Great news. France's Senate essentially rejects 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).

A Milestone of Misplaced Mercy

This article was published by Amy Hasbrouck on her Substack on January 20, 2026.

Amy Hasbrouck

By Amy Hasbrouck

Amy is a founder of Tourjours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and the past President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Sometime this spring, Canada will achieve a milestone of misplaced mercy; the 100,000th person will die by euthanasia. There are about 60 cities in Canada that have populations of 100,000+ people.

Legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was sold to the public as an exceptional measure to be used in exceptional cases; people with intractable pain or suffering at the end of their lives could control the time, place and manner of their deaths. What could possibly go wrong?

Disability rights activists sounded the alarm, early and often about the dangers of legalizing assisted dying, both before and following legalization.

In 1996, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) passed a resolution stating “…The CCD opposes any government action to decriminalize assisted suicide because of the serious potential for abuse and the negative image of people with disabilities that would be produced if people with disabilities are killed with state sanction…” The reasons for this position were laid out in a 2002 Report which found that:

“there are serious risks to persons with disabilities in societies where assisted death is regarded as a solution to the suffering and anxiety that many experience as they near the end of their lives. For most people in that circumstance, assisted death may be regarded as ‘merciful’ because it relieves them of the physical and mental ordeal they would otherwise have to endure. For people with disabilities, however, the ‘mercy’ is often seen in terms of ending a life that is perceived by others to be devoid of value because of the individual’s disability...”

The report concluded: 

“Until it can be convincingly demonstrated that all Canadians enjoy full equality and security of the person, regardless of disability, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then any steps toward legalized assistance in dying should be resisted.”

In 2010, CCD submitted a brief to the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, describing how barriers, discrimination and devaluation of disability combine to create deadly compassion, where ending disabled lives is seen as a kindness.

In 2013, CCD launched Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, which produced 245 webcasts in English and French from 2013 to 2020, as well as providing testimony to parliament on multiple occasions, met with the Trudeau Government, and offered feedback on implementation of Canada’s Euthanasia program. But disability rights activists were ignored, dismissed and disregarded.

Since Health Canada’s reporting system is retrospective – after the fact – we will probably never know the exact date Canada reaches this landmark. It might happen in March of 2026, five years after the MAiD law was amended to make access to euthanasia easier, broader and faster. Most certainly the 100,000th euthanasia will occur less than ten years after adoption of the MAiD law in June of 2016.

The eighth annual report (for calendar year 2026), probably won’t mark the milestone when it is released in the fall of 2027. The details – who was the 100,000th person killed, when did they die, what factors contributed to their decision, and what might have been done to prevent the euthanasia – will be obscured by that annual report, just as they have been shrouded by every other report released by Health Canada. There are some things we know.

• Every person who requests and receives euthanasia has a physical or mental limitation which, in combination with barriers in the environment, (lack of housing or home care, poverty), denial of health- or palliative, and discrimination, results in a disability, (as defined by the United Nations) whether or not they self-identify as disabled.
• If MAiD were classified by statistics canada as a “cause of death” it would have been the fourth leading cause of death as of 2023 (15,342 MAiD deaths declared in the 5th annual report)(6th Annual report stated 16,499 for 2024 with 76,475 from legalization until December 31, 2024)
• Canada has not met its obligations under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As we prepare to pass this milestone, we have an opportunity to tap the brakes. A bill is pending in parliament that would exclude mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition from eligibility for MAiD. Bill C-218 is a private members bill that is scheduled for debate in the next few weeks.

DWD thinks they can control the narrative. Not anymore.

The following article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her Substack on January 14, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

This article was prompted by a public request from Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC) asking me to remove a post for the sake of “accuracy,” citing an alleged impersonation.

The request itself is not the issue.

The issue is the assumption that an advocacy organization can quietly characterize me to media as spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation,” assume that narrative won’t reach me, and further assume that I don’t get a right of reply.

Organizations are free to disagree. Debate is necessary in a functioning democracy. Free speech still exists—at least it’s supposed to.

If someone is impersonating DWDC, that’s for them to deal with. That is not my concern here and not my problem.

What is my concern is an organization lobbying government to expand assisted death to the mentally ill and to so-called “mature minors,” while simultaneously framing families as “the greatest risk” to MAiD.

Families are not the risk.

Families are often the last line of resistance when systems fail, care is inaccessible, and death is offered faster than help. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it true—it just makes it convenient. When advocacy groups stop arguing their case openly and start managing critics behind the scenes, this stops being about accuracy.

It becomes about control.

What matters is how quickly the discussion moved away from engaging substantive concerns and toward managing optics — particularly when those concerns involved young people, psychiatric suffering, disability, and irreversible outcomes.

That moment clarified something essential:
The debate around Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada is no longer primarily about ethics or safeguards.

It is about narrative control, and we all know it.

That realization is the catalyst for what follows. Canada now operates the most expansive assisted-death regime in the world. This is not rhetoric. It is a matter of scope, speed, and institutional alignment. You can thank people like DWD who lobby our government for this expansion.

MAiD was introduced as a narrow, compassionate exception — end-of-life relief for people facing imminent death and unbearable physical suffering. Less than a decade later, it has expanded into a bureaucratic system capable of approving death for people who are not dying, including those with chronic illness, disability, and psychiatric suffering.

According to Health Canada:

• 15,427 Canadians died by MAiD in 2023, representing 4.7% of all deaths that year
• 16,499 Canadians died by MAiD in 2024
• 17,000 + Canadians died by MAiD in 2025 (waiting for final data) our rough estimate based on historical increase each year since legalization.
• 76,475 people have died by MAiD since legalization on record.
• 94,000 if we include 2025 data that hasn’t been released yet.

This is not a marginal medical practice. It is now a structural feature of how Canadians die.

Supporters often point to the fact that so-called “Track 2” MAiD — for those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable — represents a smaller percentage of cases. That framing misses the point.

What matters is not only how many people die, but what is being normalized, and how difficult it has become to scrutinize that normalization.

MAiD did not expand because Canadians suddenly became more terminally ill.
It expanded because the systems meant to treat suffering failed — and MAiD filled the gap.

Policy enabled the shift. Narrative normalized it.

MAiD now operates in a country where:

Psychiatric care often comes with multi-year waitlists

Disability supports are fragmented and difficult to access

Pain management is inconsistent or unavailable

Housing for disabled Canadians is scarce

Crisis lines and mental-health services are overwhelmed

In this environment, assisted death is not a neutral option. It becomes the only reliably accessible intervention. Consent cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. When the alternative to death is neglect, autonomy becomes a fragile and contested concept.

This debate is not theoretical. It has names.

Alan Nichols - died by MAiD in 2019. After his death, his family testified before Parliament questioning whether he met eligibility criteria and whether his capacity and consent were properly assessed. His case raised a disturbing reality: when families believe something has gone wrong, there is no meaningful appeal mechanism. The challenge arrives only after death.

“Sophia,” a Toronto woman with chemical sensitivities, pursued MAiD after being unable to secure housing that would not worsen her condition. Her case became a public flashpoint because it exposed the uncomfortable truth that social failure can make death appear rational.

Her story forced a question that advocacy language often avoids:

Is MAiD still “choice” when life itself has become inaccessible?

Kiano Vafaeian - In December 2025, Kiano Vafaeian, a 26-year-old Canadian, died under MAiD.

Kiano lived with diabetes, vision impairment, and depression. According to his mother, he had previously been prevented from proceeding with MAiD and was actively seeking help. She has stated that in the final approval process, no meaningful effort was made to connect him with alternative treatment, family support, or long-term care. She alleges that his death was approved by a prominent MAiD provider, Dr. Ellen Wiebe, despite the fact that MAiD based solely on mental illness is not legally permitted until March 17, 2027.

His mother wrote that the system made no meaningful effort to connect him with treatment, family support, or other medical options before approving a lethal intervention — a haunting example of how vulnerability can meet death faster than care.

His death generated public alarm because it involved a young, vulnerable person whose suffering was shaped by both medical and social factors — the very conditions Canada insists are protected by safeguards.

These cases do not “prove” universal abuse. They prove something else:
When safeguards are largely procedural and accountability arrives late — or not at all — families become the final line of oversight.
Dying With Dignity Canada does not operate in isolation. It functions through a layered institutional structure that aligns advocacy, clinical authority, disability framing, fundraising, and communications. Responsibility for the MAiD narrative does not rest with any single clinician or staff member. It is organizational.

DWDC is overseen by a Board of Directors that determines advocacy posture, partnerships, and acceptable risk. This is where decisions are made about how aggressively MAiD expansion is pursued and how criticism is handled.

Boards do not write press releases. They authorize the posture from which those press releases emerge.

DWDC’s executive team and staff operationalize that strategy. Communications, donor engagement, public education, and media responses are handled by professionals whose job is to translate policy goals into moral language: choice, autonomy, dignity.

When DWDC requests content removal or issues public “corrections,” those actions originate here. DWDC maintains a Clinicians’ Advisory Council composed of physicians, many of whom are MAiD assessors and providers.

Among them is Dr. Ellen Wiebe, one of the most prolific and publicly visible MAiD providers in the country

This matters structurally. When high-volume providers also help shape public understanding and advocacy strategy, the line between neutral medical assessment and ideological momentum becomes blurred.

This is not an accusation of intent. It is an observation of institutional coupling.

DWDC also maintains a Disability Advisory Council, described as addressing “myths and misunderstandings” around MAiD and disability.

Structurally, this council functions as a legitimizing buffer. It allows the organization to claim disability inclusion while continuing to advocate for expanded eligibility, including non-terminal and psychiatric contexts.

Criticism can be reframed as misunderstanding rather than confronted directly.

DWDC presents itself as a civil-liberties organization advocating for choice and autonomy. In practice, it now functions as narrative infrastructure for MAiD.

The language is consistent:

• Compassion replaces consequence
• Choice replaces eligibility thresholds
• Autonomy replaces systemic failure

When advocacy becomes tightly coupled to state policy, criticism is no longer treated as disagreement. It is treated as a threat to legitimacy.

That is why responses increasingly take the form of corrections, requests for removal, or claims of misinformation, rather than open engagement with substance.

Institutions confident in their moral position invite scrutiny.
Institutions reliant on optics attempt to manage it.

Legacy media faces structural pressure when covering MAiD:

• Question MAiD and risk accusations of ableism
• Investigate approvals and risk accusations of stigma
• Platform critics and invite reputational backlash

The result is a predictable pattern:

Emotionally compelling terminal cases are highlighted. Psychiatric and non-terminal approvals receive limited sustained scrutiny. Critics are framed as ideological rather than empirical.

This creates a feedback loop:

Advocacy supplies the language →
Media repeats it →
Policymakers cite consensus →
Dissent is labeled misinformation.

At no point is the central question fully confronted:

What does consent mean when the alternative is neglect?

Requests to remove posts, public corrections without engagement, and appeals to “accuracy” that avoid substance are signs of narrative fragility — not strength.

Assisted death is irreversible. That alone demands a higher standard of scrutiny than Canada currently allows.

Canada has not yet decided whether MAiD is a last-resort medical intervention or a policy response to social failure. But the trajectory is obvious to anyone with two eyes.

A society that offers death faster than care is not compassionate.

It is administratively efficient and efficiency, paired with silence, is where real harm begins.

This conversation is not anti-choice. It is anti-denial. Free speech does not require institutional permission — especially when

the stakes are life and death.

KELSI SHEREN

Footnotes

1. Health Canada, Fifth Annual Report on MAiD in Canada, 2023 (15,343 MAiD deaths; MAiD 4.7% of all deaths).
2. Health Canada, Sixth Annual Report on MAiD in Canada, 2024 (16,499 MAiD deaths; 76,475 since 2016).
3. Health Canada 2023 report, Track split (Track 2 = 4.1%).
4. Health Canada 2024 report, Track split (Track 2 = 4.4%).
5. Court dispute reported re: 27-year-old approved for MAiD and capacity concerns.
6. B.C. injunction halting planned MAiD in contested eligibility case.
7. Reporting on “Sophia” case and housing/social failure context.
8. Alan Nichols testimony to Parliament and reporting on the case.
9. Justice Canada: mental illness sole underlying condition ineligible until March 17, 2027.
10. Health Canada news release on the delay and rationale.
11. “This doctor has helped more than 400 patients die. A judge just blocked one of her cases” The National Post
12. DWDC Maid for Mental Illness
13. DWDC For Mature Minors

Petition: We Demand a Review of Dr. Ellen Wiebe’s (MAiD) Euthanasia Practice.

We Demand a Review of Dr Ellen Wiebe's Euthanasia Practice.

Sign and share the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Petition: (Petition Link). 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition petition to The Honourable Josie Osborne, the BC Minister of Health, Conservative Health Critic Anna Kindy, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC.

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 possible 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.

Sign and share the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Petition (Petition Link).

Background information.

On January 6, 2026 Margaret Marsilla published a message on her facebook page about the tragic death of her son, Kiano by euthanasia carried out by Dr Ellen Wiebe. Kiano was living with mental illness. Margaret stated on her facebook page (1):

With a broken heart, I am sharing that my baby boy Kiano passed away on December 30, 2025, after being euthanized.

Four years ago, here in Ontario, we were able to stop his euthanasia and get him some help. He was alive because people stepped in when he was vulnerable and not capable of making a final, irreversible decision.

Tragically, the Canadian system later allowed something very different to happen in Vancouver—where a doctor named DR ELLEN WIEBE AKA DR DEATH #2 approved his death based on mental illness. This approval occurred despite euthanasia for mental illness being banned until 2027. Somehow, DR DEATH #2 found a loophole in the system, one that now demands to be exposed so that no other parent has to endure this.

Brieanna Charlebois reported for the Canadian Press on December 19, 2024, that a Vancouver man who was on a psychiatric day pass died by MAiD at Ellen Wiebe’s clinic(2):

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 was 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 approval associated with Dr Wiebe. On October 26, 2024, a Vancouver judge granted a 30-day injunction to prevent the euthanasia death of a woman (3). 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 MAiD (4). Steacy reported that the claim stated that the woman did 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 (5):

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.

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 possible 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. 

Sign and share the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Petition (Petition Link).

Endnotes:

(1) Schadenberg, A. (2026, Jan 7). Tragic euthanasia death of a young man with mental illness. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Blog. https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/tragic-euthanasia-death-of-young-man.html

(2) 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

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

(4) Steacy, L. (2024, Oct 29). B.C. judge halts woman’s medically assisted death. CTV News Vancouver. https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/bc-judge-halts-womans-medically-assisted-death/

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

(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

Australian ALS Patient Denied Disability Support "Chooses" Euthanasia

This article was published by National Review online on January 19, 2026.

By Wesley J Smith

I really do try to write about other issues. But the awfulness keeps on coming.

Yesterday, I called attention to the Canadian bioethicist who claimed that lethal jabs are no different than hip replacements. Today, I came across an awful story out of Australia in which Tony Lewis, age 71 and experiencing Motor Neurone Disease — what we call ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease — has asked for euthanasia because he was denied sufficient financial support for his disability. From the Hello Care report:

A Queensland man with Motor Neurone Disease has chosen to access voluntary assisted dying after being denied support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme because of his age, reigniting concerns about Australia’s two-tier approach to disability and aged care.

Tony Lewis is 71. Diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease last year, he falls outside the eligibility criteria for the NDIS, which excludes people diagnosed after the age of 65. Instead, he must rely on the aged care system, where funding levels and response times are widely acknowledged as inadequate for fast progressing neurological conditions.

Lewis wants to go on living but believes his financial situation makes that impossible.

Mr Lewis currently receives funding that covers only a small number of basic services each week. The reality of his care needs far exceeds what is funded. Most of his daily support is provided by his wife, Gill, who has a nursing background and has taken on the role of primary carer…

Faced with the prospect of further decline without adequate support, Mr Lewis has chosen to begin the voluntary assisted dying process. He has been clear that the decision is not driven by a lack of will to live, but by the absence of appropriate care options that would allow him to remain at home with dignity.

Yeah, just like a hip replacement! This same kind of abandonment has happened in Canada, too. But euthanasia? Never a problem of access! Is it any wonder that disability rights activists oppose hastened death?

We keep hearing the magic word, “choice,” in this debate. Sometimes that word has as much meaning as it does for cattle being herded into slaughterhouse chutes.

 

Spanish 2024 euthanasia deaths increase by 27.5%

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Spanish euthanasia report was published in December 2025 indicates that 426 people were killed by euthanasia in Spain in 2024, a 27.5% increase from 334 people who were killed by euthanasia in 2023. 

The total number of people who have been poisoned to death by euthanasia has increased by almost 48% since 2022, the first full year after its legalization.

Euthanasia was legalized in Spain in March 2021. Euthanasia is an act whereby a person who is deemed eligible is intentionally poisoned to death by a medical practitioner.

Unlike in some jurisdictions, there is no requirement for a six or twelve-month terminal prognosis eligibility for euthanasia in Spain. 

In 2024, the most underlying medical condition for those who applied for an assisted death was: 302 people had a neurological condition, 276 people had a form of cancer, with conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues, making up the remainder.

Spain has an appeal process for when the medical practitioner decides that a person doesn't qualify for euthanasia. In 2023,188 people whose request to be killed by euthanasia was denied, 78 of those people appealed the decision with 32 cases (41%) overturning the decision and allowing them to be killed. In 2024, 157 people who requested to be killed by euthanasia were denied with 75 of those people appealing the decision resulting in 20 (26.67%) of the decisions being overturned allowing them to be killed by euthanasia.

Spain has already expanded the original euthanasia law and they have discussed expanding the law to include people with mental illness. An article published by Exaudi news stated:

The Ministry of Health has met with the autonomous communities to agree on the reform of the Manual of Good Practices on Euthanasia to include mental illness as a reason for requesting it.

The draft of the Organic Law on the Regulation of Euthanasia (LORE) indicates that euthanasia “does not exclude mental illness, allowing people with an unbearable suffering due to the presence of a mental illness to request the Aid to Dying Benefit (PAM) on equal terms with those whose suffering comes from a somatic illness”.

In addition, the text states that “a comprehensive psychopathological evaluation is required to identify those people who could benefit from the PAM due to a mental disorder due to the presence of a serious, chronic and disabling illness or a serious and incurable psychiatric illness”.

Likewise, it is necessary to “discard those people who present mild or moderate symptoms of depression or anxiety, since these conditions are susceptible to treatment and improvement, excluding them from access to PAM.”

Exaudi listed some expansions of the Spanish euthanasia law that have already happened:

Since 2023 three modifications were already proposed:

1. To stop protecting the pharmacist’s right to object to euthanasia in the event that the master formulation or the preparation of drug kits is necessary to administer euthanasia, and to reserve the objection to the health personnel directly involved in that practice.

2. To create the figure of the reference nurse in euthanasia, since in most cases the nurse is in charge of supplying the medication to the patient.

3. To establish the nature of the Manual of Good Practices of Euthanasia, because for some experts it is a standard, but for others it is not.

Similar to nearly every jurisdiction, once euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are legalized the laws will soon be expanded. The original legislation is designed to pass in the legislature, but once legal the arguments immediately arise that the law is being applied in a discriminatory manner and must be expanded. Spain has had the same phenomenon.

Canadian Bioethicist: Euthanasia Should Not Be Considered ‘Special’

This article was published by National Review online on January 18, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Canada has leaped into euthanasia's moral abyss with a smile on its face. Since 2015, killable categories have expanded dramatically, from those whose death is "reasonably foreseeable'' — a category that was already so broad you could drive a hearse through it — to the chronically ill, people with disabilities, the frail elderly, and, starting next year, the mentally ill.

More than 16,000 Canadians were killed by doctors and nurse practitioners last year. It's the fifth-most-common cause of death in the country.

Many commentators point to these and other facts about Canada’s euthanasia regime to argue against legalization. Defenders of euthanasia know this and have mounted counternarratives trying to convince us that so many killings of such a varied numbers of people is an excellent outcome of a humane policy. The latest example is in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics, in an article by bioethicist and philosophy professor Wayne Sumner, in which he argues that euthanasia should be considered a ho-hum question, nothing to worry about.

Sumner shrugs at the dramatic increase in the numbers killed since legalization because euthanasia is just another medical treatment and should not be considered to be extraordinary. Indeed, to Sumner, doctors’ killing patients is really no different than performing hip replacements. Ditto abortion. And since an increase in abortion rates (to him) is a good, and no one objects to more hip replacements, what’s the problem with the statistical increase in deaths by euthanasia? From “What’s So Special About Medically Assisted Dying?”:

If we regard an increasing number of joint replacements or abortions as a success, with supply having risen to meet demand, why should we think that an increasing number of MAiD provisions is a failure, or somehow a problem? If more awareness, more providers, and more support are good things for these other services, why are they a bad thing for MAiD? Why should we think differently about MAiD than we do about other medical procedures? What’s so special about MAiD?

Let me count the ways.

1. Euthanasia isn’t about improving life or treating disease, as a hip replacement is, but causing death of the patient. That makes the act different in kind from true medical treatments.
2. Legalized killing changes culture. Once euthanasia becomes normalized, people become acclimated to the terminations of vulnerable people. For example, a recent poll of Canadians found that 28 percent of respondents approved strongly or moderately of allowing euthanasia for homelessness! Before legalization, I can’t imagine a pollster even asking the question.
3. Legalization leads to the objectification of the killable caste. Hence, in Canada, the conjoining of euthanasia with organ-harvesting. Once that happens, organ donation can easily become a prime factor in a suicidal patient’s asking to die, as it offers society a utilitarian stake in suicidal patients.
4. It can become a means of reducing medical costs. After all, what could be a cheaper “treatment” than a lethal jab?
5. It can supplant the provision of proper medical care. Indeed, in Canada, several patients have been euthanized after they couldn’t access specialized care.
6. If it is not “special,” why the need for guidelines and restrictions? If someone wants to be dead because they find continued life unacceptable, why say no?

Sumner makes the usual argument that killing is no different than refusing life-sustaining medical treatment, since both “shorten” life.

Even before MAiD was legalized, those who were so disposed had available to them a number of ways of managing their exit from the world. If their condition required life-sustaining treatment — whether this took the form of technological support or surgical intervention or continuing medication — they could refuse further treatment and so hasten their death. If it did not require such treatment, they still had the option of seeking death by refusing food and water. Plus, of course, the time-honoured method of death by overdose of pharmaceuticals.

Suicide is supposedly “time-honoured”! See what I mean about euthanasia changing culture?

"Presuming Incapacity Is Neither Clinical nor Legal: The Case Against Categorical Exclusion"

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.

The first installment was published by Gordon Friesen on Monday, January 12, 2025. That below comes from Maid in Canada (MIC)

By Kim Carlson and Paul Magennis, who are the authors of the blog MAiD in Canada, which supports (MAiD).

Medical “Homicide”

Gordon Friesen is free to use the term “homicide” as he wishes, but it cannot be defended as neutral. Acts that would otherwise constitute crimes are routinely transformed in law by consent and specific legal conditions. Describing MAiD as “homicide” is as indefensible as calling surgery “aggravated assault.”

Friesen admits to avoiding the term “murder” because of its rhetorical consequences, writing in December[i] that “murder is just impossible to use. However, we know the truth.”

“Homicide” is offered not as a dispassionate technical definition—as claimed—but functions as a substitute that preserves Friesen’s moral claim while softening its impact.

Friesen’s opening remarks obscure the EPC’s frequently stated belief[ii] that MAiD is murder, raising questions about whether this exchange is being conducted in good faith.

Friesen’s Claims

Friesen’s argument rests on three claims: capacity in MAiD for mental illness is so impaired, too often impaired, or too difficult to assess that categorical exclusion is required.

Key Points

1.  Friesen fails to understand the legal standard of capacity, to whom it applies, and how it is assessed.

2.  All people are presumed to have capacity unless shown otherwise, including those with mental illness.

3.   People who lack the capacity to give consent cannot have MAiD. Nothing in Friesen’s argument alters this rule. Rather, he suggests excluding those who are capable, despite the absence of any legal or clinical basis to do so.

4.   The Canadian Psychiatric Association,[iii] in its position on MAiD for mental illness,[iv] affirms that assessing decisional capacity—including the stability, coherence, and durability of a person’s will in the presence of psychopathology—is a core psychiatric competency.

Capacity is Categorically Absent

At the EPC press conference,[v] Freisen asserted that “obviously…euthanasia for the mentally ill does not fit [the description of a person making ‘free, informed, competent, and adult choices’]”.

This claim that people living with mental illness are categorically unable to make serious, potentially life-ending decisions is unsupported by case law, statute, regulatory standard, or accepted medical or ethical framework.

The Supreme Court of Canada was explicit in Starson[vi] that mental illness must not be conflated with incapacity, and “the presumption of capacity can be displaced only by evidence that a patient lacks the requisite elements of [decision-making] capacity…”.

If Friesen’s position is that people with mental illness, as a class, lack capacity to consent to MAiD, then it is his responsibility to explain why this should override a legal and clinical framework that rejects categorical assumptions of incapacity and requires individualized assessment.

Capacity Too Often Absent

Friesen concedes that people living with mental illness can have decision-making capacity, including for serious medical decisions. This undermines his argument.

Friesen’s assertion that “[he] must only show that those people most likely to consider a recourse to medical homicide are themselves most likely to fall short of the exceedingly high-capacity bar” is incoherent. A claim about likelihood does not justify abandoning individualized assessment; it predicts ineligibility.

Individuals who do not have capacity cannot be eligible for MAiD.[vii] If someone “most severely affected…in the worst possible times” does not meet the capacity standard, that reflects the effectiveness of existing safeguards—not a failure of them.

Capacity Too Difficult to Assess

The difficulty of assessing capacity—regardless of diagnosis or seriousness of the decision—does not justify presuming incapacity or abandoning the effort. This claim is further undermined by evidence of high inter-rater reliability in psychiatric capacity assessments.[viii]

Friesen does not demonstrate why MAiD for this one group requires a unique exception to this established framework.

MAiD Requests as Cognitive Distortions

Friesen asserts, incorrectly and without evidence, that psychiatrists presume suicidal ideation arises from cognitive distortions caused by mental illness. No such presumption exists, and clinical approaches do not equate suicidal thoughts with decisional incapacity. Even where distortions may be present, that would not justify abandoning individualized assessment.

People do not forfeit the presumption of capacity due to mental illness, cognitive distortions, or suicidal ideation.[ix]

EPC Overstating References

We’ve noticed EPC has a tendency to overstate what their references support.[x] Friesen claims that “most psychiatrists recognize” that a distinction between a desire for MAiD and suicidal ideation “could not be clinically established”, but the reference does not support that claim.

The article[xi] reflects the views of 43 psychiatrists—under 1% of psychiatrists in Canada[xii]—which cannot reasonably be described as “most,” nor do the authors claim to speak for the profession. At most, Friesen’s reference supports the claim that some psychiatrists hold this view. Nothing more, and certainly not “most”.

Friesen’s Conclusions

Capacity assessments can be complex in the context of mental illness (as they can be in many other circumstances, e.g., infection or brain injuries). Where Friesen fails is his belief that the only acceptable response is to deny all—and only—people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition the same presumption of capacity afforded to everyone else, absent individualized evidence to the contrary. The high bar is not for recognizing capacity, but for justifying its removal—a burden Friesen has not met.

No MAiD for decisionally incapable persons. This is already law.

---

[i] Gordon Friesen on the euphemistic language of killing. – Gordon Friesen - February 5, 2025

[ii] Euthanasia Prevention Coalition “About” page

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Sponsors Debate on Medical Homicide for Mental Illness – Gordon Friesen - January 4, 2026 

The Secret MAiD Case That Canada Hoped You’d Never See (Alex Schadenberg in the comments) – December 4, 2025

Good news: California assisted suicide expansion bill is dead. – Alex Schadenberg - April 18, 2024

Euthanasia (MAiD) is out of control in Canada. - Alex Schadenberg - May 19, 2022

Québec 2021 Annual euthanasia report - euthanasia deaths increased by 37%, unreported deaths continue. (Alex Schadenberg in the comments) – November 9, 2021

[iii] https://www.cpa-apc.org/

[iv] https://wwhttps://www.cpa-apc.org/medical-assistance-in-dying-maid/w.cpa-apc.org/medical-assistance-in-dying-maid/

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr04PkvaoOM

[vi] Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2003] 1 SCR 722, https://canlii.ca/t/1g6p9>, retrieved on 2026-01-17

[vii] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html#a2 

[viii] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16199798/

[ix] Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2003] 1 SCR 722, <https://canlii.ca/t/1g6p9>, retrieved on 2026-01-17

[x] https://maidincanada.substack.com/i/179755246/epcs-credibility-problem

[xi] https://impactethics.ca/2023/11/28/more-canadian-psychiatrists-respond-no-maid-for-mental-illness/

[xii] Canadian Psychiatric Association https://www.cpa-apc.org/faqs/