The deeper meaning of an absurd demand

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

On May 5, 2026, Helen Long, CEO of the oddly named Canadian death-lobby flagship ‘Dying with Dignity’, expressed her desire that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (which is presently reconsidering the 2027 implementation of medical homicide for patients with psychiatric conditions alone) might usefully hear testimony from those persons who are most immediately impacted. In making this observation, she quoted Claire Brosseau, who used the iconic disabled-rights slogan, "Nothing about us without us", which vigorously affirms the principle that no decisions, affecting disabled persons, should be taken without disabled input.

Article: Should EPC apologize to Helen Long from Dying With Dignity? (Read).

On May 7, Ms. Long's wish was eloquently granted when the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published a commentary by Amy Hasbrouck, past President of the Coalition, Founding Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, and a pillar of Canadian Disability activism for many years. This I believe, is precisely the sort of personal, informed, and directly affected testimony that Ms Long's call for disabled voices might most beneficially have elicited.

Unfortunately for the thesis of Ms. Long, however, Ms Habrouck's conclusion is unambiguously (and unapologetically) opposed to any medical homicide at all, much less that for persons afflicted with mental illness. Indeed, Amy made her argument by generously referencing both collective and personal experience, to examine the ways in which this now scheduled extension of medical homicide would negatively impact persons such as herself. In doing so, she rather colorfully condemned Ms. Long's use of the phrase "Nothing about us without us", observing that it is (in her opinion) grossly inappropriate to parrot words so clearly associated with those individuals, and organizations, which are most vehemently opposed to the objectives of death-lobby operatives such as Ms. Long.

As it turns out, Ms. Long has not seen proper to respond --herself-- to the comments of Amy Hasbrouck, and that, I believe, most wisely (although I would dearly love see her try). However, persons closely associated with Ms. Long have indeed flown to her defense, actually demanding apologies from both Amy Hasbrouck and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

It is perhaps best to ignore the ridiculous basis of such a request, but I do believe it is useful to examine the assumptions of entitlement which seem to have made it possible, since those same entitled assumptions are more widely (and most perniciously) weaponized throughout the underlying debate regarding medical homicide.

Briefly stated: it is widely assumed that the "suffering" of those people seeking recourse to medical homicide cannot be questioned. And from that first assumption spring several others. First, we tend to accept that such people may make any extreme statements that they like (including the most egregious attacks on other individuals); and second, that any criticism (whatsoever) of such individuals, of their behavior, or of their statements, is simply unacceptable.

However, that which might provide a reasonable standard in private conversation cannot be transported to the realm of discourse surrounding public policy. Unfortunately, in the present case, to accept that individuals seeking medical homicide might benefit from a special "sufferers" privilege --which places their beliefs beyond the reach of any rational criticism-- is also to concede the main point in contention (that acceptance of medical homicide is indeed justified as public policy). And that, in all conscience, we cannot do. For we must also remember the people whose defense we are espousing in opposing such a policy (which paradoxically includes Claire Brosseau, who we hope will achieve recovery from her condition).

It thus becomes necessary for us to confront the uncomfortable fact that what may be spontaneous, in individual communication, becomes strategic at the political level; that without reference to any individual, the exploitation of compassionate sentiment becomes a political tool, or as Polonius so shrewdly remarks in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't".

Without the slightest nuance, when those associated with the death-lobby tell us that we "do not understand", they are crassly attempting to impose upon the best sentiments of good people who do not, indeed, have such experience. But in so doing, they are also ignoring --and attempting to suppress-- the experience and desires of the lion's share of those people who actually do.

When we read Claire Brosseau's passionate diatribe in support of Helen Long (while savagely attacking Amy Hasbrouck, M.P. Andrew Lawton, and by extension so many others) we must remember that Ms. Brosseau's "suffering" cannot reasonably trump that of Ms. Hasbrouck.

More generally, it is simply not true that those who would seek medical homicide are suffering any more than their surviving counterparts. For there is, in fact, no correlation in this regard. Quite to the contrary: the number of people persisting in their struggle to survive (in objectively similar medical circumstances) is vastly greater than those who seek assisted death. For there is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide might be represented as normal.

When we are told, therefore, that we do not “understand” the suffering of that small minority who would allegedly benefit from assisted death, we must reply that this is false. For we (or at least a great many of us) do indeed understand.

However, unlike the death-lobby we also understand the suffering of the overwhelming majority, whose access to real medical assistance in their own wilful quest to survive, will be significantly degraded by the institutional acceptance of that practice.

Given the need to protect the vital interests of this majority, it is my firm opinion that the suicidal (and their ideological supporters) should be fully satisfied with the simple decriminalization of suicide. It is enough, I believe (and indeed more than enough) that society might view their choice in a morally neutral fashion. It is not desirable that the conceptual ramifications of that choice should be permitted --through official validation-- to pollute the social and medical landscape for the non-suicidal majority.

And indeed, this principle is even more evident when we remember that the dead are truly gone, and that our validation of them has no meaning to themselves.

But those who are struggling --with the consequences of socially validated suicidal acts-- remain among us now, and must continue to live in the world which this ill-advised cult of suicidal adulation has poisoned.

Gordon Friesen,

No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) seeks intervention standing in euthanasia for mental illness case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking to intervene in the "emergency relief" court case that was launched by Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia lobby group, to have an Ontario court approve death by medical homicide for Claire Brosseau who is living with mental illness alone.

The May 4, 2026 Dying with Dignity press release stated that:

Ms. Brosseau, Dr. Patricia Smith, and Dying With Dignity Canada, filed a court challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the exclusion of individuals living with grievous and irremediable mental illness from MAID eligibility is discriminatory. It violates the rights to equality and liberty and security of the person protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, submitted the court intervention application outlining our litigation experience that began in 2004 and includes interventions at every level in Carter, the case that legalized medical homicide in Canada. Scher stated:

EPC will tailor its intervention, if granted, so as to not duplicate submissions made by other parties to the litigation and will focus on the scope of its intervention on the public policy implications including people with mental health disabilities on the application of an exemption to the MAiD provisions of the Criminal Code that would allow for the application of MAiD to a person with a mental illness only.

When Canada passed Bill C-7 in March 2021, that expansion of the medical homicide law included extending killing to people with only a mental illness. At that time parliament declared a two-year moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone to provide time for parliament to establish guidelines. Parliament later extended the moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone until March 17, 2027.

Recently parliament reconvened the AMAD committee (Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying) to examine whether or not Canada was "ready" to permit medical homicide for mental illness alone. The committee will submit a report later this year.

At the same time, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 in the House of Commons to prevent euthanasia for mental illness by excluding mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218 will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

Dying With Dignity, Ms. Brosseau, and Dr. Patricia Smith launched the current emergency relief court case in an attempt to get an Ontario court to legislate from the bench by giving Ms. Brosseau an exemption to be killed, even though parliament has a moratorium on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

We will not know immediately whether or not our intervention application is accepted but we will need your financial support. 

Please donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition court intervention (online donation) (paypal donation) donate by e-transfer to info@epcc.ca or call our office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Should the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition apologize to Helen Long from Dying with Dignity?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On May 5, I had the opportunity to present to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD). The AMAD committee is examining whether Canada was "ready" to begin euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone, which is currently scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

My presentation time was shared with Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group and Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia after experiencing a head injury from a car accident.

My presentation focused on Canada needing to conduct a complete review of it's euthanasia law which was required in the original legislation but has never been done. All of the reviews of Canada's euthanasia law were limited to examining further expansions of the law.

On May 4, the day before the AMAD committee hearing, Dying With Dignity filed an emergency relief in an Ontario court, urging the court to legislate from the bench and order the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. The Dying with Dignity press release, explains that Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith filed the case.

During the question and answer session at the AMAD committee Helen Long claimed to represent the people who were demanding euthanasia for the sole underlying condition of mental illness. She then read a letter from Claire Brosseau whereby Brosseau complains that the AMAD committee did not bring witnesses from people who are seeking euthanasia, based on mental illness alone.

In concluding the Brosseau's letter, Long read: 

“We so often hear the expression ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ and yet they have refused to hear from any people who are harmed from the exclusion…”

Amy Hasbrouck

Amy Hasbrouck, the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition responded to the use of the axiom "Nothing about us without us" with an article that essentially tells the euthanasia lobby to: Get our words out of your mouth.

Hasbrouck challenges Long and the euthanasia lobby based on the fact that people with disabilities experience the ultimate discrimination through euthanasia laws, that being death. Hasbrouck explains the long-standing opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide by the disability community and completes her article by stating:

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

Since then the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck have been lobbied by euthanasia lobbyists, Claire Brosseau and her family to apologize to Helen Long.

John Brosseau sent the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Amy Hasbrouck this message:

I find myself compelled to respond to the words you published about Helen Long. 

Helen Long has sustained my daughter through circumstances of profound and unrelenting difficulty. She has offered her support with a constancy and grace that few possess. There is no ambiguity about her character or her commitment to Claire. You were cognizant of the fact that Helen spoke on my daughter’s behalf. You possessed this knowledge. You chose to publish your critique nonetheless, directing it at a woman whose sole purpose has been to advocate for my daughter’s dignity and her right to self-determination.

Claire Brosseau sent us a message, urging us to apologize to Helen Long.

So what did Amy Hasbrouck write that requires an apology? 

Hasbrouck, who practised law in Massachusetts, stated that she is a survivor of childhood trauma, she has lived with mental illness and she has been a long-time disability rights activist. Among other things, Hasbrouck wrote:

If she (Helen Long) knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

Hasbrouck was angry about the use of the disability axiom, "Nothing about us without us" to promote euthanasia, especially since euthanasia was legalized in Canada without considering the concerns of the disability community. Considering her experience and Canada's reality I consider Hasbrouck's anger to be in it's proper place.

As for Brosseau, she is being used by the euthanasia lobby for the purpose of expanding euthanasia to people with mental illness. If she wants to be used by the euthanasia lobby, then that's her decision, but if she is granted death by the court, based on mental illness as the sole criteria, many more people will also be killed based on that precedent. Killing results in many more people being killed.

I oppose killing people and I support the best possible care being provided. But death is never a solution even when it becomes the final solution.

But if I am wrong and if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition should apologize to Helen Long for publishing Amy's article, then let the readers tell us. Otherwise I will continue to support Amy Hasbrouck and the disability community.

Patient autonomy meets the ‘Groningen Protocol’ (euthanasia of newborns)

Killing of the incapable increases lethal pressure on capable patients.

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen

It has been repeatedly and fallaciously claimed that medical 'assistance in dying' is (and always shall be) an exercise of patient autonomy; that it poses no threat to incapable patients.

However, the legalization of medical homicide, in the alleged context of choice, has also sparked the rapid advancement of other variations, where autonomy is either limited, or impossible, and whose justification depends, not upon choice, but upon the objective judgment of medical circumstances.

This point is most emphatically illustrated by present Canadian consideration(1) of the Dutch ‘Groningen Protocol’,(2) which practice originally included the infanticide of babies up to 12 months, and is now being considered to include children up to 12 yrs (3). Clearly, no one might pretend that such deaths reflect autonomous choice.

Normalized infanticide, of course is extremely problematic on its own. For decisions which doctors (and parents) might previously have worried over, long and hard, will now become routine. Crucial enabling concepts which echo the worst phase of twentieth century eugenics, that is, concepts such as ‘incompatibility with life’,(4)  will become increasingly elastic.

From a situation analogous to the historically extreme (and exceedingly rare) destruction of clearly inedible food, prospective parents will inevitably pass to the capricious practice of modern shoppers at the supermarket, disdainfully rejecting any fruit with the slightest blemish.

However our present interest with legal infanticide most closely concerns its relation to the evolution of medical homicide more generally.

Unsurprisingly, our adversaries simply deny any connection. According to the mendacious sophistry thus employed: infanticide cannot be an extension of MAID, because MAID is legally defined to require an informed consent, of which infants are incapable!

However (as we must reply) infanticide by doctor is clearly a form and extension of medical homicide (of which MAID was only the first permitted instance). And this fact both underscores, once again, the importance of employing proper language; and irrefutably demonstrates the expansion of medical homicide beyond the capacity border.

But there is more. For just as the assumed legitimacy of poisoning capable patients suggests a similar legitimacy for the incapable, so also, this allegedly objective justification of medical homicide turns back upon itself: to increase the pressure upon non-compliant, capable patients, to more readily accept their proffered fate.

For once the principle is openly proclaimed --that imperfect life does not deserve to live-- how can people be expected to accept imperfection in others, or in themselves?

In other words: to protect the incapable is also to protect ourselves.

Gordon Friesen, May 19, 2026

       (1) Schadenberg, Alex, Is Euthanasia of Newborns with Disabilities next?, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, January 16, 2026 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/01/is-euthanasia-of-newborns-with.html
    (2) Verhagen, Eduard, M.D., J.D., and Sauer, Pieter J.J. , M.D., Ph.D., The Groningen Protocol — Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns, N Engl J Med 2005;352:959-962, March 10, 2005 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058026
    (3) Schadenberg, Alex, The Netherlands plans to extend euthanasia to children, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, April 14, 2023 https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-netherlands-to-extend-euthanasia-to.html
    (4) Zhuang, Zara, ‘Stop saying fetuses with disabilities are incompatible with life, The Irish Times, Nov 25 2014, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/stop-saying-fetuses-with-disabilities-are-incompatible-with-life-1.2014538

France's Senate rejects assisted suicide for the second time.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's Senate once again defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide, on Monday May 11, 2026 by a vote of 151 to 118. The Senate then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the part of the law that improves access to palliative care.

On January 21, 2026, France's Senate defeated a similar assisted suicide bill that had passed in the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025.

Even though France's Senate has defeated the assisted suicide bill twice and both times overwhelmingly passed a bill to improve palliative care, based on France's system of government the assisted suicide bill may pass again in the National Assembly and still become law. Third reading on the bill in the National Assembly could still happen in June.

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).

MAiD (euthanasia). How does death actually occur?

So when they die, they're actually drowning in their own blood.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Bridge City News did an interview with Dr Joel Zivot, who is a Candian anesthesiologist and adjunct professor at Emory University in the United States. Zivot spoke to the Bridge City News about how euthanasia drugs cause death. I have edited the comments by Zivot for length. Zivot stated:

I'm an anesthesiologist and I also do intensive care medicine. I'm from Canada originally and I've been in the US for a number of years, and I'm always interested with what's happening in Canada. I have practised in Canada and I trained in Canada.

Zivot comments on the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision that led to the legalization of euthanasia, which is known as MAiD in Canada. Zivot continued:

I was concerned that such an action would imperil medical professionalism in Canada because it seemed to be advocating a wholesale ethical change as to what physicians are supposed to be doing. Medicine is interested in saving life, not taking it.

...In my intensive care capacity I encounter a lot of patients who die and that's normal and natural but the idea that medicine could be transformed into a practice that I could actually kill someone and call it treatment. Now treatment can be killing. That, of course, to me is an anathema to the ethical practice of medicine.

In the US I am also involved with the area of the death penalty. The reason I got involved in the death penalty is the use of science and medicine as a method of punishing people. The most common method of execution in the US is lethal injection which takes certain types of chemicals that in my hands are medicine and in the state's hands are poison and repurposes them to kill prisoners.

Zivot comments on his beliefs related to the death penalty and then says:

It's not the job of the doctor to kill prisoners and it is not the job of the tools of medicine. So my protest is that if the state wants to executive people, it has to use a technique that isn't an impersonation of medicine.

Zivot then comments on Canada's euthanasia program:

Assistance in Dying in Canada is strikingly similar to the way that prisoners are executed in the United States. When I realized that was going on that caught my attention.

I have reviewed hundreds of autopsies of prisoners executed using lethal injection and found a strikingly common finding of bloody froth in their lungs. So when they die, they're actually drowning in their own blood.

You may have no sympathy for convicted murderers but the US Constitution makes it very clear that when a prisoner is punished that the punishment can't be cruel. I believe that the punishment of lethal injection creates a cruel death.

I brought those same concerns to Canada. My concern in the Canadian assisted dying system is that there's been a persistent dishonesty in exactly what is happening when people are being killed by MAiD.

Dr Zivot was asked about the drugs that are being used for euthanasia. Zivot responds:

No drug company is manufacturing a drug where the labelled indication is to kill. It's not made for that. ...In both the death penalty and assisted dying, it's recognized that these drugs can be repurposed and be converted into poison.

Zivot comments on medical politics in Canada. He then speaks about dying with dignity:

There's been little focus on is the killing part of being dead. To get from alive to dead, you have to be killed, you have to die, and that's not instantaneous. So there's a thing that has to be done to you that causes your death. And that can take some time. 

So words like dignity of course, what does it mean to be dignified, to die with dignity? ...

So to suggest somehow that the only dignity available to people who are suffering is to kill them feels to me to be a very sinister use of the word dignity.

You're basically saying that if you want to be alive and in pain that there is something wrong with you. So if your not dying with dignity then you're living with undignity.

That's branding, that's a false and pernicious claim about people who want to be alive.

Zivot was asked about euthanasia being extended to people with mental illness alone in March 2027. Zivot responds:

That's obviously very disconcerting. Let's hope that between now and then that clearer heads prevail.

I take care of a lot of people who are mentally ill. I have patients who've tried to kill themselves. 

When I encounter them, my assumption is that they want to live. Sure enough, in many cases once they have recovered from their attempted suicide, they live. Sometimes there's gratitude.

I think that you want your doctor to assume that you want to live. Mental illness leads to a series of bad decisions. I don't know how. if we say that a person has mental illness and loses capacity, that the capacity to request death, that capacity is preserved.

So why is a person who is mentally ill able to make that decision? 

Zivot then comments his experience with patients with mental illness and how they are cared for to help them live. Zivot states:

If there is some particular theoretical person who has thought about it, who's done every possible thing, who is not under resourced, who is not lonely, ... and you think that person should be allowed to die? I still don't think it's my job to do it. 

The problem is that once you make that available, you create opportunities and incentives for people to die and that's the worst possible thing.

Zivot was then asked, if lethal injection results in death by drowning, why aren't there more doctors screaming from the rooftops? Zivot responds:

I presented my concerns to the Senate of Canada and I was roundly criticized for it. When I was testifying, a person who was there waiting their turn to speak was an advocate of MAiD, when talking about MAiD he began to cry and said it was the most beautiful thing he had ever seen.

When it came to my turn, I said to the chairperson, if you would like me to cry, I can do that too, if that would be effective.

I am not suggesting that this person was not sincere, but the sense that the only beauty lies in killing is a terrible, terrible idea. 

Zivot was then asked for his final comments. He said:

MAiD is basically saying that if you don't have MAiD then you're facing a terrible painful death. That is untrue.

Palliative care is a branch of medicine that is probably underfunded. Even without palliative care, I'm a physician in intensive care and I deal with people who are dying and I'm pretty comfortable in providing people with sedation or pain control to allow a natural death.

I don't need to kill them. They will die and they don't have to die in pain. 

What people really need is companionship.

Zivot spoke about a study on labour epidurals. The study found that when a woman has companionship and support that the pain she experienced was less. Zivot continued:

We should be there in support of people while they live. If death is going to occur, then we should provide something to ease the pain of natural dying but we don't need to kill them to do that. It's just not true. 

I think that MAiD has created this illusion that there's only two choices. It's either a miserable painful death or MAiD.

That has to stop and be challenged.

Zivot ended the interview by commenting on the effect of Canada's Charter on the euthanasia issue.

Previous articles concerning Dr Joel Zivot (Link to articles).

Dutch Psychiatrist warns Canada: Don't extend euthanasia to mental illness

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Jim van Os

I had the opportunity to speak to the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026 (Link to my testimony). 

Before my presentation, the committee featured three Psychiatrists from the Netherlands explaining their experience with euthanasia for mental illness. Dr Jim van Os, a Professor of Psychiatry at Utrecht University warned Canada not to extend euthanasia to mental illness.

Professor van Os told the Parliamentary committee:

 

The Dutch experience, in my opinion, offers a warning for Canada. For 20 years our euthanasia law left psychiatric cases largely untouched. However, over the past decade, a small group of activist physicians and organizations built a practice through sustained media campaigns.

In 2024, the Dutch Euthanasia Expertise Center (euthanasia clinic) received around 5000 requests, roughly 1000 on psychiatric grounds. Among people under 30, requests rose from about 30 per year to nearly 900 in six years. Completed euthanasia rose fivefold.

This pattern has been widely interpreted as a so-called suicide contagion effect amplified by the institutions that should safeguard against it.

This committee perhaps should keep in mind under the Dutch law physicians must agree that there are no reasonable options. Euthanasia is in principle the very last resort. Canadian law does not work this way. 

In Canada patient choice trumps the physician's professional judgment. So a doctor cannot insist that other options be tried first. That single difference will in our assessment drive Canadian numbers beyond ours. 

In 2024 the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities warned that the Dutch practice was unsafe. Persons with psychosocial disabilities have a fundamental human right of protection against premature death. 

Euthanasia for mental suffering cannot be cleanly separated from physician performed suicide. It is in many cases suicide carried out by a psychiatrist. 

Our research and clinical work reveal a minefield on every side.

Autonomy. Most who request euthanasia for mental suffering are traumatized, marginalized, often living in poverty without prospects.

Mental illness, by definition, compromises autonomy. Calling such a request a free expression of choice ignores the substance of the suffering.

Discrimination. The arguments that refusing euthanasia for mental suffering is discriminatory equates psychiatric suffering with terminal cancer. It is a false equivalence.

Cancer with a two-month prognosis is linear and progressive. Mental suffering is not. Recovery happens often unexpectedly through relationships, purpose, meaningful work, bonding with another person or even an animal.

The patient recovery movement insists that recovery is possible for everyone. Plasticity is the rule.

Criteria. Clinicians do not agree on irremediability, on futility, on competence. The result is something like a lottery.

Whether you receive suicide prevention or a lethal injection depends on which clinician you meet.

Substance. Recent Dutch analysis show that many who receive euthanasia for mental illness are women with unaddressed trauma. Their unconscious self-destructive dynamics get enacted in the procedure. The psychiatrist becomes recruited into a deadly outcome.

Toffrey Wayne and colleagues describe how, in the Netherlands, people with autism spectrum traits increasingly receive euthanasia for what is at root social suffering framed in medical language. The intervention should be social and existential, not lethal.

Psychiatry claims it can prevent suicide n one patient and help finalize suicide in another with the same suffering. That is incoherent. It is not autonomy, it is not anti-discrimination, it is a contradiction at the heart or our profession. 

My message to Canada.

Do not expand euthanasia to those with mental illness. The evidence is not there. The UN, the International Association for Suicide Prevention and our lived experience point the same way. 

The social trials that we run in the Netherlands show another path. Care that builds relational continuity, hope and connectedness. That is the system worth building, not procedural pathways to death.

It is impossible to determine if a psychiatric condition is irremediable.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I had the opportunity to speak to the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026 (Link to my testimony).

During the question / answer session MP Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil) commented on his personal experience with cancer and stated that he supported euthanasia for people who are going through significant pain and near the end of life and then asked: 

What would be the argument that you would give to somebody who says that by denying someone who's sole illness is mental illness the right to access MAiD, wouldn't that be denying them their autonomy and the freedom to make choices that they deem necessary to make themselves?

I responded (paraphrased): 

...you were talking about cancer pain and that's a completely different thing than psychological pain. 

We are hearing psychiatrists say to us very clearly that to access a grievous and irremediable medical condition for psychiatric conditions would assume that there is a clear consensus or a clear way to say that this person is not going to get better and psychiatrists are saying that it is not possible to say that. So we are talking about a diagnosis that is not able to be confirmed as irremediable and yet the question is can they go ahead with MAiD (euthanasia) in those cases?

If it were a physical condition and where the condition is not irremediable, the person is not dying and likely to get better, then the doctor would say that we cannot approve you for MAiD (euthanasia) and yet we are saying with mental health that we can't determine irremediability but we might approve it anyway.

Even though psychiatrists are saying that it is impossible to declare a psychiatric condition as being irremediable (will not get better) some psychiatrists will decide that a person has an irremediable psychiatric condition and then approve euthanasia. People who are living with suicidal ideation and want to die by euthanasia will then doctor shop and go to that psychiatrist, who would become known as the euthanasia psychiatrist.

 

Senator Yonah Martin (BC) agreed that Canada has not done a full review of the law. She said that the numbers show an increasing number of MAiD deaths and an increasing number of problematic situations.

Senator Martin asked the following question (Question at 20:21:30):

What do the current outcomes tell you that makes the 2027 expansion of MAiD for mental illness alone unsafe.

My response (paraphrased):

It is impossible to expand MAiD to mental illness when you consider how the current law is working and also how the language is set in the law.

If you cannot determine irremediability then obviously people would not qualify based on a mental illness. But if someone (a psychiatrist) from their own professional experience says that the person's condition is irremediable (will not get better) then it would lead to a situation of doctor shopping where people who want to die by MAiD, based on mental illness alone, would go to that specific psychiatrist because that's the one who is willing to approve them.

They (the doctors) only have to say, according to the law, that they are "of the opinion" that the person fits the criteria of the law.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

Nothing about us, without us"

This article was published by Amy Hasbrouck on her substack on May 7, 2026.

Amy Hasbrouck

By Amy Hasbrouck

Get our words out of your mouth.

Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement in advocating to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people whose requests arise only from a mental illness. Allegedly Ms. Long, who does not identify as disabled, criticized the parliamentary committee for not seeking input from people with mental illness who want government help to ensure fulfillment of their suicidal wishes. Specifically she said the committee had not respected the principle of “Nothing about us, without us.”

(Ms. Long was reading a text by Claire Brosseau, who is a woman who is seeking euthanasia based on mental illness alone).

Say what?

Assuming Ms. Long doesn’t have the lived experience of disability, one would think that, as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence, she might be able to make the solidarity connection in a more genuine way than by simply claiming it. I get it that the issues raised by euthanasia of people with psychiatric disabilities may be too specialized for folks who are not disabled survivors of childhood trauma and the mental illness that often flows from it. It probably doesn’t occur to Ms. Long that allowing MAiD for people with mental illness undermines the public policy of Suicide prevention, by allowing (often ableist) mental health professionals to judge not just the remediability of a mental illness, but also the person’s quality of life and human worth. And maybe it doesn’t occur to Dying with Dignity that inappropriate or inadequate mental health care means that people with psychiatric disabilities are requesting MAiD because they haven’t gotten the help they need, and are subject to stresses like homelessness, addiction (from attempts at self-medication), and stigmatization.

If Ms. Long really cared about disabled people, she would know that, while some disabled individuals support assisted dying, disability organizations that advocate for equality, acceptance and accessibility oppose medical killing. ADAPT and Not Dead Yet have opposed medical killing since the mid 1980s. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities took its position against legalized medical killing in 1996, at the height of public support for Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy in 1993. Surely Ms. Long knows that disability advocates recognize and object to the belief that disabled people are (supposed to be) better off dead, and the growing popularity of assisted dying … as promoted by Dying with Dignity. She would also know that disability advocates are aware that the option to “choose” state-provided euthanasia is fast becoming a duty to die.

If she knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

So please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.

Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

Euthanasia for mental illness. Court cases and Committee hearings.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Globe and Mail May 6, 2026 editorial is titled: An alarm bell is ringing on medically assisted death for mental illness and features the letter from psychiatrists representing 13 Canadian medical schools. The editorial states:

Alarm bells don't get much louder than the written brief from the heads of psychiatry at 13 Canadian medical schools urging Ottawa to stop the expansion of medically assisted death to those whose only condition is mental illness.

The editorial quotes from the psychiatrists letter:

"As a society, we must provide hope and support to individuals during periods of despair and psychological suffering. In our clinical and academic experience, people can and do recover from prolonged suffering related to mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use when provided with appropriate, evidence based treatments and supports," they wrote, adding they "strongly believe" that expanding MAiD would result in preventable deaths and would undermine suicide prevention efforts.

The Globe and Mail also stated in an article published on May 5, 2026 that the federal government is prepared to prevent the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone, if the committee that is examining the question makes that recommendation.

The Globe and Mail was originally a promoter of euthanasia but over the past few years they have stated that Canada's euthanasia law has gone too far.

At the same time Dying With Dignity, Canada's leading euthanasia lobby group, filed an emergency relief on May 4, 2026 in an Ontario court to force the court to agree to the killing of Claire Elyse Brosseau who is living with mental illness as her sole underlying condition. Brosseau is a former actress.

According to the Dying with Dignity press release, Brosseau, Dying With Dignity and Dr Patricia Smith have filed the case.

Dying With Dignity would not be spending the massive amount of money on a court challenge if they believed that the federal government will extend euthanasia to mental illness alone in March 2027.

I had the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee on euthanasia on May 5, 2026. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the committee will recommend scrapping euthanasia for mental illness and then agree to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.

My experience speaking to the Parliamentary Committee on Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was approved to speak to Canada's Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia) on May 5, 2026. Previous sessions of the Joint Committee on euthanasia, which also dealt with expansions of euthanasia, denied me the opportunity to present to the committee.

I was given 5 minutes to present to the committee (link to my speech).

Based on my experience watching the previous hearings that examined euthanasia for mental illness, euthanasia for children and euthanasia by advanced request, I felt that the response from the Members of Parliament had changed. The majority of the joint committee continued to support euthanasia but they had become more cautious and were having second thoughts about expanding the law to include killing people who have a mental illness as their sole condition.

Alicia Duncan, the daughter of Donna Duncan, who died by euthanasia in 2022, also presented at the same hearing. Alicia provided an excellent testimony about why it was wrong to kill her mother, but also how the family was prevented, by the authorities, from receiving the "medical" reports that approved her mother's euthanasia death.

Alicia was questioned by two Senators who attempted to undermine her testimony. It is obvious that pro-euthanasia committee members are uncomfortable with the truth related to Donna Duncan's death and wanted to undermine her testimony rather than question the law that enabled a doctor to kill her mother.

My testimony focused on the need to fully review Canada's euthanasia law. I stated that:

...Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.

More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.

Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.

Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.

Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to people with mental illnesses alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.

I was asked several questions.

Senator Yonah Martin acknowledged that there has never been a review of Canada's euthanasia law. Previous committee's examined further expansions of the law, but not whether the law is being abused, even if the abuse is based on the vague language of the law.

One Member of Parliament asked me about people who are dying from cancer.  I will paraphrase my response.

I said that this committee is examining euthanasia for mental illness which I believe is a different issue.

Under the law, a person with a physical condition that is not terminal or irremediable does not qualify for euthanasia. If the law is extended to persons with mental illness, psychiatrists have testified that it is impossible to determine if a person's mental illness is irremediable, but the law would still permit euthanasia.

Most psychiatrists will tell patients with mental illnesses who are requesting to be killed by euthanasia that it is impossible to determine if they have an irremediable condition therefore it is impossible to approve them for euthanasia.

But some psychiatrists will approve requests for euthanasia by stating that the person has an irremediable mental illness. These psychiatrists will become known for approving euthanasia for mental illness, leading to patients, who are doctor shopping, contacting them to be kileed by euthaansia.

This situation is not different than our current situation except that in this case the people seeking death will be living, solely with a mental illnes.

I was also asked about people who wanted to die by euthanasia for mental illness, and are happy to be alive today. I responded by sharing the stories of Kathryn D'hondt and Andrea (Link to stories).

I was sitting beside Helen Long, the CEO of Dying with Dignity. There were several Senators and Members of Parliament who clearly support Dying with Dignity, who glowingly asked questions to enable Long to provide a longer testimony.

Dying with Dignity is a very dangerous group since they support euthanasia for nearly every situation.

Long appeared very nervous. She spoke about the recent legal challenge whereby Dying with Dignity is supporting Claire Brosseau in her demand to be killed by euthanasia based on mental illness. 

Dying with Dignity must be nervous because they wouldn't launch an expensive court case if euthanasia for mental illness will be in place in March 2027.