Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Robert Clarke, a lawyer and the director of advocacy with ADF International was published in the Federalist on March 23, 2026 with his article: Around the World, Assisted Suicide Laws Are Losing Support. Clarke outlines how campaigns to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide have lost their luster and a new direction has begun to begin rolling back laws that already exist.
Clarke writes:
Last week, Scotland resolutely rejected assisted suicide. Alberta announced major new legislation to protect individuals from the practice. And the clock is ticking in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords on a bill that would legalize the practice in England and Wales.
Clarke explains that the recent defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill by a vote of 69 to 57 happened with cross-party opposition to the bill. Clarke also refers to the introduction in Alberta of Bill 18, a government bill that will use provincial jurisdiction to institute greater protections for Albertans concerning euthanasia.
Alberta Bill 18 will:
- require the individual to have a 12 month terminal prognosis, thus preventing Track 2 euthanasia approvals. Track 2 refers to euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.
- prevent the expansion of euthanasia to people with mental illness alone,
- prevent the expansion of euthanasia to "mature minors", people who cannot consent and prevent euthanasia by advanced request,
- prevent out of province referrals,
- require the assessor to contact other practitioners who have cared for the patient, before approval.
- require (MAiD) euthanasia practitioners to receive specific training,
- prevent health care practitioners from introducing euthanasia, without a request,
- require Regulatory Colleges to sanction practitioners who violate the act.
- provide conscience rights by enabling practitioners to refuse to participate or provide assessments for (MAiD) euthanasia,
- enable institutions to refuse to participate or provide assessments for euthanasia,
- create an exclusion zone for euthanasia around an institution that refuses to participate,
- require practitioners who refuse to participate or provide assessments to provide information to patients wanting to access euthanasia.
Over the last four years, deaths in Alberta from Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) regime increased by 109 percent. In her announcement, Alberta’s premier, Danielle Smith, was clear that the proposed law is “about protecting vulnerable Albertans.” As the federal government seeks to expand MAID across the country, including by moving to allow assisted suicide solely on the basis of mental health concerns, Alberta is drawing a line to protect its most vulnerable. If passed, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act would prohibit MAID for minors and when the sole condition is mental illness, in addition to introducing other key protections and delineating a right to conscientious objection.
Clarke maintains that safeguards cannot make euthanasia or assisted suicide safe but Alberta Bill 18 is headed in the right direction by dealing with some of the most egregious parts of Canada's euthanasia law.
The key factors as to why euthanasia and assisted suicide have lost their luster are the radical implementation and expansion of Canada's euthanasia law and the incredible referendum overturning the Slovenian assisted suicide law. In fact, Canada's euthanasia law had a direct affect on Slovenia's successful referendum campaign.
Canada origally legalized euthanasia for people who were terminally ill and suffering. Canadians were told the the law would only be a last resort, but from the beginning the language of the law lacked definition which immediately led to a type of expansion.
In less than 5 years Canada expanded the law legally by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ili, eliminated the "reflection period" for those who are terminally ill to allow a same-day death, eliminating the requirement that a person be capable of consenting at the time of the killing and allowing euthanasia for mental illness alone. Parliament delayed euthanasia for mental illness alone. It is now scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.
The euthanasia stories from Canada have had an incredible affect on the world-wide euthanasia debate. The world asks how a 26-year-old diabetic man with a serious history with mental health issue, who lives in Ontario, could be killed by euthanasia in Vancouver BC after not being approved to be killed by doctors in his own province.
The world asks how a man with a back disability can be approved for euthanasia, even though he is only asking to be killed because of housing issues. The same question comes up concerning an Ontario woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivies who was living in social housing. She was killed by euthanasia even though she actually needed suitable housing.
These are only a few of the incredible number of stories from Canada that are changing the international perception of euthanasia and assisted suicide. For those who do not oppose killing people, euthanasia and assisted suicide are becoming an interesting theoretical experiment without an effective practical implementation.
The incredible referendum campaign that overturned Slovenia's assisted suicide law is another key factor. Here is an article I wrote about this campaign. (Read article).
Slovenia is the first country to legalize assisted suicide and then overturn the law. We all now how difficult it is to run a referendum campaign, but the Slovenian campaign stuck to their talking points and did not avoid the truth of what euthanasia and assisted suicide actually are,
The average person continues to have an aversion to killing people. So long as we focus on what euthanasia and assisted suicide actually are, we can win the debate. When become afraid of saying the truth and argue that euthanasia and assisted suicide are not necessary, that means that it is OK but not necessary. Why isn't it necessary?
Killing is not only not necessary but it is always wrong to give medical practitioners the right in law to kill you. Also, once legal it cannot be controlled. Killing is contagious.

4 comments:
For those who think that “assisted suicide” is only about ending someone’s pain, this is a lucid article demonstrating the slippery slope of any euthanasia proposal.
As prolife activists have known for half a century, the lie that assisted suicide is only about “ending pain” quickly changes into killing Grandma, especially if she has some mental illness.
All the more reason to reject those power-hungry politicians who support such killing, like the useless DNC Democrats.
thank you for this update
Bill 18 would “require practitioners who refuse to participate or provide assessments to provide information to patients wanting to access euthanasia.” This is still forcing those who do not want to participate nor provide to participate by providing the information necessary for someone to be killed. ‘I won’t kill you but I’ll tell you who will.’
Those who do not want to participate should not have to in any way whatsoever.
Yes, the average person has an aversion to killing people. This is one of the key realities that must be exploited in anti-euthanasia campaign messaging. I place it conceptually within the doctor's arena of concern in terms of argument. That is, doctors can be less than moral exemplars. People tend to extend total trust to doctors, and that lets people off the hook insofar as addressing the morality of doctors killing their patients. People tend to defer to doctors. In Slovenia, the use of the words "poison" and "poisoning" brought home to people the reality of what doctors are actually doing. Poisoning someone is not a good thing. In fact, it's positively a bad thing. So that calls into question the generally felt trust people have in doctor's moral decision-making.
The other key reality that must be exploited in anti-euthanasia campaign messaging concerns the victim's perspective. Namely, euthanasia can be excruciatingly painful. People want to believe that euthanasia is a painless alternative to a painful death. We know that sometimes it absolutely isn't painless. And the rest of the time, we don't know the subjective experience of victims who are immobilized by drugs and can't display physical signs of pain.
People must be informed that death by euthanasia can be excruciatingly painful, and that doctors can be less than moral exemplars. --Thomas Lester
Post a Comment