Canadian man tried to have his incompetent wife killed by euthanasia, against her consent.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Roxanne Egan-Elliott reported that Justice Bradford Smith removed a Canadian man’s power to make health-care decisions for his 77-year-old wife with advanced Alzheimer’s after the court learning that the man intended to end her life and then take his own.

The article that was published by the Times Colonist on December 23, 2025 reports that a woman known as E.W. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2017 and her husband has pushed to have her killed by euthanasia, without her consent. The article states:

E.W. was assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying in 2020, but by September 2021, a doctor determined in a second assessment that she was ineligible because her condition had progressed to a point that she no longer had sufficient insight into dementia to consent to MAID.

E.W. also told the doctor at that point that she was not interested in receiving MAID in circumstances related to worsening memory or confusion, the court decision says.

Her husband, T.W., is a “strong advocate” for MAID and has told various people that if he and E.W. are eligible for MAID, they intend to receive it.

He has also told family, friends and Island Health staff that if his wife becomes ineligible, he intends to end her life and take his own, the decision says.

Clearly, her husband was considering murdering his wife and then dying by suicide.

The court heard that E.W. never agreed to her husbands "death plan." Egan-Elliott reported:

“On the contrary, E.W. was understandably upset by it,” and told their daughter that T.W. “was trying to kill her,” the decision says.

Island Health increased the frequency of its wellness checks and clinical assessments of E.W. after receiving a report from the doctor who assessed E.W. for MAID that she had said she was not ready to die, and that if her husband learned she was ineligible for MAID, he planned to carry out the death plan, which he referred to as “dignicide.”

The article reports that in January 2022 that Island Health obtained emergency powers to remove E.W. from the couple's home and to place her in a long-term care facility for protection.

Egan-Elliott reported that the husband continued to inappropriately treat his wife. He would call the care facility every day, against her wishes, at 6:30 am to wake her up, she was often dressed in tattered clothing and shoes, that TW provided, including worn-out men's work boots, that he insisted that she wear, and more.

Justice Bradford Smith decision stated:

“Having regard to what is in E.W.’s best interest and her lack of cognitive capacity, I find that the only currently tenable solution that will protect E.W. from risk of death or grievous harm is to remove T.W.’s authority as her personal representative,”

Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia’s Peter A. Allard School of Law, told Lisa Steacy for CTV news on December 22 that:

“The death plan is contrary to our murder laws. And I think it’s really important not to have us talk about the murder of elderly people as some slightly improper form of MAID. That’s not what it is. It’s murder. Just because she has a disability does not transform this into something else. This case demonstrates how our MAID regime has normalized death as a response to disability for the elderly."

Steacy also reported Grant as stating:

Grant also said she finds it troubling the decision does not indicate that any moves were made by any authorities to limit or prevent T.W.’s contact with his wife in light of his seemingly unabashed professions of his intent to kill her, or that there was any discussion about how or whether his actions would warrant a criminal investigation or charge.

The relationship between T.W. and E.W. is also one with all the hallmarks of coercive control—a form of intimate partner violence that Canada is taking steps toward criminalizing, Grant pointed out.

In that context, Grant said the repeated references to T.W. advocating for MAID for his wife, his apparent attempts to find a way consent to it on her behalf, and his plan to kill her if MAID was not available are particularly troubling.

Grant's concerns are correct. E.W.'s life was directly threatened by her husband. E.W. has Alzheimer's and needs support, but her husband is not only controlling her but doing so in an abusive manner.

E.W. not only needed her husband removed as her medical decision maker but he should be barred from seeing her as a protection for her. The husband is abusive and is willing to kill her.

This article might be seen as proving that the law protected E.W. from her husband but considering that Québec has approved euthanasia by advanced request and the federal government is considering expanding euthanasia to advanced request, the situation may have been different if advanced requests were permitted.

I have published several articles about domestic murder/suicide over the years (Articles Link).

Watch the online screening of the Life Worth Living film on February 2

Join EPC and watch the powerful Life Worth Living film on Monday February 2 at 2 pm (Eastern Time).

This is our second online screening of the Life Worth Living film. Our first screening, on January 26, was incredibly successful and many people have asked us to have a second screening. Please promote this screening with your contacts.

Register in advance for this online event: (Zoom registration link).

Life Worth Living has been named a finalist at the Cannes World Film Festival and it is being considered by multiple film festivals.

Life Worth Living is 60 minutes long. After the completion of the broadcast we will have time for a discussion.

Life Worth Living features:

• Alicia Duncan, whose mother died by euthanasia with conditions based on mental health, 
• Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian military veteran. CEO, best selling Author of the book - Brass & Unity, TedX speaker and host of the Kelsi Sheren perspective.
  
• Roger Foley, a Canadian man living with a significant disability who has been pressured by hospital staff to request euthanasia.
• Dr David D'Souza, an Ontario pain specialist.
• Dr Catherine Ferrier, a Quebec Gerontologist and a leader of Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia, 
• Dr Will Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and leader of Euthanasia Resistance BC
• Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care,
• Alex Schadenberg, (myself), author, keynote speaker, International leader opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Register in advance for this event: (Zoom registration link).

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help.

1. Purchase the Life Worth Living Film (Life Worth Living film Link)
2. Arrange to have Life Worth Living shown in your community. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca
3. You may want a speaker at the event to lead a discussion. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca

A review of Life Worth Living film from Lester:

I just watched Life Worth Living and I have to say I'm so incredibly impressed. I can't contain my enthusiasm for this film. It's one of the best film projects on the subject of medical killing ever. I'd expect awards to be forthcoming for best documentary film.

Kiano (26) - Determined to be Killed.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the EPC Petition Demanding a review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practice (Petition Link).

Rupa Subramanya wrote an insightful article about the death of Kiano Vafaeian that was published by The Free Press on January 26, 2026. 

Kiano was the 26 year-old Ontario man was killed by euthanasia by Dr Ellen Wiebe on December 30, 2025. Subramanya also wrote about Kiano in 2022 when he was first approved to be killed at the MAiDHouse euthanasia clinic in Toronto, but the killing was called off when his mother launched a campaign to save the life of her son, who was then 23.

Subramanya stayed in contact with Kiano making his death both tragic and personal. Subramanya wrote:

Marsilla had just learned that her 26-year-old son, Kiano Vafaeian, was approved for “medical assistance in dying” (MAID), Canada’s government-run assisted-suicide regime. He was blind, struggling with complications from type 1 diabetes, and living in public housing in Toronto. He also suffered from depression.

Vafaeian was not terminally ill—and did not need to be to end his own life. In Canada, MAID patients must show only that they have a condition that is “intolerable” and cannot “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.” These people often feel beset by enduring illness, unresolved social hardship, and other afflictions, all of which blur the line between medical suffering and the hardships of daily life itself.

Just to be clear, Kiano was partially blind and was being financially helped by his mother. Subramanya continues:

I met Vafaeian three years ago, after his mother accidentally found an email that laid out the scheduled date, time, and location of his assisted suicide—just two weeks before it was set to take place at a Toronto facility called MAiDHouse. Shocked, she called the doctor and pretended to be a woman seeking MAID. She recorded the conversation and sent me the tape. The doctor postponed Vafaeian’s scheduled killing, then said he wasn’t going through with it, without explanation.

Vafaeian was furious at his mother, telling me that she had violated his right as an adult to choose death. We stayed in touch for about two years, and he often talked about getting back at her. He also talked about coming to visit me in Ottawa, and I promised to track him down in Toronto someday. He was bright, curious, and funny, with a beautiful smile that immediately put you at ease. He also never gave up on wanting to die.

Subramanya explains how Canada legalized killing by euthanasia and she explains the incredible growth of euthanasia in Canada. She then interviews Dr. Sonu Gaind, a University of Toronto psychiatry professor. Subramanya writes:

When I told Gaind about Vafaeian and what he had been through, Gaind responded: “I’m not denying his suffering, but it doesn’t paint a picture of someone who is constantly suffering. That contradiction should trouble people.”

He said that Canada’s assisted-suicide system “has been set up so that if the person says their suffering is intolerable, assessors will say, ‘Who am I to question that?’ ”

Kiano recently re-applied for euthanasia, but this time his application was through Dr Ellen Wiebe in Vancouver British Columbia. British Columbia has the second highest provincial euthanasia rate at 6.7% of all deaths.

Subramanya continues by interviewing Kiano's mother:

Marsilla, his mother, told me that she thought her son was doing well. Their strained relationship seemed to be on the mend, and she set him up in September with a fully furnished condominium near her office in Toronto, including a live-in caregiver. Marsilla also drafted a written agreement promising him $4,000 a month in financial support. They went out for dinner to celebrate the plan. He signed the agreement, she said, and talked about moving in before winter.

Vafaeian texted her afterward to say that he was “looking forward to a new chapter.” He asked for help paying down his debts, and told his mother that he was saving her money so they could travel together. He flew to New York City to buy a pair of newly released Meta Ray-Ban glasses, praised by some people as a breakthrough for those who are blind. Marsilla was uneasy about him traveling alone, but he texted her photos and videos of the glasses. Then he admitted that he was afraid to use them, worried they wouldn’t work, and thought he had wasted her money.

Marsilla believed that her son was doing much better and then everything changed. Subramanya writes:

In October, she bought Vafaeian a gym membership and 30 personal training sessions, all of which he used. “He was so happy that he was working out and getting healthy,” she told me. Then, abruptly, he walked away from all of it: the condo, the caregiver, the money. “Something snapped in his head,” Marsilla told me.

On December 15, Vafaeian checked into a luxury resort in Mexico. On Instagram, he posted photos of himself posing with staff at the resort’s El Detalle restaurant—smiling, relaxed, and seemingly at ease. A concierge who remembered Vafaeian said that he seemed happy. He asked his mother to join him, but she said no. After two nights, he checked out and flew to Vancouver.

Three days later, a text message from Vafaeian to his mother delivered stunning news: He was scheduled to die by MAID the next day. He told his sister Victoria that if any family members wanted to be there when it happened, they should catch the last flight from Toronto. “We were obviously freaking out,” his mother told me. She said that she criticized him for “throwing this on us now—right before Christmas,” and then asked: “What’s wrong with you?

Marsilla tried to convince her son to go back to Toronto and to live. Subramanya reports:

Vafaeian said that her son told them he had asked for security to be present if they showed up at the MAID facility in Vancouver to try to stop him. She took it as a sign that he was wavering about ending his life. She thought the same thing when Vafaeian told his mother the next day that his assisted suicide had been postponed by “paperwork.”

Marsilla urged him to come home to Toronto, offered to buy him a plane ticket, and told him that she was praying for him and had Christmas gifts waiting. He refused. “No, I’m staying here. I’m going to get euthanized,” he said, according to Marsilla.

Marsilla learned later that her son was to be killed by Canada's notorious euthanasia doctor, Ellen Wiebe, who has been involved with some of the most controversial euthanasia deaths. Subramanya explains:

Wiebe has described assisted dying as “the best work I’ve ever done” and “incredibly rewarding.” I asked her what she meant when she said in 2018 that she provides “what is right up to the edge of the law, and never beyond, of course,” but “beyond where some providers would work.” She replied: “I have a very strong, passionate desire for human rights. I’m willing to take risks for human rights, as I do for abortion.”

Subramanya continued:

“No,” she replied without hesitation. Then she began talking about blindness, even though I had not mentioned it. “Just because it’s worth living for somebody who is blind doesn’t mean life is worth living for someone else who is blind,” Wiebe told me. How could she be so certain? She said: “We have long, fascinating conversations about what makes their life worth living—and how you make the decision when it’s been enough.”

Wiebe, who has used a wheelchair for 34 years, firmly rejected the argument that disability itself should not qualify someone for assisted death. “People will say quadriplegics can be happy, that their suffering isn’t intolerable,” she told me. “But the person themselves has to decide: Is this intolerable to me?”

Subramanya interviewed several leaders concerning Wiebe's assertions:

David Lepofsky, a blind lawyer and disability-rights advocate in Toronto, said that focusing on suffering rather than pain invites broad, subjective interpretations—and that the MAID process lacks any independent safeguards before death is delivered. “Blindness doesn’t cause pain,” Lepofsky said. “Millions of us live good, independent lives.”

Trudo Lemmens, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Toronto, met Vafaeian in 2022 at an event shortly after my article about him was published. The seminar was attended by physicians, MAID assessors, and policy experts. “The only reason that Kiano was alive when I met him is because his mother had the guts to go public, not because of the medical community that would have ended his life,” Lemmens recalled. “I was standing there, looking around the room, and thinking, This is dystopian.”

Ramona Coelho, a family physician and member of Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee, said provincial oversight reports increasingly show in general that the person’s suffering appeared to be driven less by medical decline than by loneliness, social distress, and fear of the future. “Young people relapse, and they also recover,” Coelho told me. Allowing government-sanctioned assisted suicide “during periods of acute vulnerability risks mistaking transient suffering for permanent decline.”

Subramanya further interviewed Dr Coehlo.

Canada’s assisted suicide numbers are almost certain to keep rising. In Quebec, where such deaths now represent 7 percent of all deaths, a provincial law passed in 2024 allows people who have been diagnosed with dementia to preauthorize their future deaths once they lose capacity, even though such requests are illegal under federal criminal law. Quebec sidesteps this by declining to prosecute physicians who act under provincial law.

A parliamentary committee has recommended studying whether to extend MAiD eligibility to “mature minors,” Canadians who are younger than 18 but deemed capable of making their own medical decisions. Wiebe told me that she is shocked assisted suicide isn’t already allowed for “mature minors,” adding that any 17-year-old who went to court would almost certainly be approved under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The only reason it has not happened,” she said, is that “nobody has asked.” Federal legislation has delayed MAID eligibility for adults whose sole underlying condition is mental illness until at least 2027 so that Canada can develop safeguards.

Subramanya then states:

Marsilla will probably never know exactly what happened after her son decided again that he wanted to die.

On December 30, Vafaeian went to a law firm in Vancouver to sign his will. He told the executor that he wanted the “world to know his story” and to advocate that “young people with severe unrelenting pain and blindness should be able to access MAID,” just as terminally ill patients can, the lawyer told me.

More stories about Kiano Vafaeian: (Articles Link).

Canadian woman was killed by euthanasia after her spouse requested it for her.

Woman killed by euthanasia wanted palliative care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The story of the Canadian woman, known as Mrs. B, who was killed by euthanasia after her spouse experienced care-giver distress, even though she had requested palliative care, has been reported by several media reports.

To provide greater context I went to the original MDRC committee report of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario titled: Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions. This was the MDRC 2024 - Fourth report.

When examining Same Day or Next Day euthanasia provisions the MDRC report states:

A small proportion (4.8%) of all Track 1 MAiD deaths occurred on the same day or next day of a request for MAiD. In 2023, 65 MAiD provisions (1.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the same day of a request and 154 MAiD provisions (3.4% of Track 1 MAiD deaths) occurred on the next day of a request.

Therefore there were 219 same day or next day euthanasia deaths in 2023 in Ontario.

There were several concerning cases outlined in the MDRC report. The particular case concerns Mrs. B. The report states:

Mrs. B was a female in her 80s who had a challenging medical trajectory following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. She experienced several post-operative sequelae, including wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis, and respiratory failure. She required specialized care in hospital, including additional surgical procedures. Due to physical and functional decline, Mrs. B elected for a palliative approach to care. She was discharged home with palliative supports (i.e., palliative care team and home care support services, including adaptive aids and personal support services).

Summary: Mrs. B had significant health issues and has chosen to receive in-home palliative care support. The case continues:

Mrs. B reportedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family. In response, and on the same day, her spouse contacted a referral service on her behalf. The following day, a MAiD practitioner assessed her for MAiD eligibility. She reportedly told the MAiD assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs. She communicated that pursuing in-patient palliative care/hospice care and palliative sedation was more in-keeping with her end-of-life goals.

Summary: Mrs. B was assessed for MAiD but then asked to withdraw her request for MAiD and once again requested palliative care services. The case continues:

The next morning, Mrs. B presented to the emergency department (ED) of her local hospital. Her spouse was noted to be experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed to be in stable condition, and thereby discharged home with continued palliative care. Her palliative care physician completed a referral for in-patient palliative care / hospice care due to her social circumstances (i.e., caregiver burnout). Her request was denied for not meeting hospice criteria for end-of-life, and a long-term care application was offered.

Summary: Mrs. B returned to the emergency department the next morning. Her spouse was experiencing caregiver burnout. Mrs. B was assessed as stable and sent home. Mrs. B was then denied in-patient palliative care and given an application for long-term care. The case continues:

On the same day, Mrs. B’s spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service requesting an urgent assessment. A different MAiD assessor from the previous day completed a primary assessment and determined Mrs. B to be eligible for MAiD. The former MAiD practitioner was contacted. This MAiD practitioner expressed concerns regarding the necessity for ‘urgency’ and shared belief for the need for more comprehensive evaluation, the seemingly drastic change in perspective of end-of-life goals, and the possibility of coercion or undue influence (i.e., due to caregiver burnout). The initial MAiD practitioner requested an opportunity to visit with Mrs. B the following day to re-assess; however, this opportunity was declined by the MAiD provider due to their clinical opinion that the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision. An additional MAiD practitioner was arranged by the MAiD coordination service to complete a virtual assessment. Mrs. B was found eligible for MAiD by this third assessor. The provision of MAiD was completed later that evening.

Summary: After Mrs. B was turned down for in-patient palliative care services, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service who referred Mrs. B to a different MAiD assessor who determined that Mrs. B qualified for MAiD and that she could be killed immediately. The MAiD provider denied the previous MAiD assessor an opportunity to talk to Mrs. B based on "urgency". The Provincial MAiD coordination service then arranged for another assessment to be done virtually. Mrs. B was found eligible and was killed that evening.

This case concerns a woman (Mrs. B) who wanted palliative care services, but the services were not immediately available and due to care-giver burnout, her spouse requested MAiD on behalf of Mrs B resulting in a same day killing, even though Mrs. B had expressed, based on her values, that she did not want euthanasia but rather wanted palliative care.

The issues of coercion and being killed without effective consent is present in this death. Mrs. B's spouse requested euthanasia for her even though she was seeking palliative care. Mrs. B had stated that based on her values and beliefs that she didn't want euthanasia.

This case proves that it can be easier to be killed by euthanasia than to receive palliative care in Ontario even when the person indicated that she wanted palliative care and not euthanasia.

The Evolution of Medicine under Legal Compulsion

The following post is part of a structured, multi-week, simultaneously published exchange between Kim Carlson and Paul Magennis, authors of MAiD in Canada, and Gordon Friesen, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. These alternating messages will explore deeply divergent views on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), and no mutual endorsement is implied.

Gordon Friesen

Previously published installments have been:

Gordon Friesen, Monday, January 12, 2025. (Article Link).
Maid in Canada (MIC), January 19, 2025. (Article Link).

The Evolution of Medicine under Legal Compulsion

By Gordon Friesen

‘Homicide’ is the only English word which precisely indicates the taking of human life.

Criminal Code of Canada [i]

      "* A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

      * Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

      * No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying"

Hence: MAID is homicide, permitted as medical treatment.    

The revolution thus produced, in medical culture, may be crudely grasped in the fact that one Canadian hospital is actually being sued for refusing to kill its patients.[ii]

Nor has this dramatic transformation come from organic demand among medical professionals. It is the result of legal compulsion.

“Parliament in legalizing MAiD, affirmed that, in certain cases, a desire to bring about one’s death is rational, understandable, and can be assisted without violating the Criminal Code.”[iii]

Confronted with this Parliamentary proclamation, the Canadian Psychiatric Association (and Canadian Psychiatry more widely) have been attempting to invent a professional framework for the ethical homicide of patients exhibiting mental disorders only.

And yet, in spite of an obvious interest in harmonizing the practice of its members with decreed legal doctrine (and despite giving MAID-favorable theorists full latitude to develop their case since 2016):[iv] CPA has been unable --over the last 10 years-- to produce a positive endorsement of homicide for mental disorder alone.

Or as stated on the CPA web page:

“There are compelling legal, clinical, ethical, moral and philosophical questions that make this issue particularly challenging. At this time, the CPA has not taken a position on whether MAID should be available in situations where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition.” [v]

One reason why psychiatrists might oppose medical homicide, concerns scientific disagreement as to whether MAID and suicide are different, at all; and the clinical difficulty of establishing such a difference even if it did exist.

(a difference, as earlier noted,[vi] which the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention[vii] and the American Association of Suicidology[viii] [ix] both deny).

The idea, here, is not that mental illness causes uniform incapacity, but that the wish to be poisoned, specifically, should not be received as a capable request.

A more specific reason, for opposing medical homicide, for mental illness alone, concerns the similar difficulty of determining whether any patient's disorder might be considered "irremediable".

These problems are both cited in a formal American Psychiatric Association policy statement rejecting medical homicide for mental illness alone. Significantly, this is a purely psychiatric policy (unlike its Canadian counterpart) proactively established in the absence of legal coercion[x]

Homicide-friendly professionals apparently believe that they can make capacity and irremediability judgments which are "close enough".

For those opposed, however, the whole scheme looks like sending out colorblind hunters, to harvest certain species of game birds... but only the green ones.

Whether or not our friends from Maid-in-Canada actually deny these difficulties, they do apparently believe that a complete ban (or "categorical exclusion") cannot be justified. I take this to mean (correct me at need) that certain extreme cases must not be denied.

Unfortunately, the practical operation of legal permission cannot be restricted to extreme cases only. In a resource deficient systemic environment, rigor will inevitably be sacrificed to normalization. Homicide work will naturally be done by doctors favorable to that practice. And since there is no prohibition of "doctor shopping", it is the most zealous of these who will test limits and set standards, just as in our experience of MAID to date.

Indeed, once the good people of Salem were told that Witches walked among them,[xi] it quickly became possible to find a great number of these. And so also with persons for whom homicide is imperiously proclaimed, by Parliamentarians, to be a psychiatrically indicated treatment.

Finally: MAID-in-Canada has dismissed, as "speculative", my assertion that medical homicide for mental illness would lead to that of incapable patients more generally.[xii]

One man's "speculation", however, is another man's prudent forethought.

In reality, the liquidation of incapable patients is a strict ethical necessity of representing homicide as medical care. For medicine is ideally an objective science. And (allegedly) beneficial medical remedies can not be ethically withheld from anyone who might (allegedly) benefit from them: not for reasons of age, of mental capacity, or of anything else.

Our immediate interest (in capacity) lies with the mentally ill,[xiii] children,[xiv] infants,[xv] mature minors,[xvi] and demented seniors.[xvii]

Logically inevitable expansions of medical homicide are projected for each of these groups. These extensions may usefully be viewed as a cluster of poisonous flowers, all growing from the same infected root. Legal acceptance of any one will naturally facilitate acceptance of the others also.

This logical putrefaction can only be stopped as it began: with legislative action.

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218

---

[i]    Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46

[ii]   Schadenberg, Alex, Court case to force all healthcare institutions to provide euthanasia began on January 12 in Vancouver, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 13, 2026 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/court-case-to-force-all-healthcare.html

[iii]  Government of Canada, Final Report of the Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness, 2.2 (suicidality) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/expert-panel-maid-mental-illness/final-report-expert-panel-maid-mental-illness.html#a223

[iv]  Canadian Psychiatric Association, Task Force on Medical Assistance in Dying Member Survey Results 2016, (see question 2) https://www.cpa-apc.org/wp-content/uploads/CPA-MAIDTF-16Surv-Rep-FIN-EN.pdf

[v]   Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), Canadian Psychiatric Association
https://www.cpa-apc.org/medical-assistance-in-dying-maid/

[vi]  Friesen, Gordon, Medical Homicide for the Treatment of Mental Illness: The Role of Decisional Capacity, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 12, 2026 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/medical-homicide-for-treatment-of.html

[vii]  Canadian Society for Suicide Prevention , Statement on MAID for mental illness, December 2022 https://suicideprevention.ca/media/casp-issues-statement-about-maid-for-mental-illness/

[viii] American Association of Suicidology, Update on Physician Assisted Death Previous Statement https://suicidology.org/aas-update-on-physician-assisted-death-previous-statement/

[ix]  Good Old News: In Early 2023, Suicidology Group Withdrew Statement NDY Protested, Not Dead Yet, July 10, 2023. https://notdeadyet.org/good-old-news-in-early-2023-suicidology-group-withdrew-statement-ndy-protested/

[x]   American Psychiatric Association, APA Official Actions, Position Statement on Psychiatric Participation in Physician Assistance in Dying (2025)  https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/b63d8852-2acd-4074-8358-81471cbd4633/Position-Psychiatric-Part-in-PAID.pdf

[xi] Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive and Transcription Project https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/home.html

[xii] Carlson, Kim; Magennis, Paul, Misinformation at Parliament: What Happened on October 28th Veterans and people with mental illness deserve better advocacy, Maid in Canada, Nov 29, 2025 https://maidincanada.substack.com/p/misinformation-at-parliament-what

[xiii] Mark S. Komrad M.D., Psychiatric Times, June 1, 2021, "Oh, Canada! Your New Law Will Provide, Not Prevent, Suicide for Some Psychiatric Patients" https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/canada-law-provide-not-prevent-suicide; June 15, 2021 (video) Are Psychiatrists who Assist in Suicide Betraying Their Professional Values?  accessed December 28, 2022 https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychiatrists-suicide-betraying-values

[xiv] The Netherlands plans to extend euthanasia to children, Schadenberg, Alex, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, April 14, 2023 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-netherlands-to-extend-euthanasia-to.html

[xv] Schadenberg, Alex, Is Euthanasia of Newborns with Disabilities next? Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 16, 2026 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/is-euthanasia-of-newborns-with.html

[xvi] Schadenberg, James, Government report recommends euthanasia for children and euthanasia by advanced directive, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, February 16, 2023 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2023/02/government-report-recommends-euthanasia.html

[xvii] Schadenberg, Alex, Belgian Bioethics Committee supports eugenic euthanasia for advanced dementia, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, December 12, 2025 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2025/12/belgian-bioethics-committee-supports.html

Great news. France's Senate Essentially Kills the Euthanasia Bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news. The political deadlock in France has resulted in France's euthanasia bill, that had passed in the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025 was essentially rejected by the French Senate on January 21, 2026.

Thomas Mangin reported for Euroactiv on January 21 that:

France’s end-of-life bill has become mired in political deadlock, exposing deep ideological divisions over whether doctors should be allowed to provide patients with the means to end their lives, or assist them in doing so.

The impasse deepened on Wednesday evening, when the French Senate rejected Article 4 of the bill, which sought to define the conditions under which patients could access medical aid in dying. In an unusual alignment, conservatives and socialists voted together, albeit for sharply different reasons.

For senators from the conservative ranks, the version of this article adopted by the National Assembly in May 2025 was seen as too permissive, particularly the provision allowing people suffering from incurable illnesses to obtain, at their request, a lethal substance prescribed by a doctor.

Essentially this means that France's euthanasia bill is dead. Mangin further reported:

Facing the stalemate, Health Minister Stéphanie Rist confirmed that she would not withdraw the bill – a move that would, in effect, bury the issue – and said discussions would continue. However, she expressed regret that future debates would now focus on provisions set out in Article 4, whose substance was rejected in the vote.

The future of this central article remains uncertain, as it must now return to the National Assembly to be reworked – and adopted – before being sent back to the Senate. In order to reach a compromise, concessions are thus likely from the bill’s most ambitious backers on its most divisive points.

An article by Hélène de Lauzon that was published by the European Conservative on January 22 provides further insight. de Lauzon reports:

Later that evening, an amendment proposed by Les Républicains (LR) was adopted, completely rewriting Article 2 of the original bill and making it impossible to introduce euthanasia in France. The article now says:

• Everyone has the right to the best possible relief from pain and suffering. 

• Everyone is entitled to this right until their death, without any voluntary intervention intended to cause death.

Anne Chain-Larché, Vice-President of the Senate, who initiated this amendment, defended it by stating that she rejected a society in which the administration of a lethal substance could be considered ‘care.’ She said her proposal “directly addresses the central argument used in favour of assisted dying: the fear of suffering without relief. Whereas the proposed law transforms this fear into a justification for a right to die, the amendment offers a strong, enforceable and legally secure guarantee of relief. It demonstrates that freedom and dignity do not imply the possibility of causing death, but the effective assurance that society will not allow anyone to suffer without response.”

Once this key amendment was adopted, the senators proceeded to methodically rewrite a whole set of provisions in the bill. Aware that the text will be returned to the National Assembly for review, the senators added additional safeguards, such as the collective conscience clause requested by religious institutions. The offence of obstruction of euthanasia (which could have been punishable with up to two years in prison and a hefty fine) was dropped from the bill, despite the government’s support.

France needs to seriously consider the experience with euthanasia in Québec and completely reject killing people by poison. Québec legalized euthanasia based on "exceptional circumstances" in 2015. The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

Previous articles on the French euthanasia debate.

• UN Committee launches investigation into France's euthanasia bill (Link).
• France's National Assembly votes to legalize euthanasia (Link).