I strongly encourage you to reject MAID offered for mental disorders

This chain of letters begins with a letter to Mario Simard Bloc Québécois’ Member of Parliament for Jonquière. Mario Simard then responses to Odile Marcotte and then Odile Marcottee responds to Mario Simard. This letter chain was originally written in French and then translated to English.

Dear monsieur Simard,

I am writing to you regarding Bill C-218 and would be very grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter. I have known suicidal individuals and people suffering from mental illness, and I am deeply troubled by the idea that the government could encourage them, in any way, to resort to medical assistance in dying (MAID).

There are very good reasons why the implementation of MAID for mental disorders without other medical conditions has been postponed twice. In Quebec, it was even rejected. The opinions of healthcare professionals reflect deep divisions on this issue. While a majority of the population still supports MAID in general, only a minority of that population supports it in these specific cases.

It is crucial to emphasize that MAID for mental disorders is not a logical extension of current practice. On the contrary, it contradicts the fundamental principles of that practice. Indeed, the two essential criteria for eligibility for medical assistance in dying (as currently practiced) are (a) the irremediable nature of the patient's condition and (b) the patient's free and informed consent.

However, the irremediable nature of a mental or psychological disorder cannot be determined in the same way as for a physical illness. Scientific knowledge of mental disorders is not currently as advanced as that of physical illnesses. Psychiatrists are unable to predict which of their patients with similar mental disorders will see their condition improve; nor can they say how long it will take.

Many people who have experienced long periods of acute mental distress are convinced that they would no longer be alive today if MAID had been available while they were being treated for their illness.

Furthermore, the very nature of psychiatric symptoms often prevents patients from exercising their freedom of choice, making the ethical practice of MAID almost impossible.

Here is what the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP) says on this subject:

“With regard to patients’ ability to provide consent to medical assistance in dying, the very nature of mental illness can impair decision-making capacity. Those suffering from acute mental illness are routinely encouraged to avoid making major decisions. The decision to prematurely end one’s life is of enormous and grave importance and should not be made by someone suffering from mental illness.”

A particular difficulty arises from the practical impossibility of reliably distinguishing between the rational (desired) motivation underlying a typical MAID request, on the one hand, and the expression of pathological suicidal desires that appear rational, on the other. This is again the perspective of the ACPS.

"For people at the end of life, there may be little or no overlap between medical assistance in dying and suicide in the traditional sense of the term. However, the risks of overlap increase sharply for people with chronic, but non-terminal, conditions, and particularly for those with mental disorders."

The constitutional rationale that compelled the Parliament of Canada to create an exception to the Criminal Code allowing for MAID is based on a trade-off between "justice" for those frustrated by prohibition, on the one hand, and the state's responsibility to protect those made vulnerable by the introduction of MAID, on the other. According to the Carter decision, an outright ban on MAID is unreasonable, and such a trade-off is necessary.

However, for the reasons stated above, the number of potentially vulnerable individuals will increase dramatically if Parliament decides to extend access to MAID to those suffering from mental illness but not other medical conditions.

Furthermore, in accordance with the medical perspective of Quebec's law on end-of-life care, the National Assembly of Quebec determined that medical assistance in dying could not constitute legitimate medical care solely for individuals with mental illness. This was the conclusion of a special committee's work, and this conclusion, undoubtedly shared by the majority of Quebecers, was subsequently ratified by the National Assembly in the new version of the law on end-of-life care.

I have just outlined the reasons why the practice of MAID for purely psychiatric purposes has been met with such a lukewarm reception and its introduction has been delayed for so long. In short, this introduction will lead to the unnecessary deaths of people whose conditions are by no means irreversible, in many cases, and whose requests do not stem from a genuine choice but from the symptoms of the illness itself. I strongly encourage you to seize this opportunity, not to inadvertently broaden the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying, but to set firm limits by definitively rejecting MAID offered for mental disorders in the absence of other medical conditions. 

 

Please vote YES on Bill C-218.

Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM

Bonjour, Mme Marcotte,

 

Thank you very much for your letter and for the sensitivity with which you express your concerns. The issues surrounding medical assistance in dying, particularly when mental health is involved, raise profound and legitimate questions, and I wish to acknowledge the sincerity and importance of your initiative. Allow me to outline, with all due respect to your position, the Bloc Québécois’ perspective on Bill C-218. 

 

First, this bill is effectively unnecessary, since Parliament has already passed Bill C-62, which maintains the exclusion of mental illness as the sole condition for eligibility for MAID until March 17, 2027. Before any changes are made, a Joint Committee must thoroughly analyze the issue and determine whether legislative amendments are necessary. Therefore, no decision can be made until this rigorous work is completed. 

 

Second, we believe it is not the Conservatives’ place to unilaterally decide on such a complex and sensitive issue. Their moral or religious opposition to MAID cannot justify restricting the fundamental rights of Quebecers. Everyone remains free to choose not to use MAID, but it would be unfair to impose this position on the entire population. 

 

Furthermore, the preamble to Bill C-218 wrongly pits access to MAID against mental health care.

 

It is entirely possible (and necessary) to strengthen mental health services while respecting the rights of people experiencing severe and incurable suffering. This is why the Bloc Québécois continues to call for increased health transfers so that the provinces can provide adequate and accessible services. 

 

Finally, this bill does not address the demands of the Quebec government. The National Assembly wants the Criminal Code amended to allow advance MAID requests in provinces that have adopted a clear legislative framework, such as Quebec. A bill along these lines, such as the one proposed by Senator Wallin, would have received our support. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Bill C-218. I want to assure you that the Bloc Québécois remains deeply committed to protecting vulnerable people, respecting individual autonomy, and defending Quebec's democratic choices. Your letter demonstrates a genuine concern for human dignity, and I sincerely thank you for it. Please accept my sincere regards. 

Mario Simard Member of Parliament for Jonquière

Response from Odile Marcotte.

Dear monsieur Simard, 

Thank you for your reply, as I know you are very busy. I would like to make a few brief comments on it. 

You mention the rigorous work that the Special Joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Medical Assistance in Dying will undertake. I have been following the debate on Medical Assistance in Dying (which was initially called euthanasia) since its inception, and I am convinced that there is just as much rigor on one side (the one opposing the expansion of MAID) as on the other. Rigor cannot resolve this issue, since it is philosophical (and not merely moral and religious, as you seem to think) conceptions that are at odds. 

The question is whether suicide should be part of the care provided by the public health service. It is naive to think that healthcare for people with mental illness will not be affected by extending MAID to their cases, firstly because MAID is less expensive than such care, and secondly because the perspective of healthcare professionals will inevitably be altered by this extension. 

Thank you for reminding me that I am free not to use MAID, but I note that your party demonstrates little critical thinking in the face of propaganda from the College of Physicians and the Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity. The respect shown by these organizations for differing opinions is entirely theoretical, since all palliative care homes in Quebec are now obligated to provide MAID to those who request it, regardless of the distress this obligation will cause to terminally ill individuals whose loved ones have committed suicide and who wish to end their lives in peace. 

Sincerely, Odile Marcotte

Euthanasia of the mentally ill in the Netherlands is increasing.

This article was published by National Review online on March 9, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

As the West lunges toward propagating a right to be made dead, the deleterious societal impacts of being legally “MAIDed” (killed by “medical assistance in dying”) are becoming increasingly clear. A recent professional analysis published in the Psychiatric Times illustrates the lethal influence on mentally ill suicidal people — including youth — in the Netherlands.

Article: Euthanasia for young people and psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands (Read).

From “Psychiatric Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Young People, Procedural Medicine, and the Limits of Psychiatry” (citations omitted):

Requests for euthanasia on psychiatric grounds have risen sharply, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors. The Dutch model, once presented internationally as careful and balanced, is now attracting attention for a different reason: growing uncertainty about whether psychiatry has crossed a boundary it cannot coherently justify.

This increase has had a deleterious impact on suicidal youth:

The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.

When euthanasia deaths are considered alongside suicides, assisted dying now accounts for a growing proportion of premature deaths among young adults, particularly young women, raising serious concerns about contagion effects, shifting cultural norms, and the population-level consequences of introducing medicalized death into the care landscape for youth with mental suffering.

The phenomenon of “doctor shopping” (as I call it) has long been a problem with legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. The problem also exists in the Netherlands. The authors point to a retired psychiatrist who has repeatedly MAIDed mentally ill patients whom other psychiatrists had refused to terminate:

Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch psychiatrist whose actions have profoundly shaped public perception. In an 11-month period, he performed 12 euthanasia procedures for mental suffering, including cases involving youth and at least 1 minor. He publicly described his trajectory as a moral awakening, introducing the term “mentally terminal” to suggest an analogy between mental suffering and terminal somatic illness. The concept has no grounding in psychiatric science or developmental psychology, but it proved rhetorically powerful. . . .

Colleagues reported troubling practices. Young patients were sometimes redirected toward euthanasia pathways while their treating teams were still actively engaged and believed meaningful improvement was possible. The message implicit in such interventions was that persistence in treatment could be bypassed if even one clinician was willing to declare suffering irremediable. The clinical authority of ongoing therapeutic relationships was thus undermined by a parallel pathway oriented toward death.

As we have seen before, a rogue euthanasia death doctor can become a celebrated media figure, helping spread the euthanasia virus:

Oosterhoff recorded euthanasia conversations with a minor and made them available online. The material was later removed as the footage caused significant distress among clinicians, ethicists, and child psychiatrists. Yet, rather than prompting restraint, it increased his visibility. He became a frequent guest on television talk shows and published a bestselling book, positioning himself as a moral pioneer. . . .

Patients can search for permissive clinicians, and once euthanasia has been suggested by one professional, it becomes exceedingly difficult for others to refuse. Social media and sympathetic media coverage amplify these dynamics, producing contagion effects. Requests spike after high-profile stories, particularly among young women.

The authors conclude:

The Dutch experiment with psychiatric euthanasia, particularly in youth, can no longer be described as cautious, balanced, or exemplary. What has emerged over the past decade is an unstable configuration in which activism, procedural regulation, and moral avoidance increasingly substitute for clinical humility and epistemic restraint. Practices that appear on paper to respect individual autonomy generate, at the population level, predictable and troubling effects: contagion phenomena following media exposure, forum shopping among clinicians, widening diagnostic claims of irremediability, and the steady medicalization of social, developmental, and existential distress.

(This analysis is consistent with other studies showing that legalizing and advocating assisted suicide increase suicides overall.)

Mental Illness is not Terminal.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on March 6, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

Canada may be the only country on earth where the healthcare system can sometimes help you die faster than it can help you heal. That should alarm people, but it doesn’t because our media its brainwashing you.

Instead, Canadians are being slowly conditioned to accept it and provinces like Quebec, Ontario and BC are drinking the kool aid, wiping their mouth and asking for more.

Here’s the the thing. This isn’t being done through legislation alone. It’s through the current government’s media push. Paid and bought by the Liberals.

A recent CTV story profiles a Canadian woman hoping to access Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for mental illness. The headline reassures readers: “It won’t be violent. I won’t be alone.” The tone is soft. Compassionate. Almost comforting. At first glance it feels empathetic. Human. Gentle.

But look closer and something else is happening, this is what abandonment looks like and stories like this are not just reporting. They are preparation. This is the slow drip I’ve been writing about for years. The frog in the boiling pot.

This is how societies normalize radical ideas. You don’t push the public into a moral shift all at once. You soften the ground. You tell personal stories, tug at th heart strings. “But grandma, Kelsi!” You highlight suffering. You frame the decision as brave and dignified, when it’s anything but then slowly, the public begins to see assisted death not as a tragedy or a failure of care, but as compassion. Let me be very clear, this is nothing more than a form of modern eugenics.

The article walks readers through one person’s suffering in intimate detail, but it avoids asking the uncomfortable questions responsible journalism should raise. Instead, the language gently reassures the reader. It won’t be violent. She won’t be alone. The emphasis is on dignity, control, and compassion.

That framing matters, for several reason and when media coverage consistently presents assisted death through the lens of empathy and personal relief, the public begins to associate the act itself with kindness rather than consequence.

What’s missing is just as important as what’s included. There is little discussion about recovery rates for severe depression. Little exploration of how suicidal thinking fluctuates. Little examination of the long history of suicide prevention that treats these impulses as crises to intervene in—not requests to formalize.

There is almost no attention paid to the broader system failing people long before they reach this point, failed drugs, therapy, SSRI’s, community and support. When stories like this are told without that context, they do something subtle but powerful. They normalize the idea that some suffering lives may simply be beyond help.

That is not a neutral editorial choice.

It is narrative shaping, and CTV, CBC, GLOBAL and other “mainstream” media and Canada are known for this. Let’s say the part that too many people are afraid to say out loud.

MENTAL ILLNESS IS NOT TERMINAL.

Depression, PTSD, trauma, and suicidal thinking can be brutal. They can make people believe there is no way out. I know that reality personally. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve lived through PTSD, a traumatic brain injury, hearing loss, and major depressive disorder. There were periods where the darkness was overwhelming and the idea of continuing felt impossible. I thought of suicide for over a decade. Every waking minute.

Those are exactly the kinds of conditions people are now discussing as justification for assisted death.

And yet I HEALED, contrary to the death cult’s narrative and hope I’m sure. Not overnight. Not easily. But I rebuilt my life, day by day. Breath by breath, moment by moment. I never gave up, when quitting was the easy thing to do. That’s the part of the story that rarely gets told in these conversations.

Because if someone like me had been offered death during my lowest point, I am very certain I would NOT be here today. How many others would be gone too, coerced into an early death by sick people.

Recovery from mental illness is not theoretical. It happens every single day. People stabilize. They find treatment that works. They build purpose again. They reconnect to life in ways they never thought possible. I’ve not only seen people do, I’ve helped them get there because it truly takes a village.

But when a society begins offering death as a medical solution to psychological suffering, it risks cutting those futures short. What also rarely gets mentioned is the system surrounding this debate.

Canada is in the middle of a mental health crisis. Therapy is expensive and often inaccessible. Psychiatric care can take months, at a minimum to access. Veterans struggle to get consistent treatment, if any. Housing instability, addiction, trauma, and poverty compound mental illness across the country.

In other words, help is often difficult to find, to say the least but death is becoming easier.

Canadians can spend months trying to access psychiatric care. But once someone enters the MAID system, the machinery of the state can move with stunning efficiency. In some cases, the process can unfold in a matter of hours.

Think about that. SAME DAY DEATH CARE.

We have built a healthcare system where the bureaucracy can move faster for death than it does for treatment. Thats an uncomfortable fact the media and health cults don’t want you to realize.

For decades, if someone told a doctor they wanted to die because of mental suffering, the response was immediate intervention. Crisis teams. Hospitalization. Suicide prevention. The entire point of mental health care was to stop someone from acting on a moment of despair. Simply put a 72 hr hold to protect yourself, from yourself.

Now we are debating whether the same healthcare system should sometimes agree with that impulse and formalize it. That contradiction should stop this conversation cold yet it doesn’t.

Instead, the public is being slowly acclimatized to the idea. One sympathetic story at a time. One emotional narrative at a time. The tone softens. The language shifts. The moral boundary moves.

This is the slow drip, this is the psy op everyone seems to be missing. The deeper ethical questions rarely make the headlines.

Who decides when suffering is “irremediable”? I argue Dr’s who are just as sick.

How many treatments must someone try before society agrees their life is no longer worth living? Apparently days to weeks, we don’t give anyone a fighting chance.

What happens when someone’s despair is driven not by an untreatable illness, but by poverty, isolation, trauma, or lack of care? These are not philosophical hypotheticals. These are real decisions that will affect the most vulnerable people in this country.

There is also a deeper question that almost no one in this debate seems willing to ask. Who told us we were ever promised control over how we exit this world?

At some point we began to act as if death should be scheduled, managed, and optimized like any other life decision. But no one promised us that kind of control. Life has never worked that way and it shouldn’t now.

What we do know is this moments of despair do not define the entire arc of a human life regardless of what Dr’s are telling you now. Suicidality, depression, trauma, and mental illness can feel permanent when you are inside them. They lie to you. They convince you there is no future worth waiting for. They are the dark voice. But those conditions do not have to mean death.

I am living proof of that, and I'm damn proud of it too.

A country that cannot reliably provide treatment, housing, therapy, and long-term mental health care—but can reliably provide assisted death—is sending a message about which lives are worth fighting for.

I lived through PTSD, traumatic brain injury, hearing loss, and major depressive disorder. These are exactly the kinds of conditions people are getting ready to be killed for.

I healed. You can too.

Scottish Conservative Leader now opposes assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Scottish Parliament

Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party has switched his position on the assisted suicide bill that is scheduled to go to a vote on March 17, 2026.

In May 2025, Finlay voted in favour of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, time had passed by a vote of 70 - 56. The Herald reported that Findlay backed the general principle of the bill but is now opposing the bill.

According to Andrew Learmonth who writes for the Herald, Finlay is the third MSP who supported the bill and now oppose the bill. Colin Smyth, who also supported the bill, has been suspended from parliament while being investigated for possessing indecent images of children and voyerism.

Findlay stated on X that:

"However, at the time of voting for the principle of the legislation at State One I also expressed some misgivings about elements of it.

...I am not able to vote for the bill at stage three.

My reasons include the two primary concerns that I raised at Stage One.

The first is that risk that people could be coerced into ending their own lives. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a loving supportive family.

There are already cases of unscrupulous relatives, or 'trusted' medical or legal professionals, exploiting people for financial gain. As a journalist, I reported on the harm caused by Scotland's system of legal self-regulation which remains woefully inadequate in terms of consumer protection.

And even without any coercion from others, some people may feel pressured because they think they have become a 'burden' on loved ones.

The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.

It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.

We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life. 

Findlay also commented on the fact that Scotland's assisted suicide bill cannot protect conscience rights for health professionals since medical regulation is the pervue of the British parliament.

We thank Russell Findlay for changing his position on the dangerous assisted suicide bill. I suggest that his two primary concerns cannot be limited by a tighter bill, but should always be seen as strong reasons for defeating life and death assisted suicide legislation.

Texas disability medical futility case to be heard in court.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Michael Hickson

I have good news. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear the disability discrimination "medical futility" case of Michael Hickson who died on June 11, 2020 after being denied basic care by St. David’s South Austin Medical Center.

Thaddeus Pope published the following comment on his medical futility blog on March 8, 2026:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a disability discrimination case may proceed where Texas providers withheld life-sustaining treatment based on determinations that the patient's inability to walk or talk meant that he had a low quality of life.

"We hold that a plaintiff asserts a cognizable claim for disability discrimination based on adverse medical treatment decisions—or decisions not to treat—when allegations show that the treatment was based 'solely,' in the pejorative sense, on the individual’s disability."

The family of Michael Hickson may now proceed on this and some other claims in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

This ruling, combined with new DHHS regulations targeting medical futility determinations, raises significant red flags for hospitals withdrawing life-sustaining treatment over patient or family objections.

The disability rights group - ADAPT - published a powerful video by Melissa Fridie Hickson concerning the death of her husband Michael, who was also the father of her 5 children.

The Michael Hickson case is particularly egregious since the doctors unilaterally decided to deny Hickson treatment, they denied him basic care based on "quality of life." The legal decision stated:

(“St. David’s Healthcare”) stopped giving food and fluids to Michael Hickson, a loving husband and father of five who was hospitalized for illnesses that he had previously overcome. The doctors told Michael’s wife that his inability to walk or talk meant he had a low quality of life. Michael passed away.

Link to previous articles about Michael Hickson.

• The deadly quality of life ethic (Read).
• ADAPT of Texas Demands Investigation into Michael Hickson's death (Read).
• ADAPT of Texas protests Hospital killing of Michael Hickson (Read).

Many MAiD Advocates Want Credit For Fixing Problems They Ignored For Decades

Meghan Schrader

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

I perceive a pattern of “MAiD” acolytes seeking “common ground” with disability rights opponents of “MAiD” while expecting levels of appreciation and respect they have not earned.

For example, I noticed that in their response to the September 2025 Atlantic article “Canada Is Killing Itself,” pro “MAiD” activists Paul Magennis and Kim Carlson asserted that “MAiD providers” regularly advocate for better services for their “patients.” They wrote:

“Yes, inequities in healthcare and social supports exist, and no one in the medical community knows this more than MAiD providers themselves. They have long demanded better resources for their patients, and they understand that the only way to prevent suffering rooted in those inequities is to fix the inequities directly.”

I am sure that there are a few instances of “MAiD providers” advocating for resources, but Carlson and Magennis claim that there is a widespread, longstanding pattern of that behavior. Do Maggenis and Carlson have any proof for that claim? Because that’s not the pattern that “MAiD” advocates have demonstrated throughout history.

For instance, the Accessible Canada Act, a watered-down version of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act that is not scheduled to be fully implemented until 2040, was passed in 2019, after the Carter decision legalized “MAiD” in 2015. The paltry “Canada Disability Benefit” was passed in 2023, after the legalization of “Track 2 MAiD” in 2021.

Powerful USA “MAiD” advocates who identify as social justice advocates have also largely ignored disabled people for decades.

It’s not that I haven’t encountered Oregon model “MAiD” supporters with a track record of supporting disability rights. But generally I think it’s clear that social justice leaders ignoring disability has contributed to “MAiD” supporters not understanding “Track 2 MAiD” as the bigoted act of systematically killing members of a marginalized group.

For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has fought for “MAiD” for decades, but did not create a disability rights division until 2012, 92 years after the organization was founded.

The BC Civil Liberties Association, which could be considered the Canadian "sibling" of the ACLU, fought for Canada's expansive “MAiD” program for decades before releasing its first statement in support of disability rights in 2024, 62 years after the organization was founded in 1962. This happened after the organization’s legislative allies dismissed disabled “Track 2 MAiD” opponents’ efforts to prevent wrongful deaths as “moral panic.” It happened after anti Track 2 expert witnesses at the Special Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying hearings were “routinely talked over, ignored, argued with, and at times, openly disparaged by committee members in favour of amplifying the ideology of MAID expansionists and pro-MAID lobby groups.”

So, I wrote an X post pointing out that the BCCLA’s 2024 statement was made after decades of ignoring disabled people. One X user who is part of the small minority of disabled people who supports Track 2 MAiD and led the effort to get the BCCLA to release their statement criticized my lack of “forgiveness.” They said, “You were not there when they realized the harm they had done and started to help.”

The key phrase there is started to help. The BCCLA’s choice to abandon disabled people for decades while advocating for “MAiD” played a critical role in creating a world where disabled people are offered “MAiD” before they are offered support. You can forgive people without making them your compadres.

There are many non-lethal examples of civil rights advocates ignoring disabled people, regardless of those advocates’ position on “MAiD.” For instance, researchers who published a 2023 study documenting life-threatening healthcare discrimination against disabled children were not allowed to present their findings on a conference on healthcare equity. The conference organizers said, "that's not the kind of inequity we're looking for.”

I’ve observed this pattern of social justice advocates ignoring serious disability rights violations throughout my life. Between 2011 and 2015 I was a member of a United Church of Christ congregation with a very kind pastor who strongly supported Oregon model “MAiD.” Every six months she centered church activities around a different civil rights issue, but unfortunately disabled people were the only group that she didn’t include. I have affection for that pastor; but I think that such omissions indicate “MAiD” advocates’ unpreparedness to address the abuses that are interwoven with “MAiD.”

When “MAiD” proponents dismiss disability justice opposition to “MAiD” as “moral panic” and decide that a few wrongful deaths is an acceptable price to pay for “autonomy,” they are taking a deep history of mainstream civil rights activists tolerating ableism to a lethal extreme.

In short, “MAiD” proponents like to brag about ending suffering, but for generations leading “MAiD” advocates have let disabled people suffer.

Join the EPC rally on Parliament Hill on Monday April 13.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition on Monday, April 13 for one hour at 12 noon as we rally to support Bill C-218 and as we mourn the loss of 100,000 Canadians to euthanasia since legalization.

The Second hour of debate for Bill C-218, the bill that will reverse the law permitting euthanasia for mental illness alone, is currently scheduled for Monday, April 13. We are supporting Tamara Jansen (MP) (the sponsor of Bill C-218) and we will urge Members of Parliament to support Bill C-218.

Currently, Canada is scheduled to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone, starting on March 17, 2027.

Canada will also surpass 100,000 euthanasia deaths since legalization in mid-late April 2026 (Read article).

We mourn 100,000 Canadians who were killed by euthanasia.

For more information contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca

Canada's parliament has also appointed a new Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to examine the issue of MAiD for mental illness (Read article).

Plan now to attend the rally on April 13. The list of rally speakers will soon be released.

Euthanasia for young people and Psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for psychiatric reasons and for young people have increased substantially over the past few years.

Jim van Os, MD, PhD, Wilbert van Rooij, MD, Mark S. Komrad, MD, DFAPA wrote a research article that was published in the Psychiatric Times on March 5, 2026 examining these issues.

The authors examine the Netherlands euthanasia data and suggest that there was "professional restraint" in the early years of the euthanasia law since the law did not prohibit euthanasia for young people or based on mental illness. The authors explain that euthanasia for these groups, in the early years, was almost non-existent. They write:

The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.

Within this expansion, youth euthanasia cases are increasingly prominent. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of euthanasia cases for individuals under 30 rose from 5 to 30, a 6-fold increase, representing over 9% of all premature deaths (suicide + assisted dying) in that age group in the Netherlands. When requests rather than completed euthanasia are considered, the numbers are worrying. Given that an estimated 3% of youthful (<24 years) applicants receive euthanasia, the estimated number of youthful applicants in 2024 would total 7300.

The authors suggest that the majority of Psychiatrists in the Netherlands remain reluctant to participate in euthanasia but a small group of psychiatrists have has actively promoted psychiatric euthanasia as an expression of compassion and respect for autonomy and they have established a group called the Dutch, Knowledge Center for Euthanasia in Mental Disorders (KEA) that is actually an activist group. The authors explain:

According to its website, its aim is to increase knowledge and societal acceptance of euthanasia for mental suffering, to improve access to euthanasia trajectories, and to support and advocate for patients with mental illness who request euthanasia, as well as their relatives and involved professionals. While presenting itself as a foundation for recognition and dignity, KEA operates as an activist organization, lobbying policymakers, engaging strategically with media, and exerting public pressure on dissenting professionals.

The authors continue:

In this framing, complex mental suffering rooted in trauma, social marginalization, developmental vulnerability, and failures of care are increasingly presented as a medical dead end. Structural deficits in mental health services, including long waiting lists and fragmented care, fade into the background. Professional hesitation is reframed as cruelty or paternalism rather than as clinical prudence.

This is an important statement for Canada to consider. Since Canada also has massive structural deficits in mental health services and long waiting times, promoters of euthanasia for mental illness would also argue that it is a cruel paternalism to deny a person death by euthanasia.

The authors then describe the role of Menno Oosterhoff in creating an atmosphere of acceptance for youth and psychiatric euthanasia. The authors write:

This shift has been personified by Menno Oosterhoff, a retired Dutch psychiatrist whose actions have profoundly shaped public perception. In an 11-month period, he performed 12 euthanasia procedures for mental suffering, including cases involving youth and at least 1 minor. He publicly described his trajectory as a moral awakening, introducing the term “mentally terminal” to suggest an analogy between mental suffering and terminal somatic illness.

The concept has no grounding in psychiatric science or developmental psychology, but it proved rhetorically powerful. Oosterhoff recorded euthanasia conversations with a minor and made them available online.9 The material was later removed as the footage caused significant distress among clinicians, ethicists, and child psychiatrists. Yet, rather than prompting restraint, it increased his visibility. He became a frequent guest on television talk shows and published a bestselling book, positioning himself as a moral pioneer.

Colleagues reported troubling practices.9 Young patients were sometimes redirected toward euthanasia pathways while their treating teams were still actively engaged and believed meaningful improvement was possible. The message implicit in such interventions was that persistence in treatment could be bypassed if even one clinician was willing to declare suffering irremediable. The clinical authority of ongoing therapeutic relationships was thus undermined by a parallel pathway oriented toward death.

Canada has had a similar experience with Dr Ellen Wiebe's euthanasia practise. 

Euthanasia for psychiatric issues in the Netherlands has turned suicide prevention efforts upside down. The authors write:

A central justification advanced by proponents is that psychiatric euthanasia prevents violent or lonely suicides. While emotionally compelling, this claim fails empirically. Epidemiological analysis demonstrates that even under optimistic assumptions, euthanasia functions as a profoundly inefficient and harmful preventive strategy. Approximately 9 young individuals would need to die by euthanasia to prevent 1 suicide.

This result reflects a fundamental base-rate problem. Even among high-risk psychiatric populations, suicide remains a rare event. Introducing euthanasia as a sanctioned outcome reframes suicidality from a symptom requiring containment into a potential treatment endpoint, an acceptable “treatment plan.” For youth with trauma histories and narrowed future perspectives, this can entrench death-focused thinking rather than alleviate it.

The activities of KEA and the Thanet group caused a group of psychiatrists to submit their concerns. The authors explain:

A group of psychiatrists submitted a letter to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service to raise alarm about the activities of the KEA foundation and Thanet, a web-based pro-euthanasia initiative. This letter argued that the combined media activism of KEA and the policy-driven pressure created by Thanet substantially contributed to the well-known Werther or contagion effect,15 as repeated television appearances and newspaper stories were followed by a sharp rise in euthanasia requests from youth, raising serious concern that the Netherlands was drifting toward a harmful and irresponsible practice.

The authors call on International guidelines to fill in the blanks in countries like the Netherlands and Canada who lack defined guidelines. They write:

The emergence of such institutional guidelines should be understood not as a solution, but as a symptom. They reflect the absence of a coherent national framework capable of holding together legal permissibility, clinical uncertainty, developmental science, and moral responsibility. Youth with severe mental suffering do not primarily need more refined procedures for death. They need time, continuity, relational safety, and systems capable of holding despair without prematurely foreclosing the future. The Dutch system, as it currently functions, offers certainty where humility is required and procedural clarity where ethical wisdom is lacking. No one can say with confidence where this trajectory will end. What is increasingly clear is that psychiatry, positioned as arbiter of death in the lives of youth, is being asked to carry a responsibility it cannot ethically or scientifically sustain.

This article is particularly important for Canada. Canada also lacks definitive guidelines and Canada has approved euthanasia for mental illness to officially begin on March 17, 2027. Canadians need to examine the Netherlands data and then reject euthanasia for youth and for mental illness. 

Canada's government has established a committee to examine Euthanasia for Mental Illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's federal government has established another Special Joint parliamentary Committee to examine the implementation of (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness alone. The committee is composed of 10 Members of Parliament and 5 Senators. 

The Members of Parliament on the committee are:

Conservatives: Michael Cooper, Todd Doherty, Tamara Jansen and Andrew Lawton.

Liberals: Hon Helena Jaczek, Annie Koutrakis, James Maloney, Marcus Powlowski and Kristina Tesser Derksen. 

Bloc Québécois: Luc Thériault (BQ).

The Senators on the Committee are:

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond, Hon. Yonah Martin, Hon. Rosemary Moodie, Hon. Pamela Wallin, Hon Kristopher David Wells.

The committee should not derail Private Members Bill C-218, which like it's predecessor in the last parliament (Bill C-314) would prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 has gained significant traction within the governing Liberal Party. This committee may move the debate into the committee rather than parliament.

Article: Preventing euthanasia for mental illness in Canada. Guide to supporting Bill C-218 (Read).

We are clear. No MAiD for Mental Illness.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition rally on parliament hill on Monday, April 13 at 12 noon.

For more information, contact us at: info@epcc.ca

When discussing issues related to euthanasia for mental illness alone, a member of parliament will listen to the concern of constituents. There are many people who have lived with mental health issues and suicidal ideation and are happy to be alive. These people may have been killed if euthanasia for mental illness alone were available at their dark time.

My comments about Canada's Senate. 

Senators are appointed until the age of 75 and are only responsible to their personal conscience. Justin Trudeau did not appoint Senators based on their political affiliation or as a reward for the work within the Liberal party, but rather he appointed people based on their philosophical beliefs. This is bad news for Canada and bad news for euthanasia in Canada.

Nonetheless, silence is our enemy. We will continue to stand up and speak the truth about euthanasia in general and euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Canada, The Godless Nation Filled With Serial Killers for Doctors.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on March 2, 2026

By Kelsi Sheren

Jonathan Reggler, a retired Vancouver Island family physician and active MAiD “provider” (Dr who poisons people to death), recently offered a moment of radical honesty in The Atlantic. Reflecting on his discomfort with Track 2 MAiD cases—those involving people who are not terminally ill—he explained how he resolves his moral unease and ill point out that this is how a killers talks.

“Once you accept that life is not sacred and [not] something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in — then … some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it’.”

This is not a throwaway line, that’s an omission. A Godless Dr, and Godless man. It is a philosophical confession and it quietly exposes the real engine driving Canada’s MAiD expansion—not compassion, not autonomy, but a specific worldview that has decided human life has no inherent worth beyond utility, comfort, or consent.

If life is not sacred, then nothing is off the table. The above quote show’s the world who this “Dr” really is.

That belief that God doesn’t exist and he can take life just as God can not stop at the elderly. It does not stop at the disabled. It does not stop at the depressed and it will not stop at children.

Do you remember when MAiD was sold to Canadians as an act of mercy for the terminally ill. Those already dying, those in unbearable physical pain, those with no alternatives. That frame has collapsed with stunning speed. Lies, all from the start.

Track 2 MAiD now includes people whose sole underlying condition is disability, chronic illness, or mental suffering. The safeguards keep loosening. The language keeps softening. What was once “unthinkable” has become “complicated,” then “nuanced,” then “necessary.”

This is how ethical lines move. Not with alarms, but with reassurances and continued lies that if you say out loud long enough people somehow believe to be true.

Jonathan Reggler did say what most MAiD killers who say out loud: the only way this system works is if you reject the idea that life has intrinsic value. Thats fairly easy when your a Godless human.

You do not need to be religious to understand why that matters.

The concept of the sacred is not about God—it is about limits. It is the line that says: even when something is inconvenient, costly, painful, or inefficient, we do not destroy it. Once that line is erased, the only remaining question is who decides and by what criteria. Right now the “who” is the liberal government and the criteria is slipping into “who ever feels like dying.”

Today, that decision rests with panels, protocols, and physicians who believe they are doing good while redefining death as care. These are the power hungry, killers of Canada. The “Dr’s” who believe killing is the right thing to do no matter what the alternative. These are the people who get paid by YOUR TAXES to kill people instead of help them. These are the people who wake up every single day of there life wondering how much further they can move the goal post and how many more they can kill before the globe catches onto the fact that Health Canada employees serial killers, not Dr’s.

The wild fact that Canada even discusses kid’s as a an option for euthanasia is one thing, but now defensively, beautiful little souls who cannot defend themselves is a different ballgame. Canada is already discussing “mature minors.” The Netherlands and Belgium already permit euthanasia for children, including infants, under certain conditions. These people are just as sick, but they stay fairly quite about it. Canadian Dr’s on the other hand brag about their kill count. The argument is always the same—unbearable suffering, poor quality of life, compassion and mercy. Angels of death is what they really are. They can look in the mirror and tell themselves whatever they want, their serial killers in white coats.

Notice what is missing: consent. A baby cannot ask to die. So someone else must decide their life is no longer worth living.

If life is not sacred, this is not a moral leap—it is a procedural one. This is no longer a slippery slope anymore, although I’ve always believed it’s been a cliff, this is simply looking at patter recognition. Every expansion of MAiD was once dismissed as fear mongering by the pro death cults. Every warning was called alarmist, or even named as misinformation and every boundary has fallen exactly as predicted.

Not because ALL doctors are evil, although Canada employs some of the worst our world has to offer—but because systems that abandon first principles do not self-limit.

Jonathan Reggler quote matters because it confirms the diagnosis: Canada has replaced the protection of the vulnerable with a cost-efficient, ideologically tidy exit ramp.

If life is not sacred, why stop anywhere? Why stop at age? Why stop at diagnosis? Why stop at consent?

And if the answer is “trust us,” Canadians should be very very afraid—because history is brutally consistent about what happens when the state decides which lives are worth continuing.

This is not healthcare reform.

It is a civilizational choice and we are making it with our eyes open now, well at least some of us are. This is a line I’ve personally seen crossed before and is why I am so painfully vocal about it. I’m a combat veteran. I’ve watched institutions talk about human beings the way accountants talk about numbers—assets, liabilities, acceptable losses. That language always comes before the harm, never after it.

War teaches you something uncomfortable: once a system decides a life is expendable for a greater good, the circle of who counts starts shrinking fast. First it’s the enemy. Then it’s the inconvenient. Then it’s the weak. The justification always sounds reasonable when you’re far from the consequences.

What alarms me about MAiD in Canada isn’t compassion for suffering—it’s the quiet confidence with which professionals now speak about ending life once its “value” drops below an acceptable threshold. I’ve seen where that logic leads when it’s backed by authority and paperwork.

You don’t need faith to know this is dangerous. You just need memory.

When institutions redefine human value, violence doesn’t always arrive with guns. Sometimes it arrives with consent forms, softened language, and budgets that quietly benefit from fewer people needing care.

When the state, the system, and the balance sheet all win by deciding a life is no longer worth the cost, that isn’t mercy.

That’s eugenics.