Assisted Suicide for people with eating disorders.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 30, 2026 we published an article about the Colorado 2025 assisted suicide data. There were three key take-aways from the Colorado data.

1. Colorado does not know how many people died by assisted suicide. 
2. Colorado has missing data concerning how many lethal poison prescriptions were filled.
3. 
   The number of people who were approved for assisted suicide for eating disorders in Colorado has grown substantially. In 2024, 19 people with eating disorders were approved for assisted suicide and in 2025, 17 people with eating disorders were approved for assisted suicide.

During the assisted suicide bill debate in the UK, Eat, Breathe, Thrive, an organization that specializes in the treatment of eating disorders produced a video about the threat of legalizing assisted suicide for people with eating disorders. 

The video features Ailidh, who lives with an eating disorder and says:

I'm worried. My concerns lie with people like myself who are still in the throws of anorexia right now and what the assisted dying bill could mean for them and the families.

The film shows an anthropologist speaking to the UK assisted dying bill committee claiming that only one or two people have died by assisted suicide for eating disorders in America.

Considering the fact that Colorado alone approved 19 people in 2024 and 17 people in 2025 for assisted suicide based on an eating disorder, clearly the comments to the committee were wrong.

Chelsea Roff

Chelsea Roff, the founder of Eat, Breathe, Thrive, explains the study that they did on assisted death for eating disorders and found that at least 60 people died by an assisted death based on having an eating disorder.

People with eating disorders are living with a serious but treatable condition. 

They are not terminally ill.

Reflecting on the legalization of assisted suicide in New York.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Today (August 5) is the day that New York state implements their assisted suicide law. 

This is a day of great sadness as we recognize the reality of the decision to legalize assisted suicide and we reflect on the fact that many lives will be ended by this decision.

Assisted suicide laws give doctors (in some states, (also) physician assistants and nurses) the right in law to be directly involved with causing the death of their patients and they provide total legal coverage for the medical staff who are willing to participate, even when the death that they facilitated was questionable.

Assisted suicide is sold to the culture as a form of freedom, choice and autonomy whereas the assisted suicide law actually gives doctors, the right in law, to agree that a persons life is not worth living and to prescribe lethal poison that will kill that person.

There is a misunderstanding about the nature of the assisted suicide act. Assisted suicide is sold as a self-killing, whereas the law is concerned about the rules that the doctor must follow in order to prescribe the lethal poison. Assisted suicide deaths are not always quick, peaceful and painless.

Further to that, there will be "legally" inappropriate deaths. A key problem with identifying deaths that are considered "outside" the parameters of the law is that one of the key witnesses is dead and the other key witness approved the death.

Assisted suicide changes the nature of medical treatment and care. One reason is that killing when sold as a treatment for medical conditions, normalizes killing and justifies it as a "medical option." Another reason is that some physicians will make assisted suicide a central part of their medical practice. These physicians will sometimes become cavalier with assisted suicide leading to a practical expansion of the law.

I oppose killing people. This is not just a statement but rather an understanding of our common human experience. Human persons are not just physical beings but rather we have an intertwined psychological and emotional nature. Offering death, at a person's lowest time, is not about autonomy but rather abandonment. Abandoning a person to death.

Cultural safety requires it's citizens and especially it's medical care-givers to be committed to caring and never killing. 

Giving doctors the right in law to kill creates a social inequality that becomes a threat to the lives of many in their time of need.

Response to: The Paradox of Assisted Suicide.

Mara Buchbinder's thesis: The Paradox of Medical Aid in Dying suggests that legalizing assisted suicide is popular because the practice is rare. Buchbinder also asserts that legalizing assisted suicide improves the death experience because patients can plan and discuss their death.

Dr's Pies, Geppert, Komrad and Hanson respond.

Dear Colleagues,

As psychiatrists and medical ethicists, we strongly disagree with anthropologist Mara Buchbinder, Ph.D.’s “Perspective” in the New England Journal of Medicine. [1] We believe Buchbinder’s thesis ignores the central, ethical issue underlying physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and offers several fallacious justifications for PAS.

First: nowhere in Buchbinder’s analysis is there any discussion of whether PAS is ethically justified, or consistent with the values of Hippocratic medicine. Many prominent medical organizations have repeatedly said it is not. [2,3,4]

Furthermore, it is a morbid irony to assert that an "unintended benefit" of MAID laws is to help "…start new conversations about what matters most to patients in the final stages of serious illness…” Does Buchbinder seriously believe that such intimate physician-patient conversations require legislation authorizing medically-assisted suicide on demand?

In truth, discussing MAID with a terminally ill patient narrows the conversation and orients the patient toward death as the preferred option. Responsible palliative care identifies options based on the patient’s actual goals and values [5]

Equally fallacious is Buchbinder’s reference to “this potential of MAID to control uncertainty” stemming from “the current historical moment.” The implication that a patient’s anxiety over “political unrest, economic instability, [and] climate change” is appropriately addressed by offering medically assisted suicide is stunning in its perversity.

As medical ethicist Dr. Leon Kass has observed, “We must care for the dying, not make them dead.” [6]

Respectfully,

Ronald W. Pies, MD 
Cynthia M.A. Geppert, MD, PhD, MA, MPH, MSBE, DPS, MSJ 
Mark S. Komrad, MD 
Annette Hanson, MD

References

1. Buchbinder M. The Paradox of Medical Aid in Dying. NEJM 395;5 July 30, 2026 [attached]

2. Snyder Sulmasy L, Mueller PS; Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: An American College of Physicians Position Paper. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 17;167(8):576-578

3. American Medical Association Code of Ethics. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/physician-assisted-suicide

4. WMA Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. (2019). https://www.wma.net/policies-post/declaration-on-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/

5. Geppert CM. Futility in Chronic Anorexia Nervosa: A Concept Whose Time Has Not Yet Come. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(7):34-43. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1039720. PMID: 26147264.

6. Kass L. Dehumanization Triumphant. First Things. Aug. 1, 1996. https://firstthings.com/dehumanization-triumphant/

Event in Jordon Ontario - Exposing Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia in Canada (August 13)

Lessons on opposing MAiD in Canada

Rachel Parker Live and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are sponsoring an important event in Jordan Ontario

Date: Thursday, August 13 at 7 pm.

Location: The Jordan Hotel

(Purchase tickets) 

Use discount code: RP FOLLOWER 

An evening with: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, podcaster Rachel Parker and author / activist Jonathon Van Maren.

The evening provides excellent speakers and an incredible opportunity to focus-on and share what needs to be done to change Canada's future. 

(Purchase tickets) 

 

UK Prime Minister seeks to delay assisted suicide debate

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Prime Minister Andy Burnham

The new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, while speaking with reporters after a speech at a Jewish Care facility about social care reform commented on the upcoming assisted suicide debate. Burnham stated at (11:34):

"I take the view that the debate, and I don't say that there shouldn't be a debate at some point about those issues, personally I think that there is something that needs to happen first and that's the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care. 

I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care.”

Burnham did not say that he opposes assisted suicide but he did say that improvements to end-of-life care should be dealt with first, before the UK considers assisted suicide.

These comments are important because on June 17, 2026 Labour MP Lauren Edwards introduced a similar version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that recently died in the British House of Lords. MPs are scheduled to vote on the Edwards assisted suicide bill at second reading on September 11, 2026.

On November 29, 2024; the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill, which was nearly identical to Edwards bill

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two nearly identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

The Parliament Acts has only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

Prime Minister Burnham's comments along with the fact that he has given members of his Labour party the right to vote with their conscience means that the Edwards assisted suicide bill will more likely be defeated on September 11.

New York Sisters obtain temporary order protecting them from participating in assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have good news. 

The Beckett Fund reported that a temporary order was obtained preventing the state of New York from forcing Catholic Sisters and Catholic healthcare from participating in the assisted suicide law while the federal lawsuit by Catholic healthcare proceeds in the court. 

The New York assisted suicide law will come into effect on August 5

Article: Catholic sisters challenge New York state assisted suicide law (Link).

The lawsuit was filed on July 16 to overturn the New York assisted suicide law based on the language in the law that, among other things, requires Catholic healthcare to inform patients that they can have assisted suicide, requires them to refer patients who request assisted suicide and the law conflicts with the federal law that prohibits federal funding for assisted suicide.

The temporary order was agreed to by US District Court Judge Anne M. Nardacci enabling Catholic healthcare to not participate in assisted suicide until a court decision is made in the full case. The order states that Catholic healthcare is temporarily protected from:

• providing information and counseling about assisted suicide,
• establishing policies and procedures about how counseling for assisted suicide will be done,
• arranging for other physicians or nurse practitioners who will provide information about counseling about assisted suicide or refering patients to other physicians or nurse practitioners who are willing to assist suicide,
• documenting requests for assisted suicide,
• assessing, evaluating or otherwise assisting patients in being qualified for assisted suicide,
• permiting assisted suicide or refering for assisted suicide.

The Judge assigned a time-line for the State of New York if they decide to appeal the emergency motion.

This is a temporary order until the court hears the full case. EPC believes that the court needs to recognize the conscience rights of care-givers and strike down the New York assisted suicide law based on federal assisted suicide funding restrictions.

For those who believe that assisted suicide is a choice, then they should also acknowledge the choice of others to not participate in assisted suicide. Participation is wider than the actual act of prescribing or directly assisting the suicide.

Further to that, assisted suicide is not about "autonomy" since it requires the direct involvement of medical professionals who are complicit with a person's suicide.

Medical professionals should never be involved with killing or assisting suicides since it changes the nature of care. For ethical healthcare to survive, there must be a commitment to always care and never kill.

More articles on this topic:

• Catholic sisters challenge New York state assisted suicide law (Link).
• New York is opening a pandora's box with assisted suicide (Link).
• New York Governor to sign assisted suicide bill (Link).

Colorado 2025 assisted suicide report. Missing data.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

Colorado citizens legalized assisted suicide by approving Proposition 106 in 2016 which came into effect in 2017. In 2024, Colorado passed assisted suicide Bill SB 068 expanding their assisted suicide law by: permitting non-physicians to prescribe the assisted suicide poison, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours and allowing the 48 hour waiting period to be waived if the presciber believes that the person is imminently dying.

The 2025 Colorado assisted suicide report states that:

In 2025, 580 patients received prescriptions for aid-in-dying medications under the provisions of the Colorado End-of-Life Options Act. This represents a 12.4% increase in the number of prescriptions compared to 2024. Among those prescribed aid-in-dying medication in 2025, CDPHE has received reports for 261 patients to whom aid-in-dying medication was dispensed. Also among those prescribed aid-in-dying medication, CDPHE has received death certificates for 512 patients through routine vital records registration. Note that not all of these deceased patients were dispensed aid-in- dying medication, and deaths may have been due to ingestion of aid-in-dying medication, the underlying terminal illness or condition, or other causes.

The Colorado report indicates that they do not know how many people died by ingesting the lethal poison concoction. 

The reporting is suspicious!

In 2025 there were 580 lethal poison prescriptions which was up from 516 in 2024 and 261 poison prescriptions dispensed which was down from 315 in 2024.

So the data makes it appear that more people are receiving a poison prescription for assisted suicide but fewer people are dying by assisted suicide. Based on the data, 45% of the people in 2025 who were prescribed a poison prescription obtained the prescription. The data must be wrong. 

In 2022, 317 people were prescribed poison prescriptions and 249 (79%) were dispensed. In 2023, 398 people were prescribed poison prescriptions and 316 (77%) were dispensed. 

A new trend started in 2024 with 516 poison prescriptions written and (315) (61%) prescriptions dispensed and as has already been explained, in 2025 only (45%) of the poison prescriptions were dispensed.

Unless there has been a change in the culture, it is suspicious that 45% of the 580 people who received a poison prescription received the prescription. 

• Is there a pharmacy that is dispensing assisted suicide poison and not reporting?
• Is there an underground or out-of-state source of assisted suicide poison that people obtaining with the prescription?
• Or are fewer people who have received a poison prescription having that prescription dispensed?

An investigation needs to be done to identify what is actually happening.

Let's look deeper into the data about who is being approved for assisted suicide in Colorado.

When examing the data the conditions that people have that are receiving approvals for assisted suicide remain consistent accept for two areas of concern.

The first concern is the increase in people with "other conditions" who are being approved for assisted suicide. Since legalization, 4.2% of the approvals were people with "other conditions" but in 2025 40 people 6.9% had "other conditions." The report does not indicate what is included within "other conditions."

The second concern is the increase in people with eating disorders or severe protein calorie malnutrition being approved for assisted suicide. In 2021 Colorado approved one person for assisted suicide based on a eating disorder. Eating disorders accounted for 19 assisted suicide approvals in 2024 and 17 in 2025.

Based on the likelihood that there is missing data in the report,  the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to conduct an independent investigation into the assisted suicide data.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights statement on the ADA and assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The following message was released by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on July 27, 2026.

As we mark the ADA's 36th anniversary, HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reaffirms a fundamental principle of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): people with disabilities have the same inherent dignity and equal worth as every other person.

The ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination based on disability in many settings, including healthcare. Healthcare decisions must not be influenced by stereotypes, bias, or judgments that a person's life is less valuable because of disability. Steering an individual toward physician-assisted suicide because of disability or assumptions about that person's quality of life may constitute unlawful disability discrimination. The Affordable Care Act also prohibits the use of federal funds for physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing and protects health care providers and entities that decline to participate in those practices.

HHS OCR is committed to enforcing these protections and ensuring that people with disabilities are treated with dignity and respect and receive equal treatment under federal law. If you believe you have experienced disability discrimination in healthcare, you can file a complaint at: hhs.gov/ocr/complaints…

The HHS OCR statement upholds the equality of every American while correctly acknowledging that assisted suicide can be based on discrimination.

The statement also reinforces the federal law prohibiting funding for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing and the importance of protecting health care providers right to decline to participate in assisted suicide.

The statement focused on three points. Some people with disabilities have felt pressured to assisted suicide. Research has uncovered the fact that the federal law prohibiting funding for assisted suicide is being circumvented. Several state assisted suicide laws, including New York, undermine the right of health care workers to refuse to participate in killing by assisted suicide.

Swiss assisted suicide leader dies while climbing Mount Fuji

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Mount Fuji Japan

Bernhard Sutter, who was the leader of the  Exit assisted suicide/euthanasia group recently died in Japan while climbing Mount Fuji

Sutter was a colleague of Philip Nitschke, the death activist who developed the Exit Bag and the Sarco Pod as well as promoted suicide substances on the internet.

Elizabeth Beattie reported on July 23, 2026 for The Japan Times that:

The managing director of one of Switzerland’s most prominent euthanasia firms died while climbing Mount Fuji during a family vacation.

Bernhard Sutter, 58, collapsed while ascending Japan’s tallest mountain with his son via the Fujinomiya route – the shortest, most direct way up the mountain. At around 3,010 meters above sea level, he felt unwell and stopped at a mountain hut, where he lost consciousness and stopped breathing.

The Japan Times reported that Sutter was involved with assisted suicide since 2007.

Sutter, who lived in Zurich with his family, had since 2015 worked as the managing director of the largest assisted dying firm in Switzerland, Exit. He joined the firm in 2007.

Philip Nitschke, the director of Exit International and the developer of suicide devices, such as the Sarco pod and the Exit bag, offered condolences to Sutter's wife and family stating that he had known Bernhard for more than 15 years and that Sutter was instrumental in launching the German edition of Nitschke's suicide instructions Handbook in 2011.

I personally remember meeting Sutter many years ago in Switzerland when I attended a euthanasia conference organized by World Federation of Right to Die Societies.

EPC offers condolences to the family and friends of Bernhard Sutter, but we also mourn the many people who died with the assistance of Sutter and his staff. Many people have been abandoned to death under the guise of compassion.

Catholic Sisters challenge New York state assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Madeleine Long reported in The Free Press on July 17, 2026 that several orders of Catholic sisters are challenging the New York assisted suicide law. This law requires the sisters to inform their patients that they can have assisted suicide and the New York law conflicts with the federal law which prohibits federal funding for assisted suicide.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the assisted suicide bill into law in February which will take effect on August 5, 2026.

Long reported that:

A coalition of Catholic healthcare providers filed suit in federal court in Albany on Friday, arguing that New York’s new assisted dying law would force them to choose between their faith and their ability to provide care for the sick, the elderly, and the dying.

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of New York, names 13 plaintiffs, including multiple congregations of nuns such as the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Diocese of Rockville Centre and Catholic Health, a network of five Long Island hospitals, are also named.

Long explains how the law contravenes the federal law prohibiting funding for assisted suicide:

The law works in tandem with an existing New York statute, the Palliative Care Information Act, which requires doctors and nurse practitioners to inform terminally ill patients of all their end-of-life options. Now that assisted dying is one of them, medical professionals must proactively raise it with patients—whether or not the patient asks.Catholic healthcare has always refused to participate in assisting suicides.

Long further explains that:

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the Medical Aid in Dying Act unconstitutional and block its enforcement before it takes effect next month. At its core, the complaint argues the law violates the First Amendment by compelling doctors and nurses at religious facilities to counsel patients about assisted dying and by interfering with the Church’s ability to govern its own healthcare institutions. It also states that the law conflicts with federal statutes prohibiting the use of federal healthcare funds for assisted dying—a claim that applies to several plaintiffs who receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Noncompliance carries significant consequences, according to the complaint, including civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, potential loss of operating licenses, and criminal liability resulting in up to a year in prison for willful violations.

New York’s law includes a provision permitting religious facilities to opt out of prescribing or administering lethal drugs on their premises. But according to the sisters’ lawyers, the opt-out is among the narrowest in the nation, narrower than similar laws in California, Oregon, and Washington, where religious providers can opt out of all participation if their faith requires it.It is important to note that Catholic healthcare is challenging their obligation to participate in assisting a suicide as well as they are challenging the use of federal money for assisting a suicide.

EPC believes that the court should recognize the conscience rights of care-givers and strike down the law based on federal assisted suicide funding restrictions.

For those who believe that assisted suicide is a choice, then they should also acknowledge the choice of others to not participate in assisted suicide. Participation is wider than the actual act of prescribing or directly assisting the suicide.

Further to that, assisted suicide is not about "autonomy" since it requires the direct involvement of medical professionals who are complicit with a person's suicide.

Medical professionals should never be involved with killing or assisting suicides since it changes the nature of care. For ethical healthcare to survive, there must be a commitment to always care and never kill.

More articles on this topic:

• New York is opening a pandora's box with assisted suicide (Link). 
• New York Governor to sign assisted suicide bill (Link).

Thousands of euthanasia reporting errors in British Columbia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sharon Kirkey reported for the National Post on July 20, 2026 that a recent euthanasia report obtained through a Freedom of Information request indicated that there were thousands of euthanasia reporting errors in British Columbia (BC) in 2024. Kirkey suggested that

The findings are bolstering calls for stronger independent oversight of the countries assisted death regime.

Previous article: Canada euthanasia report shows massive problems with reporting errors. (Read).

Kirkey outlines the data in the report:

In 2024, 4,169 people sought MAID in B.C.

Half those cases — 51.9 per cent — required follow-up by the oversight unit, “with a total of 2,807 errors across those cases,” according to the report.

A sizeable proportion of those errors — 12.5 percent, or 353 cases — required “education to practitioners and pharmacists” over concerns about compliance with legal requirements and professional standards.

Kirkey explains that:

Most follow-up was due to clerical errors, like missing information, or missing pages from provincial forms, information classified as “non-critical” but reportable.

Kirkey reports that the Ministry of Health stated that they refer the most serious deviations in the law to regulatory colleges and/or referrals to law enforcement, but the Ministry of Health also stated that:

it couldn’t disclose how many cases have been referred to police or licensing colleges, citing provincial privacy laws. Any information about the outcomes of any referrals would need to be directed to the colleges and law enforcement, it added.

The Ministry of Health then claimed that serious deviations in the law only accounted for .2% of the euthanasia deaths. This is the same Ministry of Health that didn't release the information publicly and only released it after a Freedom of Information request.

There were likely many more serious deviations in the law based on Canada's euthanasia reporting system which enables deviations to be covered up. Canada employs a self reporting system, whereby the medical professional who approves the death often is the same medical professional who kills the person and the medical professional who kills the person is the same medical professional who reports the death. 

Even then, there were 17,304 BC euthanasia deaths by the end of 2024. If only .02% were serious deviations in the law that would mean that minimally there were 34 deaths that seriously deviated from the law and dead people don't complain.

Kirkey continued by stating that the law requires independent oversight. She stated:

The data come amid calls for greater scrutiny — and more public transparency — over MAID deaths. Recent controversial cases include an Ontario man who was assessed for MAID outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop and, six months later, driven by the same doctor to a storage facility where bodies are prepared for funerals, where the MAID provision took place.

In another case, an Ontario man resumed breathing after being declared dead after the doctor failed to use the proper sequence of drugs.

Last December 26-year-old Kiano Vafaeian, who struggled with vision loss from diabetes and depression, died by MAID in a Vancouver funeral home after being denied MAID by doctors in his home province.

Kirkey also stated that Dr. John Maher, who specializes in treating severe mental illness, told Canada's parliamentary euthanasia committee (AMAD) that:

people are getting MAID “for reasons that are frankly illegal.”

There were 3000 reported euthanasia deaths in BC in 2024 and 3156 in 2025. BC has the second highest rate of euthanasia in Canada.

There were approximately 17,700 Canadian euthanasia deaths in 2025.

Prescription Poison film: Averting Assisted Suicide in America.

The Prescription Poison film (43 minutes) was released on July 20, 2026. 

The Prescription Poison film is produced by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Frank Panico with Xs in the Sky films. 

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US or purchase the DVD for $15 US at: https://prescriptionpoison.com

Prescription Poison is a ground-breaking documentary exposing the expansion of assisted suicide in America.

The film will awaken America to the growth of assisted suicide and is a warning to Americans that, unless stopped, the Canadian system of killing will become a reality in America. Watch the Prescription Poison film trailer.

Groups can organize screenings of the Prescription Poison film at no cost. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition asks that you make a donation when showing the film to a group.

You may also want a speaker, such as Alex Schadenberg, to lead a discussion session after the screening. 

For screening plans contact EPC at: info@epcc.ca

 

Purchase the Prescription Poison film for $10 US at:  https://prescriptionpoison.com

The film features: Denise Leipold, Margaret Marsilla, Victor Nieves, Professor William Peace (RIP), Ales Primc, Alexander Raikin, Jessica Rodgers, Alex Schadenberg, Wesley J Smith, Dr Sarah Smith, Nir Solomon, Dr William Toffler.

UK assisted suicide bill will go to a vote on September 11, 2026

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that failed to pass earlier this year in the House of Lords has been revived by Lauren Edwards MP with nearly identical language as the failed Leadbeater bill.

On November 29, 2024; Members of the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges the UK to Kill the bill not the patients.

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their July 17 report that:

Yesterday, Lauren Edwards MP published her Private Member’s Bill. We say “her” bill, but it is essentially the same as the one which foundered in the Lords earlier this year: they could have taken this opportunity to reflect and respond to the many concerns of experts and professional groups, but the clear priority is to leave open the door to use of the Parliament Acts, and so you can be sure that there will be strenuous efforts to prevent MPs from seeking amendments to the Bill.

The House of Lords debate exposed serious flaws with the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill and yet Edwards insists on pushing the same flawed bill because, if passed by the House of Commons, it would not be required to be debated by the House of Lords, where strong opposition to assisted suicide exists.

The Parliament Acts have only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards, who is a Labour MP for Rochester and Stroud, has introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two essentially identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

A similar parliamentary tactic was used in France where the National Assembly passed identical euthanasia bills on June 30 and July 15 that enabled them to ignore the opposition to the euthanasia bill in the Senate, even though France's Senate is elected.

California also legalized assisted suicide in 2015 with a similar tactic.

Concerning California, on August 18, 2015 we wrote:

The assisted suicide lobby has renewed their push to legalize assisted suicide in California after their previous assisted suicide bill, SB 128, was stopped in the Health Committee.

The assisted suicide lobby is taking advantage of the special legislative session called by Governor Jerry Brown to address shortfalls in healthcare funding. The new assisted suicide bill AB 15 is nearly identical to SB 128, but AB 15 will not be heard by the Health Committee.

In other words, SB 128 was stopped in California's Health Committee, then Governor Brown opened a "special session" to examine shortfalls in healthcare funding that included Bill AB 15, an identical assisted suicide bill to SB 128, which passed in the special session and became law.

 

Edwards appears to be using the same playbook that was used recently in France and in 2015 in California.

 

Kill the bill, not the patients. 

Woman who sought assisted suicide 26 years ago is happy to be alive.

Alex with Jeanette Hall

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We received a message from Jeanette Hall who commented on the article concerning France legalizing euthanasia. Jeanette wrote:

Alex. It is 26 years (July 17, 2000) that I learned I had terminal colon cancer and wanted to follow that same course with Oregon's law and asked Dr. Kenneth Stevens to help me end my life. I pray there are many Dr. Stevens in France that will want to see their patient live. Still "Great to be Alive."

Dr Kenneth Stevens is a physician in Oregon who helped Jeanette find a reason to live.

 

The text from the youtube video explaining the story.

The patient that I specifically recall is a patient by the name of Jeanette Hall. She was referred to me by her surgeon. She had a low rectal cancer.

So when I saw her I told her what she had, I told her we could treat it with radiation and chemotherapy and said that this is potentially treatable.

She said I don't want to go through all that. I had an Aunt who lost her hair and I don't want to lose my hair.

She went back and saw the surgeon. The surgeon told her that if she wasn't treated that she would be dead within 6 months or a year.

The Oregon law says that if life expectancy is 6 months you qualify for the law so I could have written her a prescription for the lethal medication at that time.

She came back and I talked with her again and she said: why aren't you giving me the pills? I want the pills.

I learned more about her. I learned that she had a son who was going to the police academy. I said:

Wouldn't you like to see him graduate? That really made her think that I really have something to live for.

She really struggled in her mind as to whether she was going to be treated or not treated. She finally accepted the treatment, it took a few weeks to give, it was not easy, she actually did lose her hair and her hair grew back and she was able to attend her son's graduation from the police academy.

Five years later, my wife and I were at a restaurant and she was there with a friend and she came over and she said:

Doctor Stevens, you saved my life. If I had gone to a doctor that believed in assisted suicide I would not be here. I'd be dead.

More information about Jeanettte Hall.

• Patients recovery convinces doctor to fight assisted suicide (Read).

France legalized euthanasia. What's next?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

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

Agence France-Presse reported on July 15 (translated):

For the fourth time in a year, the National Assembly – the lower house of the French Parliament – approved the bill, by 291 votes to 241 (and 29 abstentions).

In a restraint session, MPs, to whom the government gave the final say after three rejections from the Senate – the upper house – authorized assisted suicide assistance for the first time, or even euthanasia, with a series of conditions.

We are concerned that pressure to expand an already expansive law will lead to quick expansions of the law. Agence France-Presse also reported that:

Before attending the vote, the president of the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD), Jonathan Denis, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the ADMD, spearheading the fight for this new right for decades, would continue to fight on the free choice between assisted suicide and euthanasia or the consideration of advance directives and psychological suffering.

The euthanasia lobby is pushing to expand the law to allow euthanasia by advanced request and euthanasia for mental illness alone, similar to the political push by Canada's euthanasia lobby.

 

Wesley Smith

Based on media reports, Wesley Smith wrote that:

• The bill does not require terminal illness. Rather, it requires a “serious and incurable illness” that “threatens life in an advanced or terminal stage” — meaning death could be years away. The patient must also experience “constant physical or psychological suffering” related to the disease that is “resistant to treatment or unbearable” (as defined by the patient). Psychological suffering alone does not make one eligible for hastened death.

• There is no time set for when a disease “threatens life.”

• Only French legal residents and citizens 18 and over are eligible.

• Doctors can kill requesting patients when they are unable to kill themselves. Inability to self-administer death is not defined.

• There is only a two-day waiting period between approved request and the ability to become dead.

• There are no meaningful conscience protections for doctors unwilling to kill or prescribe poison nor explicit protections for dissenting health-care institutions. While doctors need not personally end life, they must be complicit by providing patients with the names of doctors willing to do the lethal deed.

• France’s national health service will pay for the death (which could save it a lot of money, as expensive patients will be no more). 

The battle is not over. Agence France-Presse reported that:

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

In a decision that could take place around August 15, the Sages will have to say whether certain clauses, such as the minimum period of reflection of two days granted to the patient after the agreement of doctors to assist in dying, are compatible with the principles of individual freedom and human dignity, according to the services of the Prime Minister.

We hope that the Constitutional Council rejects, or at least moderates the bill. 

France's Presidential election will be in April 2027. It is our hope that Emmanuel Macron will be replaced by someone who opposes euthanasia.

France's Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, opposed the euthanasia bill.

Terrible news: France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill.

This is the final vote to legalize euthanasia. The bill will now go to Constitutional Council to determine if it complies with the constitution.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have very bad news for everyone who opposes killing people.

France's National Assembly passed their euthanasia bill by a vote of 291 to 241 on Wednesday, July 15.

We reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232.

 

France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times after the previous votes. This final vote will not go to the Senate for a vote as the National Assembly can pass legislation into law even when they are not able to reach agreement with the Senate.

The issue might not be over yet.

Sylvie Corbet reported for The Associated Press on July 15 that the Prime Minister and the Senate President will refer the bill to the Constitutional Council. Corbet wrote:

Senate President Gérard Larcher and Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said they will refer the bill, once adopted, to the Constitutional Council, which will have up to a month to determine whether it complies with the Constitution. The law would only enter into force once that review has been completed.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

Similar to Canada, France's bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian data indicates that nearly every assisted death was the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide). Also, like Canada, France's healthcare system will cover the cost of killing.

France's euthanasia bill has been sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that this bill does not limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. This bill employs undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given legal immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but, over time, the law will be forced to expand since it is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

We hope that the Constitutional Council will reject the euthanasia bill.

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people. We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and we support caring options. 

More articles on this topic:

• France's Senate once again defeats euthanasia bill (Read).
• France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15 (Read).

France's National Assembly must defeat euthanasia bill. Don't follow Canada's lead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's National Assembly will, once again, vote on a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide on Wednesday, July 15. 

France's euthanasia bill has passed three times in the National Assembly and it has been defeated three times in their Senate. If the bill passes in the National Assembly on July 15, it will legalize euthanasia and bypass the opposition of the Senate.

Similar to Canada, France's euthanasia bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian experience is that nearly every assisted death did so with the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide).

In Ontario, Canada's largest province, the 2025 euthanasia report states that, since legalization, there were 28,634 euthanasia deaths and 3 assisted suicide deaths.

France's National Assembly has sold the concept of poisoning people as something that will be done in exceptional circumstances. This is the same argument that was made in Canada, but the opposite has happened.

Euthanasia went from an exception to an expectation in Canada.

In 2025, there were approximately 17,700 medical homicide (euthanasia) deaths in Canada representing approximately 5.6% of all deaths with Québec killing more than 8% of all deaths.

Since Canada legalized medical homicide there has been more than 103,000 assisted deaths. These statistics indicate how killing has become common in Canada.

Don't follow Canada's lead.

Euthanasia has changed the nature of healthcare in Canada. Canada is experiencing a crisis with the cost of healthcare. 

Euthanasia is now being sold to Canadians as a form of healthcare. A recent report indicated that at least 24,000 Canadians died in 2025 while on a waiting list for treatment, once can understand how legalizing euthanasia is not simply an option but for many it is perceived as the only option.

Euthanasia has become a form of healthcare reform since dead people don't require healthcare.

To make things worse, euthanasia laws almost always expand. The death lobby knows that it is harder to legalize euthanasia than it is to expand the law, once it is legal.

Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 with a requirement that a person must be terminally ill before they can be killed by euthanasia. 

In 2021 Canada expanded that law to permit euthanasia based on a person having a "grievous" and "irremediable" medical condition. The law never defined the terms "grievous" and "irremediable." The disability protested the change since the law now specifically focuses on killing people with disabilities.

Once the law expanded to people who were not terminally ill, stories of people with disabilities being approved to be killed because they were living in poverty, homeless, or having difficulty obtaining medical treatment started to be reported in the media. A Mississauga food bank stated that people needing their services were seeking death by euthanasia based on poverty.

France's bill, like every euthanasia bill claims to have "safeguards."

France's euthanasia bill is being sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that none of these bills have "strict" safeguards that limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. These laws employ undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given total legally immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Claire Brosseau, is a Canadian actress who is participating in a court challenge bacause she wants to die by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. Brosseau claims to be living with intolerable psychological suffering. If Brosseau were a long-term resident of France would she be killed by euthanasia?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but if passed, the law will be forced to expand since i is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

France's euthanasia bill includes a 1.1 Billion euro palliative care expansion package. France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times while overwhelmingly supporting the palliative care expansion package.

Increased funding for palliative care does not assure expansion palliative care availability. Most provinces in Canada pay for euthanasia through palliative care funding codes. Therefore, it is impossible to know how much money is being spent on palliative care and how much money is being spent on killing.