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/

Is Euthanasia of Newborns with Disabilities next?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Anna Farrow wrote an article that was published by the Western Standard on January 3, 2026 titled: Canada's Chilling Next Step - MAiD for babies.

Farrow explains how the disturbing concept of euthanasia of newborns was introduced into Canada's euthanasia debate:

Most Canadians disagree strongly with the concept of euthanasia for babies. We know this because every time the topic comes up, the public’s response is one of instant horror. So why does it keep coming up?

The issue first surfaced in 2022 when Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians (CMQ) appeared before Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). The committee was examining plans to expand MAiD beyond terminal illness to cover cases of mental illness as well as to accommodate advanced requests and mature minors. But Roy’s advocacy went even farther. He also suggested MAiD could be considered for “babies from birth to one year of age” who are born with severe deformities or disabilities.

Farrow continues:

The public response was immediate shock. On CBC Radio, Liberal Disabilities Minister Carla Qualtrough snapped, “There is no world where I would accept that.” The reaction was sufficiently negative that even pro-life activists assumed it was a dead-end issue.

This past September, however, several international media stories on Canada’s MAiD program have re-ignited the baby MAiD debate. A long feature in the magazine The Atlantic headlined “Canada is Killing Itself” compared Roy’s baby euthanasia proposal to the policies of Nazi Germany — an argument that caused instant outrage among pro-MAiD lobby groups. Then the British newspaper Daily Mail asked the CMQ for an update on its stance and was told the organization now believes “medical assistance in dying may be an appropriate treatment for babies suffering from extreme pain” and that “parents should have the opportunity to obtain this care for their infant.”

Farrow writes about the fact that the most recent Canadian euthanasia data indicates that in 2024 there were 16,499 euthanasia deaths with 76,475 recorded deaths from legalization until December 31, 2024.

Considering that we are now in January 2026, There has likely been at least 94,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Farrow explains that, in the Netherlands, the Groningen protocol has been in place for many years, a protocol which permits euthanasia of newborns with disabilities.

Canada continues to debate euthanasia for mental illness alone.

In 2021, when Canada expanded its euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7, that legislation permitted euthanasia for mental illness alone, meaning that mental illness was the only criteria for approval. The issue of euthanasia for mental illness remains very contentious, which is why the previous Liberal government delayed the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 2027.

Currently Canada is debating a private members bill (Bill C-218) that is sponsored by Tamara Jansen (MP) Bill C-218 would reverse the section of the law that will permit euthanasia for mental illness alone starting in March 2027.

Bill C-218 debate (Article Link).

As for euthanasia of children, the parliamentary euthanasia committee released a report in February 2023 calling on the extension of euthanasia in Canada to mature minors.

I responded to the February 15, 2023 (AMAD) report by stating:

The report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 calling for a drastic expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada. Among the recommendations, the report recommended that euthanasia be expanded to include children "mature minors."

Recommendation 19 in the report stated:

That the Government of Canada establish a requirement that, where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.

This means that parents or guardians may or may not be consulted, in the euthanasia death of a child that is deemed to have decision-making capacity.

To understand Recommendation 19 better we need to go back to the draft policy developed by the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto on euthanasia for "mature minors" that was published as a report in the Journal of Medical Ethics in September 2018.

• Article: Sick Kids Hospital Toronto will euthanize children with or without parental consent (Link).

Sick Children's hospital draft policy applied the same "ethics" for mature minors to make medical decisions as for making a decision to be killed.

Euthanasia for mature minors is one issue but euthanasia of newborns with disabilities can only be described as eugenics.

Sadly, once killing by euthanasia becomes a legal option the law will continue to expand. There is only one ethical line in the sand, that being, it is illegal to kill. Once killing is OK the only remaining questions are: who can do the killing and for what reasons.

Previous articles about this topic:

• Canada's euthanasia lobby is pushing for child euthanasia (Link). 
• Australian Human Rights Commission pushes Assisted Suicide for Children. (Link).
• The euthanasia lobby is pushing for child and infant euthanasia (Link).
• Canadian children may be euthanized with or without parental consent (Link).