Thursday, May 28, 2026

Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Canada needs to completely review it's euthanasia killing law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 reported euthanasia deaths since legalization in June 2016. Canada doesn't need to further expand euthanasia to people who are mentally ill but rather Canada needs to completely review its euthanasia killing program.

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link).

I have published more than one thousands articles on Canada's euthanasia law, a law that lacks effective oversight, a law that employs vague terminology, and a law that provides complete legal protection for doctors and nurse practitioners who are willing to kill people, even in cases that are completely egregious.

On May 5, I presented to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which is the parliamentary committee examining the extension of euthanasia to mental illness alone in Canada.

Think about that - Euthanasia for the sole underlying condition of a mental illness.


My presentation to the Committee focused on the need to provide a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law, which Bill C-14, the original bill that legalized euthanasia in Canada, required. I stated:

Rather than extending assisted dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s assisted dying law is functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendment? These questions have never been addressed.
I then spoke about several egregious Canadian euthanasia stories and explained:
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.

Yes. Canada's euthanasia law allows doctors and nurse practitioners to poison someone to death, and they are only required to be "of the opinion" that the person they killed fits the criteria of the law. Total protection for the killers.

Recently we learned of two disturbing euthanasia approvals and deaths by Dr James MacLean. As bad as it is that MacLean approved a euthanasia death while sipping Tim Horton's coffee (probably not good news for Tim Horton's) MacLean also developed an inappropriate relationship with his prey by continuously texting him and then driving him to his place of death.

Further to that MacLean poisoned to death another man in a disturbing manner, (not to say that euthanasia in general is not disturbing). According to the report:

The second complaint involved a cancer patient at end of life. The man had signed a “waiver of final consent” that allows people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID, even if they lose capacity to give consent the moment before death.

Before the chosen date, the man lost capacity and was unresponsive. MacLean was called to the home.

He’d ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

He brought a killing kit with him that he already had. Was it left-over from a previous killing???

The report continued:

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops.

But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

Shortly after administering the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, MacLean pronounced the patient dead, according to the college. After he left the house, “the patient resumed spontaneous breathing.”

So MacLean poisoned an incompetent man. He declared the man dead, when he wasn't dead. He left the scene of the killing. He was told that the victim wasn't dead so MacLean returned, saw signs of cardiac and respiratory activity, administered more medication (poison) along with the paralyzing agent, “and again pronounced the patient’s death.”

You can't make this stuff up.

Dr Ramona Coelho, a family physician in London Ontario and a past member of the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) was shocked that Dr MacLean only received a slap on the wrist for his killings. 

Dr Ramona Coelho
Coelho offered a way forward in an article that was published in the Hill Times. Coelho writes:

As Canada seemingly moves to halt medical assistance in dying for mental illness as a sole underlying condition, parliamentarians are beginning to recognize what clinicians and experts have warned for years: the system is not safe enough, and there is insufficient evidence to continue with Canada’s expansive MAID practice.

Halting MAID for mental illness is not enough.

Coelho provides some examples of egregious euthanasia killings. She writes:

In MDRC cases, eligibility determinations were shaped by treatment refusal, system gaps, and inadequate supports. In one case, an obese woman with depression and long-standing disengagement from care was deemed eligible for MAID after refusing interventions documented to potentially improve or reverse her conditions.

Another case involved a man in his late 40s who experienced significant suffering and unexplained functional decline following COVID vaccination. He had a history of depression and trauma, and experienced suicidal ideation requiring involuntary hospitalization. Psychiatric assessments raised concerns about mood disorder, trauma-related illness, and somatic symptom disorder. Despite this, he was deemed eligible for MAID, with assessors attributing his condition to a post-vaccine syndrome. Significantly, no pathological findings were identified on post-mortem examination.

Parliamentary hearings exposed a deeper problem: Canada already lacks adequate MAID safeguards and oversight.

In April 2026, Canada surpassed 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization. The bill that originally legalized euthanasia required that a review of the law be done, starting in June 2020. Instead, Canada expanded the law by passing Bill C-7 in March 2021. 

Bill C-7 expanded Canada's law by removing the requirement that a person have a terminal condition (natural death be reasonably foreseeable), it removed the 10-day waiting period for killing, it permitted the killer to waive final consent, if the person was incompetent, and it allowed euthanasia for mental illness alone, that is currently scheduled to begin on March 17, 2027.

After passing Bill C-7 Canada established the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that did not review the law, as required by Bill C-14, but rather it examined further expansions of the law.

Canada's euthanasia law has gone mad. The world sees it, the United National Committee on Disability rights sees it, anybody who examines our law, from outside of the pro-death bubble sees it. 

The Canadian government must stop expanding the euthanasia law and examine the insanity. 

Canada needs a complete review of it's euthanasia law.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Euthanasia and social class

By Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM and a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition board member.

Odile Marcotte
The June 2026 issue of the L'actualité magazine includes an article on euthanasia entitled "Le dernier choix," i.e., The last choice. This article is a reasonably good one and does not exhibit a bias towards euthanasia, except in the beginning and end of the article, which feature (as usual) a patient suffering from a grievous illness asking for and receiving the "treatment" called euthanasia. The article, however, raises several questions that need to be addressed.

Consider the issue of social class (or socio-economic status), which I will address in this post. Studies have shown repeatedly that among the patients dying through euthanasia or assisted suicide, the proportion of patients with higher education and financial means is greater than in the general population. This is indeed confirmed by Dr. Louis Daigle, who has euthanized more than 650 people over a period of nine years. 

Daigle states that the suffering of seeing oneself waste away is what MAiD allows his patients to avoid. Indeed, after a good life, after earning good money and enjoying many travels, they will not accept what they call "an undignified death." Dr. Daigle goes on to say that those patients request euthanasia because they wish to "hold the reins" until the very end of their life.

Dr. Daigle, who specializes in emergency medicine, seems to have empathy for the people he euthanizes. His fellow doctors at the Collège des médecins du Québec, along with the pro-euthanasia lobby in Québec and Canada, have succeeded in:
  • making euthanasia legal,
  • making it a procedure paid by medicare and performed in all hospitals,
  • redefining palliative medicine as a discipline that includes the possibility of ending the life of a patient, 
  • extending euthanasia to patients not at the end of their life and not enjoying the same comfort as the rest of the population, and 
  • denying palliative care homes (at least in British Columbia and Québec) the permission to exclude euthanasia from its services.

In other words, the comfortable class has achieved its goals and persuaded the rest of the population to support euthanasia as a way of avoiding "suffering" at the end of life, even though this profound change has huge and unforeseen consequences for every individual.

Euthanasia has become a social class issue.

Euthanasia death approved at a coffee shop.

Declaring a person to be dead, when he was not dead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr James MacLean is one of the few doctors to be sanctioned for unprofessional conduct related to his euthanasia deaths. One of the complaints included a euthanasia assessment that was done at a Tim Horton's coffee shop.

An article by Brian Williams and Sharon Kirkey published by the London Free Press on May 27, 2026 explained that the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal received two complaints about MacLean, but only gave him a minor sanction for his actions related to his euthanasia deaths. The CPSO stated:
“The measures include mandatory clinical supervision for a minimum of six months, frequent supervision meetings, ongoing review of his MAID patient charts, regular written reports to (the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) from the clinical supervisor, and completion of mandatory professional education relating to MAID, consent, documentation, professional boundaries, and professional behaviour.”
The first complaint that included assessing the person for euthanasia at a Tim Horton's coffee shop. The authors reported:
MacLean conducted his assessment of the patient outside a coffee shop. The college panel found it concerning that MacLean discussed “sensitive MAID-related matters in an informal public setting,” according to the summary of the inquiries and complaints committee’s decision.

“In the committee’s view, this reflected a lack of the level of formality and care expected when assessing requests for MAID.”

The panel was also troubled by the “quantity and nature” of MacLean’s text exchanges with the patient, which included comments about the family’s views.

MacLean’s decision to drive the patient to the MAID provision location “raised concerns about professional boundaries.”

“Taken together, these actions created a risk that (MacLean’s) involvement could be perceived as influencing the patient,” the committee’s summary reads, especially given the patient-doctor power imbalance and the patient’s history of mental health and substance use issues.
The second case was a failed euthanasia death whereby MacLean declared he patient dead and left the person's home even though the patient was not dead. The authors reported:
The second complaint involved a cancer patient at end of life. The man had signed a “waiver of final consent” that allows people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID, even if they lose capacity to give consent the moment before death.

Before the chosen date, the man lost capacity and was unresponsive. MacLean was called to the home.

He’d ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops.

But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

Shortly after administering the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, MacLean pronounced the patient dead, according to the college. After he left the house, “the patient resumed spontaneous breathing.”

MacLean returned, saw signs of cardiac and respiratory activity, administered more medication along with the paralyzing agent, “and again pronounced the patient’s death.”

According to the college committee, MacLean “advised that he believes the stress of the situation, including the last-minute and urgent request for his attendance and the substantial number of people present with significant tension amongst them, contributed to initial failed provision of MAID.”

The family complained about MacLean’s professionalism and communication.
Dr Ramona Coelho a London family physician and former member of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s MAID death review committee. told the authors:
“What is striking is not only the seriousness of the concerns identified in these cases, but the limited regulatory response,”

“The level of scrutiny and accountability applied to MAID is inconsistent with how other serious medical procedures are regulated,”
Dr Coelho commented on the notion that Canada's euthanasia law operates well.
The federal government “frequently points to the absence of criminal findings or disciplinary action as evidence that the MAID system is functioning safely,” she added.

“Cases such as these, along with those documented (by the coroner’s MAID death review committee) confirm that important gaps in oversight and accountability remain.”
The Chief Coroner of Ontario established the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee that published multiple reports underlining the concerns with the law. Even though that report found cases of people who had no actual medical condition or who died by euthanasia based on poverty or a lack of proper housing, none of those cases were then brought to the CPSO to determine if any sanctions should be applied to the doctors and nurse practitioners who caused those deaths.

Elizabeth had suicidal ideation. She is very glad to be here today.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received the following letter from Elizabeth, a woman who lived with suicidal ideation and is very glad to be alive. Elizabeth opposes euthanasia for mental illness.

Back in 2012, I had multiple chronic health conditions and had failed completely again at getting and holding down a job after moving to a larger city with some money from family to try to find work I could actually do. I needed the disability benefit, but didn't have it. I'd already been denied once for it in 2010, and applied again in 2012 and suspected I wouldn't get it. I have generalized anxiety disorder and depression that was severely aggravated by my financial troubles and inability to support myself, and I started having panic attacks and cutting myself, as well as not eating enough and becoming underweight with dizzy spells. I felt like a burden and had suicidal ideation, though I didn't try to kill myself.

A few months later I finally got the letter back about the disability benefit. I was convinced I'd be denied again, and had to read it through twice before I realized it was approved. It totally changed my life, and I am very glad to still be here today, even if I still can't support myself financially by working due to health issues and live with chronic pain and still struggle with depression and anxiety at times. Your worth as a human being and right to live doesn't depend on whether you can earn a living, and there are other ways to contribute to society even if you can't earn a paycheck.

This was before MAID was legal. I already felt like a burden and was struggling with suicidal ideation to the point I was cutting myself without society offering me social sanction for dying, suggesting I should do so, and offering to help me while making it easier and faster than applying for disability. That would have made my mental health struggles so much worse.

Elizabeth

EPC supports Bill C-218 which is a private members bill, that was sponsored by Tamara Jansen (MP) to prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada. EPC urges Canadians to sign our petition in support of Bill C-218. (Petition Link).

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

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.

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

On May 5, 2026, I spoke to the Parliamentary Committee that is further 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.

EPC works to educate about the reality of euthanasia, to advocate to politicians and others in leadership roles and to support and assist people and their families to prevent death by euthanasia.

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/

EPC is currently seeking to intervene in a court case concerning euthanasia for mental illness alone. Claire Brosseau and the euthanasia lobby are seeking an emergency court decision 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.

EPC also 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 16 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.