Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs your financial support (Read).
The legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), Hugh Scher, was in a Toronto court on July 21 / 22, 2026 representing EPC in the case concerning Claire Brosseau and Dying with Dignity.
The Brosseau case is asking the court to legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.
Scher reported that:
Scher summarized the EPC position before the court:
Scher reported that:
Leave to intervene was granted to EPC by order of the court. We prepared a 10 page written legal argument, reviewed the file documents and prepared for oral arguments for July 21 / 22.
The judge hearing the motion was Justice Carissima Mathen. Curiously, she used to be head of litigation for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Her background is in constitutional litigation particularly with respect to women's rights.
... At the hearing, she seemed much more interested in taking charge of the application than limiting the scope of her review to the motion for a stay which was the matter properly before her.
 |
| Hugh Scher |
In our oral submissions, we focussed on the core requirement of irremediability which was a core principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision as a criteria to access an assisted death. ...We relied on the significant evidence that suggests that it is impossible to determine if a person with a mental illness only is irremediable.Scher completed his report by stating:
It is also hard to determine prognosis given the significant changes that occur with mental illness that are often quite fluid. EPC urged the court against finding on the minimal record before it that a stay is appropriate.
We also suggested that the intention of this application was to avoid the change in direction of Parliament, effectively pitting the court against Parliament. ...Parliament has recently, through its parliamentary committee (AMAD) on euthanasia report indicated a desire to be cautious and to defer any further action on euthanasia for mental illness alone.
It remains to be determined what the court will do, particularly given the background of the judge and her possible desire to establish some kind of precendent. That said, the law is currently against granting a stay to grant Brosseau death based on mental illness alone.EPC has intervened in this case in an attempt to prevent the court from expanding euthanasia by legislating from the bench to allow euthanasia for mental illness alone.
Previous articles about the Brosseau case:
4 comments:
In 2020 I was in the courtroom for the Truchon-Gladu case which led to the expansion of medical homicide to persons not in a terminal condition. It was that change that also first opened access to those with a mental illness only.
At the time, lawyers representing our allies in Quebec were very confident. But as we later learned: the fix was in. I certainly hope that the same thing does not happen here, but we cannot take anything for granted, no matter how strong our arguments.
In addition, although winning now would be a major victory (saving us from a sudden death situation) the same arguments will eventually be heard before the Supreme Court.
Legal action is expensive, but absolutely necessary. We are deeply grateful to all who make that action possible.
There is an interesting study (in French) concerning medical homicide :
https://bo-k2s.science.po.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/l-extermination-de-malades-et-handicapes-mentaux-sous-le-regime-national-socialiste
The link doesn't work.
Désolée, on peut peut-être le trouver en cherchant par mots-clés "Aktion T4" ou "programme T4 1939", le rapport se réfère à Sciences-Po, grande école française, l'auteur du rapport est Gerrit Hohendorf. La similitude idéologique est frappante, les méthodes ont des points communs (isolement, empoisonnement médical). J'espère que vous trouverez.
Francine Tassin
Post a Comment