An open letter against legalising assisted suicide

To Prime Minister Andy Burnham and MPs 
(Link to the Open Letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham)

 

We are writing to call for a halt to the legislative process around assisted dying until disabled and terminally ill people have as much support to live as this bill would provide for us to die.

We are a group of disabled and terminally ill people who agree that the status quo cannot continue. But we believe that the only safe way to reduce suffering at the end of life is to reform the social and palliative care systems before any move is made towards a programme of assisted suicide.

Throughout history, disabled people’s lives have been consistently devalued, and we still experience this in the present on a daily basis. We are constantly fed the narrative that we are burdens, benefit scroungers and that it’s better to be dead than disabled. Not only do some of us internalise these messages, so do many of the people we encounter or rely on for support. Many disabled people have been made to consider suicide — not by the impact of our conditions, but the social context we live in.

Before we can talk about choosing to die, we need real autonomy over how we live our lives. At the moment, sick and disabled people, including terminally ill people, are denied choice over the most basic of things: our ability to get out of bed, wash, eat, leave our houses or manage our pain. This creates a coercive environment where people will choose an earlier death simply because they are being failed by society. Put simply, introducing assisted dying in these circumstances will put sick and disabled people’s lives at risk.

The prime minister is right: we must reform the care system before this bill can be considered and disabled people must be included in the conversation.

We are calling for you to vote No on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and then work with disabled people and our organisations to: Fully fund palliative care to ensure comprehensive and compassionate care is available to everyone who needs it, ensuring no one feels pressured to end their lives simply because they are not receiving the medical help they deserve;

Abolish the social care savings threshold for working-age social care users, so we can save for essentials and major life milestones such as a vehicle or home downpayment without risking our support, and are at less risk of financial coercion. End financial penalties and benefit reductions for disabled people who live with a partner, protecting financial independence and making it easier for those in coercive or abusive relationships to leave safely.

Equalise pay between social care and the NHS, thereby reducing staffing shortages and ensuring sick and disabled people receive professional care from well-trained care workers, vastly reducing suffering during and at the end of life; and
⁠Form a taskforce on independent and supported living, led by disabled people, and set out a time scale for implementing its recommendations within six months of its first report, so that we can move towards a society where terminally ill and disabled people have choices in all areas and stages of life, as well as at the end of it.

We understand the flaws in the current system. No one wants any terminally ill person to suffer unnecessarily at death. But we must protect the lives and rights of disabled and terminally ill people in life. We urge you to hear our voices, understand our fears and work with us to create a system that is safe for all: one that assists us to live.

Sincerely

Lucy Webster, Anna Landre, Jamie Hale, Kyla Harris, and Rensa Gaunt on behalf of The Assist Us To Live campaign 

Lucy Webster, Journalist and Advocate / Assist Us To Live

Anna Landre, Marshall Scholar, University College London / Assist Us To Live

Jamie Hale, Artistic and Executive Director, CRIPtic Arts / Assist Us To Live

Kyla Harris, Filmmaker / Assist Us To Live

Rensa Gaunt, Campaigner / Assist Us To Live

Liz Carr, Actor and Member, Not Dead Yet

Ruth Madeley, Actor

Baroness Jane Campbell of Surbiton, Member, House of Lords and Convenor, Not Dead Yet UK

Rosie Jones, Comedian

Samantha Baines, Actress and Broadcaster

Mat Fraser, Actor and Writer

Sophie Morgan, TV Presenter

Andrew Miller MBE, Cultural consultant & Broadcaster

Samantha Renke, Broadcaster

Mik Scarlet Wallace, Broadcaster and Co-CEO, Phab

Kamran Mallick, CEO, Disability Rights UK

Tracey Lazard, CEO, Inclusion London

Adam Gabsi, Chair, Inclusion London

Ellen Jones, Author

Cherylee Houston, Actor

Victoria Jenkins, Designer

Dr. Nora Groce, Professor, University College London

Dr. Eben Kirksey, Professor of Anthropology, University of Oxford

Catherine Holloway, Professor, University College London and Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub

Dr. Victoria Austin, Professor, University College London

Dr. Maria Kett, Professor, University College London

Natalie Kane, Curator, V&A and Deputy Leader of Lambeth Council, Green Party

Arthur Hughes, Actor

Rick Burgess, Care in Crisis Coalition and DPO Forum Co-Chair

Sarabajaya Kumar, Associate Professor, University College London and Director, Impatience Ltd.

Tracey Jannaway, Director, Independent Living Alternatives

Colin Brummage, CEO, Camden Disability Action

Rachel Charlton-Dailey, Journalist and Author

Cathy Reay, Writer and Journalist

Damian Joseph Bridgeman, Disability Task Force, Welsh Government and Chief Executive, Bridgeman Community Foundation

Selina Mills, Writer and Broadcaster

Shani Dhanda, Accessibility Specialist

Hannah Barham-Brown, NHS GP

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, Care Not Killing

Rachel Gadsden, Artist and Director

Tamm Reynolds, Artist

Dr. David Turner, Professor, Swansea University

Dermot Devlin, DPAC Northern Ireland

David Jones, Professor of Bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham

Peter Gay, Director, Disability Advice Service Lambeth (dasl)

Dr. Kevin Yuill, Professor Emeritus, University of Sunderland

Doug Paulley, Reasonable Access

Natalya Dell, Trustee, Reasonable Access

Tanya Motie, Former TV Executive

Aisling O’Connor, Co-founder and CEO, The Rosie Jones Foundation

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Campaigner

Dr. Amy Kavanagh, Activist

Dr. Louise Hickman, University of Cambridge

Jess Thom, Artistic Director, Touretteshero

Iyiola Olafimihan, Non-Executive Director, Global Disability Innovation Hub and Justice and Campaigns Lead, Alliance for Inclusive Education

Dan Edge, Actor and Access Coordinator

James Moore, Journalist

Natalie Amber, Actor

Elle McNicoll, Writer

Dr. Rob George, Professor, King’s College London

Eleanor Lisney, Director, Sisters of Frida

Jillian Nystedt

Ella Glendining, Filmmaker

Andrew Clark, Chair of Trustees, BuDS Disability Service

Wednesday Holmes, Illustrator and Author

CJ DeBarra, Author and Journalist

Simon Ford, Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Penny Pepper, Writer and Trustee, Independent Living Alternatives

Carrie-Ann Lightley, Writer

Lou Chandler, Content creator

Isaac Harvey, Disability Advocate

Dr. Calum Miller

Angie Airlie, CEO, Stay Safe East

Clare-Louise English, Director

Dr. Ros Jones, Paediatrician

Tamara Jansen (MP) to speak in Ontario on Bill C-218.

Tamara has speaking engagements in London, Hamilton and St. Catharines Ontario

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons, a bill that would prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone in Canada

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of (MAiD) euthanasia. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Bill C-218 received it's first hour of debate on December 5, 2025. It's second hour of debate is scheduled for soon after parliament returns in September.

Tamara Jansen, the sponsor of Bill C-218, has speaking events in London, Hamilton & St Catharines Ontario.

Tuesday, August 25 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Andrew Lawton
Byron-Springbank Legion Branch 533
1276 Commissioners Rd W, London, Ontario

RSVP FOR LONDON

Wednesday, August 26 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With MP Dan Muys
Ancaster Fairgrounds, Room AB - 630 Trinity Rd. S., Jerseyville, Ontario.

RSVP FOR HAMILTON

Thursday, August 27 | 7:30 PM
Doors open at 7:00 PM
With Conservative candidate of record Bas Sluijmers
Grantham Lions Club - 732 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario 

RSVP FOR ST. CATHARINES

Currently, on March 17, 2027 doctors and nurse practitioners will be allowed to kill patients, by lethal poison, when their sole underlying condition is a mental illness. A recent parliamentary report that was released on June 17, 2026 recommended that euthanasia for mental illness alone be indefinitely paused.

If passed, Bill C-218 will prevent euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. 

There are several effective ways you help get Bill C-218 passed:

1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to  info@epcc.ca.
4. Contact your Member of Parliament and share your story or share your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
5. Often it is easier and more effective to call your Member of Parliament. The phone numbers are part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness. 

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC on October 30 with new polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:

At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.

To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:

• Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with this issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
• Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
• Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact their Member of Parliament.

More information on Bill C-218.

• Bill C-218 introduced to prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Support Bill C-218. No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Supporting Bill C-218 - I am so thankful to be alive (Link). 
• I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Patti's story. Support Bill C-218. (Link).
• The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD (euthanasia) for mental illness (Link).

Tasmania has massive increase in assisted suicide deaths.

Alex in Tasmania

Tasmania to review assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tasmania legalized assisted suicide in 2022, has now announced that it will conduct a review of their assisted suicide law based on concerns related to the massive increase in assisted suicide deaths.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to speak in Tasmania where I warned about how the assisted suicide deaths would quickly increase once legalized.

The Tasmania assisted suicide reports indicate that the number of assisted suicide approvals, prescriptions and deaths have increased substantially since legalization.  The Tasmania reports are based on October to October. Link to the Tasmania (2022/23 report). Link to the Tasmania (2023/24 report).

Tasmania assisted suicide poison supplied: 2022/23 - 32, 2023/24 - 78, 2024/25 - 142.

Tasmania assisted suicide reported deaths: 2022/23 - 27, 2023/24 - 62, 2024/25 - 109.

You will notice that the data indicates that 2 deaths in 2023-24 were reported late. 

The Tasmanian reports refer to reported assisted suicide deaths since not all of the participants are accounted for in the data.

The rate of reported deaths by assisted suicide was 2.1% of all deaths in 2024/25 which was up from 1.2% of all deaths in 2023/24.

Meg Whitfield reported for the ABC News Australia on August 15, 2026 that:

An independent review into Tasmania's VAD legislation is currently underway to assess if it is still working as intended, and what improvements are needed.

It is being led by three experts — lawyer and former governor Kate Warner, end-of-life law expert Ben White, and palliative care specialist Michael Ashby.

A final report will be handed to the government by November 1.

Comments from the Australian Medical Association President, Meg Creely, provide concerns over the direction of the review. Whitfield reported Creely as stating:

President Meg Creely said that, overwhelmingly, medical practitioners involved with VAD found it "a really rewarding part of their medical career".

However, she said there was an administrative and financial burden on doctors that needed to be addressed.

"What we hear from our members is that legal access and practical access are not necessarily the same thing," Dr Creely said.

Creely seems to be suggesting that doctors who participate in killing their patients often find the act "rewarding" but they want to be paid more.

Canada has never reviewed their euthanasia law.

When Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, the original law (Bill C-14) required that the law be reviewed beginning in June 2020. That review never happened.

Instead Canada expanded the euthanasia law in March 2021 when it passed Bill C-7. Bill C-7 allowed people who without a terminally condition to be killed, it removed the 10-day waiting period when a person has a terminal condition, it allowed a doctor to kill an incompetent person, when that person was previously approved for euthanasia, and it allowed euthanasia for mental illness alone, which is currently scheduled to go into effect in March 2027.

After passing Bill C-7, the Canadian government established a euthanasia committee composed of 10 members of parliament and 5 Senators. The AMAD committee did not review the law but rather it examines further expansions of the law.

On July 1, 2026, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition launched a campaign demanding a complete review of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Please sign and share the link to our EPC petition (Petition Link)

Now that Tasmania is doing a review of their law, maybe it's time for Canada to review its euthanasia law. 

No One Has The High Ground On Disability Rights Part 2

By Meghan Schrader
Meghan is a disability activists and a member of the EPC-USA board.

No One Has The High Ground on Disability Rights Part 1 (Link).

Meghan Schrader

Like I’ve said, euthanasia falls on a spectrum of policies that marginalize and objectify people with disabilities. So, when I compare the policies of the United States and Canada, and look at the history of how American leaders from across the political spectrum have treated people with disabilities, I am tempted to despair about disabled people ever being any powerful leaders’ priority. This pattern of marginalization helps create the social conditions that make euthanasia seem like a legitimate solution to disabled people’s problems. 

We know that ableist institutional environments have contributed to coerced euthanasia in Canada. As I’ve mentioned, the USA Justice Department released a slip opinion saying that a 27-year-old federal community integration mandate that states provide enough community support for disabled people to avoid unnecessary institutionalization is essentially null and void; that mandate only forbids “unjustified” institutionalization and states can justify institutionalization however they want. 

In my opinion this development is selfish, bigoted and cruel. But the Province of Ontario in Canada has done the same thing with its More Beds Better Care Act, which allows euthanasia-eligible patients to be forcibly transferred to institutions far away from their families. 

In the past year and a half there have been several instances of USA disability policy regression that push disabled people towards bad life outcomes, and many disability advocates I know would go so far as to view the collective impact of these policies as a kind of authoritarianism. But the Canadian government taking over hospices that decline to participate in euthanizing disabled people that Canada has allowed to live in squalor and misery is no less authoritarian, especially when disabled Canadians have expressed the need for euthanasia-free healthcare spaces. “You had better kill people with disabilities on your property or the government will take over your hospice,” isn’t better than any disability policy being passed or suggested in the United States right now. 

Regardless of which political contingency most strongly influences US social policy, rhetoric that dehumanizes disabled people is everywhere. A conservative-leaning Catholic writer, JD Flynn, whose son has Down Syndrome, posted on X, “You’re not owning the libs by slurring disabled people.”

One X user tweeted back,

“As much as I understand your particular opposition to it, preserving the derogatory use of the word "retard" is in fact necessary for rejecting liberal control of language and defeating the euphemism treadmill which is taking over the English lexicon.”

Another X user wrote,

“Nobody calls disabled people retards anymore. They probably don't even remember what that word means. You're more likely to see a mentally handicapped person call you a retard for this post than to see one be offended by the use of the word.”

Bullies called me a retard when they threw rocks at me, pushed me into the dirt, used my blankie to clean a bathroom floor, pulled down my pants & said that they wished I was dead. I know what the r word means.

And disabled people who have been bullied with the r word do not exist to assist in “rejecting liberal control of language and defeating the euphemism treadmill which is taking over the English lexicon.”

Not that conservatives have a monopoly on this behavior. Remember back in 2008 when the leftist news site Wonkette wrote a despicable blog post about Trig Palin on his birthday?

If you thought that Governor Palin didn’t have the spoons to assume the presidency if Senator McCain died or if you loathed her policy positions that‘s fine, But it wasn’t ok for some liberal to create a vulgar meme taunting that in contrast to the many “retarded” things Palin had said, she had only given birth to one “retarded thing.”

It’s my experience that no matter whether society’s most powerful people identify as conservatives or liberals, leaders habitually ignore disabled people’s needs. This pattern helps create the social conditions for the euthanasia movement to flourish.

France's Constitutional Court approves euthanasia law, even for incompetent people.

France's euthanasia law allows doctors to kill incompetent people.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's Constitutional Court has essentially accepted the euthanasia bill as passed by France's National Assembly with the priviso that the Constitutional Court improved conscience rights. 

On July 15, 2026; France's National Assembly passed a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 to 241. This was the final vote in the National Assembly and it over rides the previous votes rejecting the euthanasia bill in France's Senate.

The battle was not over. Agence France-Presse reported on July 15 that:

The President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced Tuesday that he would refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, to take into account the oppositions that persist, especially on the right.

Sebastien Ostertag sent the following update from France. Ostertag reported:

The French Constitutional Council, which is similar to the US or Canadian Supreme Court, has upheld most of the current French euthanasia law.

Though euthanasia/assisted suicide will still be essentially as easy to obtain as the original law provided, there are a few freedom of conscience victories in the ruling. Most importantly, pharmacists now have conscience rights, which means that it will no longer be required of pharmacists to provide death drugs. Before this decision, all pharmacists would have been forced to provide the prescription death cocktail should they receive such an order. The judges respected the fundamental rights of pharmacists in this decision, which now means that all medical professionals dealing with MAID (medical aid in dying) will have the right to opt out.

Secondly, the court ruled that private religious establishments/retirement homes that don't want to allow MAID will be allowed to refuse as long as there are other locations nearby where a patient could get euthanized. If there aren't any other locations nearby then religious liberty is overridden by the new right to die. It puts religious establishments and their rights as secondary. However, it doesn't force them to close their doors, which is what would have happened had the Constitutional Council ruled that they didn't have a right to refuse.

Lastly, the court ruled that adults who have legal guardians due to age, IQ, cognitive ability, etc, will still be able to be euthanized so long as the physician carrying out the death has checked with their guardian. The decision doesn't give legal guardians the right to veto the physician, only that they must be consulted. In the end, the doctor still has the final say. This decision is essentially meaningless.

The question is now whether plaintiffs will file an appeal to the European courts, or whether they will accept this decision as is. In reality, the euthanasia law in France is still the second most extreme in the world after Canada and is on track to become the most extreme if those pushing its legalization get their way. They want euthanasia available for children as well as the defacto criminalization of suicide prevention. The 2027 French presidential elections will determine what happens next.

As much as we appreciate that the French Constitutional Court upholding certain conscience rights, it was concerning that religious liberty was treated as a secondary right and not a primary right.

It is shocking that the French Constitutional Court will allow euthanasia for people who cannot consent, such as people with cognitive disabilities. This decision will enable doctors to kill people with dementia, essentially emptying out the care homes.

Europe has not seen such a extreme eugenic law since the fall of Nazi Germany. People with disabilities, in France, need to rise up.

We encourage the plaintiffs to appeal this grave decision to the European court if not we can hope that the results of the 2027 French presidential elections will lead to a change in France.

Friend cancels her death date after receiving care and support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I spoke to an amazing retired nurse, earlier this week.

The woman (retired nurse) spoke about a friend who was approved for (MAiD) euthanasia but in the end had a true dignified natural death.

The woman told me that when she learned that her friend was approved for euthanasia that she visited friend and explained that she opposed euthanasia because it is about killing, and she emphasized that other options exist.

The retired nurse didn't stop there. 

The woman explained that she began visiting her friend regularly and helped her with some of her needs. She visited and offered care while hoping that her friend would change her mind.

At first her friend continued with her euthanasia decision.

The woman continued to visit and even brought other friends with her at times, so they could socialize and enjoy being with each other, while at the same time she advocated that her friend try care options that would benefit her.

Her friend was approaching death but her experience of living made her decide to delay her euthanasia death and eventually her friend canceled the euthanasia.

The woman told me that her friend told her that she had agreed to euthanasia because she didn't realize that other options existed. She thought that there were two options, dying by euthanasia or possibly dying in pain. When she realized that pain and symptom management existed and that she had friends who actually cared about her, she changed her mind.

The friend died a truly dignified and natural death.

This story challenges everyone to recognize that we all have people in our lives that need to be assured that being killed by (MAiD) euthanasia is not only wrong, but other options exist.

This story proves that caring for others, which is sometimes very difficult, has enormous benefits, but these experiences are worth it.

If you need training to become a visitor or an advocate for people in need contact Compassionate Community Care (Link) or email them at: info@beingwith.org

Lawsuit filed to prevent assisted suicide in Illinois.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We reported on December 12, 2025 that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed assisted suicide bill SB 9 into law. The Illinois assisted suicide law is scheduled to go into effect on September 12, 2026.

A group of Illinois physicians, a Catholic bishop and a faith-based nursing home filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Illinois’ assisted suicide law before it goes into effect.

John Clark reported for mystateline.com on August 12 that:

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, argues that the state’s End-of-Life Options Act violates constitutional protections for free speech, religious freedom and due process by requiring physicians and health care organizations that oppose assisted suicide to participate in the process against their beliefs.

Clark reports that the Illinois lawsuit is based on preventing assisted suicide and protecting freedom of speech, conscience rights and religious freedoms:

However, the new lawsuit argues that objecting physicians and institutions are still required to discuss what the law describes as end-of-life options, provide information or referrals to willing providers, and comply with other requirements that conflict with their religious beliefs and medical ethics.

The plaintiffs contend those provisions force them to endorse or facilitate actions they believe are morally wrong.

According to the complaint, the physicians object to informing patients about what the law characterizes as the benefits of medical aid in dying, referring patients to providers willing to participate, documenting certain requests in medical records, and complying with provisions governing death certificates.

Clark states that the lawsuit is seeking an injunction against the assisted suicide law. 

The suit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction blocking enforcement of those provisions before the law’s Sept. 12 effective date. Plaintiffs also seek declarations that portions of the law violate the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and certain federal health care statutes.

A similar lawsuit was filed in New York to prevent the implementation of their assisted suicide law. On July 31, 2026; The Beckett Fund reported that a temporary order was obtained preventing the state of New York from forcing Catholic Sisters and Catholic healthcare from participating in the assisted suicide law while the federal lawsuit by Catholic healthcare proceeds in the court.

The lawsuit instituted by the Beckett Fund has temporarily protected Catholic Healthcare from being forced to participate in assisted suicide but it has not achieved an injunction to prevent the New York assisted suicide from going into effect. 

On June 11, we reported that The Institute for Patients' Rights joined two federal lawsuits, one in New York and one in Illinois, with a coalition of national and state-based disability and patient advocacy organizations. For both states, Not Dead Yet, United Spinal Association, and the National Council on Independent Living, are organizational plaintiffs.

Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba

By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

New Mexico: 170 people prescribed assisted suicide poison in 2025.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Mexico 2025 assisted suicide report stated that there were 170 people who received the lethal poison prescription in 2025.

The basic data in the report stated:

In 2025, 170 individuals were prescribed the medication, reflecting a decrease from 213 in 2023. Among those prescribed, three individuals had not yet ingested the medication at the time of reporting. Females represented 51% of prescriptions and males 49%...

The report indicates that 166 of the 170 people had died by assisted suicide when the report was published.

There were 26 healthcare providers who prescribed MAID medication in 2025. Of those prescribed in 2025, three individuals had not yet ingested the medication at the time of reporting, and one of them died before ingestion.

The New Mexico assisted suicide law was sold to the public based on competent adults who freely consent to "self-ingest" the poison.

The New Mexico assisted suicide report does not confirm that these conditions were met.

Social Death of Disabled Fuels Assisted Suicide Culture

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader
Meghan is a disability activists and a member of the EPC-USA board.

In 2023 and 2024 I published blog posts celebrating the anniversaries of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was on July 26th. But I didn’t write a blog post last year; I wasn’t sure what to say.

Since 2025, there has been a year of disability access erosion. The government has strong-armed restructuring the Special Education system and attempted to eliminate bellwether disability programs and guidelines that have existed for decades. The government has reduced access to home and community care that helps prevent institutionalization. The government has attempted to reduce benefits for disabled veterans, discontinued sign language interpreters at White House press briefings, paused new regulations improving air travel for wheelchair users and much more.

One of the most radical changes to America’s disability access infrastructure is the Department of Justice’s approach to a 1999 SCOTUS precedent called Olmstead LC. Olmstead generally requires states to provide community supports to disabled people who would be unnecessarily institutionalized without them. Ie, SCOTUS held that there may be some people who do need institutionalization, like if they are homicidal, have no ability to care for themselves whatsoever or prefer to live in an institution. But within reason, states can't put disabled people in institutions because states prefer that to community support. This determination created Olmstead’s “community integration mandate.”

For 27 years, Olmstead has been interpreted to mean that states have to create as many community services as possible. Legal loopholes and structural barriers to community services continue to cause unnecessary institutionalization, but Olmstead helps many disabled people who can live safely in their communities avoid arbitrary confinement.

Recently the Department of Justice released a slip opinion saying that states don't have to follow that precedent anymore; if they want to consolidate their disability services in institutions, and thus coerce disabled people who could live safely in their communities into institutions, that's fine. The Olmstead precedent still stands, but the DOJ will not enforce it.

At the same time, the government has proposed eliminating categorical grants for the Agency For Community Living, dismantling the ACL and spreading its functions across different agencies, even though the ACL has been shown to play a crucial role in helping disabled people live in their communities. The President’s 2026 budget proposed eliminating the federal Long Term Care Ombudsman Program that helps monitor abuse in institutions, and HHS rescinded guidance requiring that nursing homes hire enough staff to prevent life-threatening neglect. These policies make it more likely that disabled people will be institutionalized and will increase the misery of those experiences.

Coercive institutionalization has a significant impact on euthanasia prevention efforts. Bear in mind that one of the ways hospital staff have tried to bully disabled Canadian Roger Foley into assisted suicide is to withhold medical equipment and procedures needed to meet his basic needs. Disabled Canadian Normand Meunier died by assisted suicide because a hospital didn’t keep an accessible mattress on hand which resulted in him developing a festering bedsore. Although our assisted suicide laws are not as expansive as Canada’s, many disabled people who would become terminal without the correct support are also at risk of being unnecessarily institutionalized. Coercing such persons into institutions makes it more likely that they will choose assisted suicide.

I think all readers can understand that people need the solace and support of their communities, and to feel that they belong there. Forcing people who do not need to be institutionalized into institutions is like an unjust prison sentence. Such situations cause despair and hopelessness, furthering the culture of death that euthanasia opponents are trying to fight.

I invite readers to consider late disability studies scholar and assisted suicide opponent Paul Longmore’s concept of “social death.” In Longmore’s memoir “Why I Burned My Book And Other Essays On Disability,” Longmore criticizes assisted suicide advocates for ignoring ableism.

Longmore asserts:

“One wades through reams of this suicide rights advocacy without finding any real acknowledgment of the intense social stigma and discrimination that segregate people with disabilities…deny them opportunities for education, employment, marriage, and family, rob them of social dignity and self-esteem, and inflict on many of them what can only be called "social death." One searches in vain for even a passing reference to the civil-rights movement of disabled Americans that has been battling this discrimination for generations. One finds no mention and, one concludes, no knowledge of the independent-living movement of people with major physical disabilities. Apparently, none of this has attracted the attention or interest of suicide rights activists.”

Collectively, the aforementioned policy changes and proposals inflict the “social death” that Longmore talked about. Weakening the requirement that states provide support in the most integrated setting possible will rob unjustly institutionalized persons of hope. That’s the impact of weakening disability access laws in general: robbing disabled people of hope for a happy, dignified life.

So, euthanasia opponents, embrace your full potential as human dignity advocates: honor euthanasia prevention and the 36th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act by supporting policies that help disabled people thrive.

Author Note 1: I did an interview with moral theologian Charlie Camosy about how coerced institutionalization and assisted suicide are connected to one another. It can be read here.

Author Note 2: For a detailed list of the extensive disability policy changes that have been implemented or attempted in the past year, see this link.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) exists to build a well-informed, broadly-based network of groups and individuals supporting measures that will create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada created the term (MAiD) - medical assistance in dying, to make us feel better about killing, but the reality is that Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and expanded the law in 2021 by removing the requirement that a person be terminally ill to be killed.

In January EPC released the Life Worth Living film that explains what has happened in Canada while featuring important personal stories related to euthanasia. This is a powerful award winning film. You can watch the trailer or purchase the film at: https://lifeworthlivingfilm.com/

Canada is currently scheduled to extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone in March 2027.

On May 5, 2026, we spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that was examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone. The position of EPC is to demand that Canada fully review it's euthanasia law rather than further expand the law. On June 17, the parliamentary committee advised the federal government to not extend euthanasia to people with mental illness alone. We await the government's response.

EPC is intervening in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby launched an emergency court case that would approve Brosseau for death by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. In essence, the euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by approving death for Brosseau as the Canadian government continues to debate this issue.

The cost of intervening in the Brosseau case is excessive. We need your financial support to cover the legal costs. (EPC Donation Link).

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

For more information you can read our newsletters (newsletters link) or you can read more of our blog articles (EPC Blog Link). The EPC blog has more than 6300 articles and has had more than 17 million pageviews.

EPC has many more activities. We need your support to continue our work. Donations can be made at: (credit card online Link) or (Paypal donation Link) or send an E-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.