caregivers with the burden of such a choice? Learn from our experience. There is still time.

Previous articles by Professor Theo Boer:

  • British must learn from the Netherlands experience with assisted dying (Link). 
  • British proposed assisted death criteria are similar to how Canada's law began (Link). 
  • Euthanasia: Impossible to police once legal (Link). 
  • Let's not romanticize the Dutch euthanasia experiment (Link). 
  • Be careful what you wish for when you legalize active killing (Link).

Nevada Governor says he will veto assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Governor Joe Lombardo
I have great news.

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo said that he will veto assisted suicide Bill AB346 and he told the legislature to disregard the assisted suicide bill. Lombardo stated on April 4, 2025 that:
Expansions in palliative care services and continued improvements in advanced pain management make the end-of-life provisions in AB346 unnecessary, and I would encourage you the 2025 Legislature to disregard AB346 because I will not sign it.
Based on Lombardo's comment, The Nevada Globe wrote on April 4 that:
However, the ethical and practical ramifications of legalizing physician-assisted suicide cannot be overlooked. Critics contend that such legislation may lead to hasty decisions, undermine the sanctity of life, and pose risks to vulnerable populations, including the elderly and disabled. Furthermore, there is apprehension about the potential erosion of trust in the medical profession, whose primary mandate is to heal and preserve life.

As this debate unfolds, Nevadans are encouraged to reflect on the profound moral, ethical, and societal implications of AB 346. Should the state endorse a practice that fundamentally alters the physician’s role and the value placed on human life? Or should the focus remain on enhancing palliative care and supporting patients through their natural end-of-life journey? The answers to these questions will shape the future of healthcare and the ethical landscape of Nevada.
In June 2023, Governor Lomardo also vetoed assisted suicide Bill SB 239 that had passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 - 10 and in the Nevada House by a vote of 23 - 19. 

On June 5, 2023; Jessica Hill and Taylor R. Avery reported for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that Governor Lombardo stated, when he vetoed assisted suicide bill SB 239 that:
“End of life decisions are never easy,” Lombardo wrote in his veto message. “Individuals and family members must often come together to face many challenges — including deciding what is the best course of treatment for a loved one.”

Lombardo said the provisions in the bill “unnecessary” due to expansions and improvements in palliative care services, or care for people living with serious illnesses, and pain management.
*Please thank Governor Lombardo for rejecting assisted suicide Bill AB346 through (this link) or call him at: (775) 684-5670 or post a message through X (Twitter) at: @JosephMLombardo

Monday, April 7, 2025

Canada euthanasia reports: Rushing to Death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario Death Review Committee (MDRC) published two new reviews of Ontario MAiD (euthanasia) data between 2018 - 2023. The two MDRC reports focus on (Waivers of Final Consent), (Navigating Complex Issues Within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions).

The first three MDRC reports (Report 3) (Report 2) (Report 1) were released in October 2024. I have included three articles about these reports.

  • Article 1: Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link).
  • Article 2: Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion (Link).
  • Article 3: Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Link).

Dr Ramona Coelho
Dr Ramona Coelho, who is a member of the MDRC Committee wrote an article concerning two reports that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on April 7, 2025. Coehlo writes:
Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, encompassing both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Initially limited to those nearing their natural death, eligibility expanded in 2021 to individuals with physical disabilities, with eligibility for individuals with mental illness in 2027. Parliamentary recommendations include MAiD for children. A recent federal consultation explored extending MAiD to those who lack capacity via advance directives, an approach Quebec has already adopted, despite its criminal status under federal law.

Despite its compassionate framing, investigative journalists and government reports reveal troubling patterns where inadequate exploration of reversible suffering – such as lack of access to medical treatments, poverty, loneliness, and feelings of being a burden – have driven Canadians to choose death. As described by our former Disability Inclusion Minister, Canada’s system at times makes it easier to access MAiD than to receive basic care like a wheelchair. With over 60,000 MAiD cases by the end of 2023, the evidence raises grave concerns about Canada’s MAiD regime.

Coelho writes about the scope of the MDRC reports:

I am a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC). Last year, the Chief Coroner released MDRC reports, and a new set of reports has just been published. The first report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner, Waivers of Final Consent, examines how individuals in Track 1 (reasonably foreseeable natural death) can sign waivers to have their lives ended even if they lose the capacity to consent by the scheduled date of MAiD. The second, Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions, includes cases where MAiD was provided on the same day or the day after it was requested. These reports raise questions about whether proper assessments, thorough exploration of suffering, and informed consent were consistently practised by MAiD clinicians. While MDRC members hold diverse views, here is my take.

Coelho discusses: Rushing to death, Ignoring Reversible Causes of Suffering:

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mrs. B, in her 80s, after complications from surgery, opted for palliative care, leading to discharge home. She later requested a MAiD assessment, but her assessor noted she preferred palliative care based on personal and religious values. The next day, her spouse, struggling with caregiver burnout, took her to the emergency department, but she was discharged home. When a request for hospice palliative care was denied, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service for an urgent assessment. A new assessor deemed her eligible for MAiD, despite concerns from the first practitioner, who questioned the new assessor on the urgency, the sudden shift in patient perspective, and the influence of caregiver burnout. The initial assessor requested an opportunity for re-evaluation, but this was denied, with the second assessor deeming it urgent. That evening, a third MAiD practitioner was brought in, and Mrs. B underwent MAiD that night.

The focus should have been on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs. B and her spouse. Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation. Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor’s and Mrs. B’s concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse’s burnout.

The lack of adequate palliative care and the pressure from the spouse led to Mrs B's euthanasia death. Even though the first assessor indicated that Mrs B wanted palliative care, which reflected her personal values, she not only died by euthanasia, but her death was expedited.

Coelho assesses other factors.

The report also has worrying trends suggesting that local medical cultures—rather than patient choice—could be influencing rushed MAiD. Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable. This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards.

Coelho points out how same-day or next-day deaths are more prominent in Western Ontario, she also suggests that the speed of death is being prioritized over the care of the patient.

Coelho then examines the issue of consent. Euthanasia was sold to Canadians as being for: Competent adults who freely choose and consent to the act. The Waivers of Final Consent report creates concern as to whether people. 

Coehlo focuses on two stories to outline her concerns about MAiD without Free and Informed Choice

Consent has been central to Canadians’ acceptance of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, some cases in these reports point to concerns already raised by clinicians: the lack of thorough capacity assessments and concerns that individuals may not have freely chosen MAiD.

In the waiver of final consent report, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, had been approved for MAiD with such a waiver. However, by the scheduled provision date, his spouse reported increased confusion. Upon arrival, the MAiD provider noted that Mr. B no longer recognized them and so chose not to engage him in discussion at all. Without any verbal interaction to determine his current wishes or understanding, Mr. B’s life was ended.

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.

Coehlo outlines how these cases do not ensure free choice nor informed consent.

These individuals were not given genuine opportunities to confirm whether they wished to die. Instead, their past wishes or inquiries were prioritized, raising concerns about ensuring free and informed consent for MAiD.  As early as 2020, the Chief Coroner of Ontario identified cases where patients received MAiD without well-documented capacity assessments, even though their medical records suggested they lacked capacity. Further, when Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Medicine, testified before Parliament about MAiD frequently occurring without capacity, an MP dismissed her, advising Parliament to be cautious about considering seriously evidence under parliamentary immunities that amounted to malpractice allegations, which should be handled by the appropriate regulatory bodies or police.  These dismissive comments stand in stark contrast with the gravity of assessing financial capacity, and yet the magnitude is greater when ending life. By way of comparison, for my father, an Ontario-approved capacity expert conducted a rigorous evaluation before declaring him incapable of managing his finances. This included a lengthy interview, collateral history, and review of financial documents—yet no such rigorous capacity assessment is mandated for MAiD.

Coehlo concludes her article by asking - What is Compassion?

While the federal government has finished its consultation on advance directives for MAiD, experts warn against overlooking the complexities of choosing death based on hypothetical suffering and no lived experience to inform those choices. A substitute decision-maker has to interpret prior wishes, leading to guesswork and ethical dilemmas. These cases highlight how vulnerable individuals, having lost the capacity to consent, may be coerced or unduly influenced to die—whether through financial abuse, caregiver burnout, or other pressures—reminding us that the stakes are high – life and death, no less.

The fundamental expectation of health care should be to rush to care for the patient, providing support through a system that embraces them—not rush them toward death without efforts to mitigate suffering or ensure free and informed consent. If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.

Some previous articles by Dr Ramona Coehlo:
  • Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures (Link)
  • Discrimination driven deaths (Link).
  • Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
  • Canadians with Disabilities are Needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).