Canadian man tried to have his incompetent wife killed by euthanasia, against her consent.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Roxanne Egan-Elliott reported that Justice Bradford Smith removed a Canadian man’s power to make health-care decisions for his 77-year-old wife with advanced Alzheimer’s after the court learning that the man intended to end her life and then take his own.

The article that was published by the Times Colonist on December 23, 2025 reports that a woman known as E.W. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2017 and her husband has pushed to have her killed by euthanasia, without her consent. The article states:

E.W. was assessed as eligible for medical assistance in dying in 2020, but by September 2021, a doctor determined in a second assessment that she was ineligible because her condition had progressed to a point that she no longer had sufficient insight into dementia to consent to MAID.

E.W. also told the doctor at that point that she was not interested in receiving MAID in circumstances related to worsening memory or confusion, the court decision says.

Her husband, T.W., is a “strong advocate” for MAID and has told various people that if he and E.W. are eligible for MAID, they intend to receive it.

He has also told family, friends and Island Health staff that if his wife becomes ineligible, he intends to end her life and take his own, the decision says.

Clearly, her husband was considering murdering his wife and then dying by suicide.

The court heard that E.W. never agreed to her husbands "death plan." Egan-Elliott reported:

“On the contrary, E.W. was understandably upset by it,” and told their daughter that T.W. “was trying to kill her,” the decision says.

Island Health increased the frequency of its wellness checks and clinical assessments of E.W. after receiving a report from the doctor who assessed E.W. for MAID that she had said she was not ready to die, and that if her husband learned she was ineligible for MAID, he planned to carry out the death plan, which he referred to as “dignicide.”

The article reports that in January 2022 that Island Health obtained emergency powers to remove E.W. from the couple's home and to place her in a long-term care facility for protection.

Egan-Elliott reported that the husband continued to inappropriately treat his wife. He would call the care facility every day, against her wishes, at 6:30 am to wake her up, she was often dressed in tattered clothing and shoes, that TW provided, including worn-out men's work boots, that he insisted that she wear, and more.

Justice Bradford Smith decision stated:

“Having regard to what is in E.W.’s best interest and her lack of cognitive capacity, I find that the only currently tenable solution that will protect E.W. from risk of death or grievous harm is to remove T.W.’s authority as her personal representative,”

Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia’s Peter A. Allard School of Law, told Lisa Steacy for CTV news on December 22 that:

“The death plan is contrary to our murder laws. And I think it’s really important not to have us talk about the murder of elderly people as some slightly improper form of MAID. That’s not what it is. It’s murder. Just because she has a disability does not transform this into something else. This case demonstrates how our MAID regime has normalized death as a response to disability for the elderly."

Steacy also reported Grant as stating:

Grant also said she finds it troubling the decision does not indicate that any moves were made by any authorities to limit or prevent T.W.’s contact with his wife in light of his seemingly unabashed professions of his intent to kill her, or that there was any discussion about how or whether his actions would warrant a criminal investigation or charge.

The relationship between T.W. and E.W. is also one with all the hallmarks of coercive control—a form of intimate partner violence that Canada is taking steps toward criminalizing, Grant pointed out.

In that context, Grant said the repeated references to T.W. advocating for MAID for his wife, his apparent attempts to find a way consent to it on her behalf, and his plan to kill her if MAID was not available are particularly troubling.

Grant's concerns are correct. E.W.'s life was directly threatened by her husband. E.W. has Alzheimer's and needs support, but her husband is not only controlling her but doing so in an abusive manner.

E.W. not only needed her husband removed as her medical decision maker but he should be barred from seeing her as a protection for her. The husband is abusive and is willing to kill her.

This article might be seen as proving that the law protected E.W. from her husband but considering that Québec has approved euthanasia by advanced request and the federal government is considering expanding euthanasia to advanced request, the situation may have been different if advanced requests were permitted.

I have published several articles about domestic murder/suicide over the years (Articles Link).

Peter Singer, My Deathbed, And Why I Can’t Trust ‘MAiD’

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader  

Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and is a member of the EPC-USA board. 

One of the reasons that I decided to go back to school to get a Masters degree in Special Education instead of getting a PH.D in disability studies was so that I could stop thinking about Peter Singer so often. I was deeply shocked upon finding his “let’s kill disabled babies” screeds in college, and a lot of my musicology/disability studies research on how the history of eugenics influences contemporary narratives about euthanasia and disability was me trying to understand why turn of the twenty first century society had allowed such a hateful bully to have a platform. My inquiry into this matter led to published research on how pro eugenic narratives about disabled people and euthanasia were communicated in film music, and I loved my research. But, after I recovered from my first bout of psychotic depression, it occurred to me that if I didn’t refocus some of my intellectual energies, I might one day be in my 90s on my deathbed, ranting that Peter Singer was a scumbag. And a hospice nurse would say, “Yes, yes, dear, he’s dead now; he’s been dead for many years.” And then I would pass away peacefully, secure in the knowledge that Peter Singer was dead.

This intellectual entanglement might seem sort of ridiculous, and be kind of unhealthy, but I think my deep anger is understandable. Because in addition to comparing disabled people to chimpanzees and saying that disabled babies should be killed to contain healthcare premiums, Singer also thinks that it’s acceptable to rape some of us. 

In 2017 a therapist named Anna Stubblefield was arraigned on charges of having sexually assaulted D.J., a disabled man with cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment. She claimed that the sexual contact was consensual, but D.J.’s family disagreed. In a New York Times editorial about the case, Peter Singer and his colleague Jeff McMahan wrote:

“If we assume that [the alleged victim, D.J.] is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. . . . In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed he may lack the concept of consent altogether.

This does not exclude the possibility that he was wronged by Stubblefield, but it makes it less clear what the nature of the wrong might be. It seems reasonable to assume that the experience was pleasurable to him . . . it seems that if Stubblefield wronged or harmed him, it must have been in a way that he is incapable of understanding and that affected his experience only pleasurably.”

Kevin Mintz. A disability studies scholar with cerebral palsy, published an article about the Stubblefield case in the journal Disability and Society titled “Ableism, Ambiguity and the Stubblefield Case,” in which he notes:

“Philosophers Jeff McMahan and Peter Singer also marginalize and objectify D.J. in their op-ed in The New York Times. In particular, they argue that if D.J. truly is severely intellectually disabled, then it is not clear what harm was done to him if Stubblefield did, in fact, sexually assault him. Their logic is flawed because it supposes that for someone to be harmed, they have to actually perceive the harm being done to them. This would also imply that sex crimes against anyone who is incapable of perceiving harm are not explicitly harmful. What would that mean for cases involving children who might not understand when harm is being done to them, the unconscious, or the intoxicated?

As a professional in the field of human sexuality, I find this conclusion appalling and dangerous. There is not enough research on the effects of trauma in these kinds of cases to be able to definitively determine whether such assaults are or are not harmful in their own right.”

Yes: according to Singer and McMahon, DJ could not have the same human reaction to trauma as a neurotypical, able-bodied person, and therefore it was ok if Stubblefield used him as a sex toy. 

Oregon assisted suicide model proponents’ tolerance for people like Singer is one of the major reasons for why I do not support the Oregon model. What does publishing Singer and MacMahon’s column say about the New York Times, which loudly favors “MAiD” and also published an article saying that a man shooting his Alzheimer’s affected wife in the head was a “love story”? The Completed Life Initiative gave an “End of Life Pioneer” award to Connecticut “MAiD” activist Lynda Bluestien just a month after it gave Singer a platform at its Faith Sommerfield Memorial Lecture in 2023. Why should disabled people trust the judgment or intentions of a movement that rubs elbows with a man who thinks raping cognitively impaired people is ok? 

I realize that advocacy sometimes requires working with people with whom we might not agree, and I do not like everything every fellow euthanasia opponent does or believes, but I swear to God, none of the “MAiD” opponents that I work with has ever said that raping or killing people is ok. 

Alas, mainstream “MAiD” advocates are not alone in platforming people like Peter Singer. Singer has been referred to as “the most influential living philosopher.” As I’ve mentioned, the coercion I experienced in the Special Education system led me to want to help prevent even one person from being coerced into assisted suicide, but the second major disability justice reason why I cannot support the Oregon model is because so many people in this world love Peter Singer. A world that doesn’t know any better than to platform a man who thinks that raping disabled people is ok has not earned the responsibility to regulate death. 

Author Note: I’ve discussed my struggles with unfortunate, involuntary feelings of kind of “wanting” Peter Singer to die so that he can’t hurt disabled people anymore. However, that’s not a suggestion to harm Peter Singer. It’s wrong to kill people, it wouldn’t do the disabled community’s broader situation any good, and it’s not worth getting lost in the criminal justice system. 

Previous articles by Meghan Schrader (Articles Link). 

 

George Clooney, Annette Bening to star in Pro-Assisted-Suicide movie

This article was published by National Review online on October 17, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Two A-List Hollywood actors will star in a pro-assisted-suicide movie. From the Hollywood Reporter story:

George Clooney and Annette Bening will star in In Love, an adaptation of Amy Bloom’s New York Times best-selling memoir In Love: A Memoir of Love and Loss that is to be directed by Paul Weitz. . . .

With In Love, Bloom wrote about how her she slowly lost her husband to Alzheimer’s, how the two made the decision to travel to Switzerland to end his life, and the struggle to move forward as a widow. The book was an affirmation of love and the power of relationships. It was also named TIME Magazine’s No. 1 best nonfiction book and included on their list of 100 must-read books.

Of course! To Big Time Hollywood, adjacent glitterati, and much of the mainstream media, truly loving someone with Alzheimer’s means being willing to help them become dead rather than caring for them as long as they live.

This is almost trite. How many pro-euthanasia movies/TV episodes have there been? It’s hard to keep count. How many anti-assisted-suicide/pro-care projects? Honestly, I can’t think of one even though there are plenty of dramatic stories illustrating the abuses and dangers just waiting to be told.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., founder of the American Spectator magazine, coined a term kulturesmog, meaning “ideas that are incompatible with traditional American social, cultural, and economic ideals.” That term sure seems apt here.

Will We Care For or Kill People with Dementia?

This article was published by National Review online on September 19, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

I understand that people are terrified of dementia. Believe me, I get it. My mother died of Alzheimer’s. But I can’t wrap my head around the fact that advocacy for killing/suicide as the answer to the difficulties caused by the condition is becoming ubiquitous.

Noted bioethicist and lawyer Thaddeus Mason Pope has written an essay, to be published in an edited volume, on this very issue. It lists eleven ways people can “avoid late-stage dementia,” and almost all involve intentionally ending life.

Remember when we were told that advance medical directives are the key to not receiving life-extending treatment one does not want? They are, but that’s not good enough for Pope, because it doesn’t guarantee death:

This strategy is risky and uncertain. While patients with dementia can refuse antibiotics, they might never get an infection requiring antibiotics. In other words, advance directives for patients with dementia may be impotent because no triggering condition in their advance directive is ever satisfied. They may never need treatment they have refused. Consequently, traditional advance directives cannot reliably achieve the goals of patients seeking to avoid late-stage dementia.

Not only that, but he barely touches on the kind of compassionate care that can be provided to dementia patients, such as hospice, properly delivered. He even damns hospice with faint praise:

While physical suffering is usually sufficiently addressed with hospice and palliative support, this long duration imposes a burden on the patient and their family. And it imposes a significant financial cost, as the patient typically has nursing and doula support.

Get it? This is an argument not to avoid suffering but to not be a “burden” and to put oneself out of loved ones’ misery.

I should also note that hospice is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, which costs the patient very little. As to additional expenses, when my mother was dying, we also had a “visiting angel” kind of service to provide companionship. It cost some money, sure, but it wasn’t prohibitive and the service made my mother extremely happy, even toward the end. Besides, given the troubles the hospice sector is currently experiencing, we need better promotion of its proper application, not an “easier” way out that involves killing. 

In his essay, Pope pushes euthanasia (eventually chosen by a surrogate), suicide (assisted and otherwise), killing by self-starvation (VSED), death by inert gasses, going to a suicide clinic in Switzerland, being denied spoon feeding, and intentional malnourishment, among other gems.

So why do I give this awfulness publicity? I believe that people need to be aware of the darkness that is deepening, and that unthinkable actions once (properly) deemed abandonment are now being advocated at the highest levels of cultural influence. People with dementia need to be assured that they are valued and will be cared for, not deemed a killable caste.

It is all so discouraging. We are moving from do no harm to “do harm medicine,” and the question must be asked: In coming years, will we care for or kill dementia patients? I believe that the morality of society will depend on the answer to that question.

Belgian euthanasia deaths increase by 15% in 2023.

The European Institute of Bioethics published the following report:

On Tuesday, February 27, the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia in Belgium (CFCEE) published the figures relating to euthanasia's declared during 2023. The number of euthanasia's officially practiced reached a new record with 3,423 euthanasia's declared to the Commission in 2023.

While the year 2022 had also been marked by an increase in cases (+10%), see. IEB news, this year marks an increase of 15% compared to 2022.

To these euthanasia's officially declared to the Commission, scientific studies estimate that approximately 25 to 35% of undeclared euthanasia's should be added (JPSM, 2018).

If the majority of reported euthanasia's concern elderly people, note that almost a third (30%) of people officially deceased by euthanasia were under 70 years.

Euthanasia's carried out at home represent 48.6%. We observe a confirmed increase in euthanasia carried out in rest and care homes (16.4% in 2022 and 17.4% in 2023). 32% of euthanasias were carried out in hospitals and palliative care units. This proportion is up slightly compared to the previous year.

The figures for 2023 also confirm the increase in euthanasias carried out due to multiple pathologies (+3% compared to 2022, i.e. the second type of condition mentioned, after cancer). Euthanasia for multiple pathologies thus represents 23.2% of euthanasia, of which almost half (47%) were carried out when death was not expected in the short term. As the Commission indicates, polypathologies designate “a combination of suffering caused by several chronic conditions which progress towards a final stage”. In practice, these conditions can notably consist of terminal heart failure, hemiplegia due to a stroke but also loss of vision or hearing, polyarthritis or incontinence.

Finally, in 76.2% of cases, physical and psychological suffering were mentioned simultaneously. Additionally, 89 people were euthanized due to psychiatric conditions (such as personality disorders or depression) or cognitive disorders (such as Alzheimer's disease). A figure again increasing compared to 2022.

California Bill will expand law from assisted suicide to euthanasia and more.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

California Senator Catherine Blakespear (D) has sponsored the most extreme assisted suicide expansion bill in America by introducing Senate Bill 1196. 

SB 1196 will expand the California assisted suicide law by:

1. Changing the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” meaning No time limit.

2. Allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide/euthanasia; even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent. 

3. Allow euthanasia—by IV, as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses)

4. Remove the California residency requirement. This would allow California to join Oregon and Vermont, which dropped their residency requirements and now allow suicide tourism.

5. Remove the 48 hour waiting period between first and second request by the patient. Same day death. 

6. The California assisted suicide law is scheduled to sunset in 2031. This bill proposes to remove the sunset date.

Changing the California assisted suicide law to euthanasia, is not simply changing how the act is done it is legalizing a new act by amending California Homicide Laws. Assisted suicide requires medical practitioners to be directly involved in an act of killing someone. Euthanasia requires the medical practitioner to actively carry out the act. Canada legalized euthanasia by creating an exception to homicide, California will need to do the same.

Changing the criteria from a terminal illness (6 months prognosis) to having a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' will lead to people with disabilities "qualifying" for death by lethal poison for reasons of poverty, homelessness, an inability to obtain necessary services or difficulty with obtaining medical treatment as has happened in Canada. (Article Link).

Euthanasia is sold to the public as allowing competent adults who are capable of consenting to die by lethal poison. Allowing euthanasia for people with dementia permits medical practitioners to kill someone who is not competent and unable to consent.

Removing the 48-hour waiting period will enable a same day death by euthanasia.

Homicide tourism would be permitted if Bill SB 1196 is passed since the bill permits death by euthanasia/homicide and it removes the California residency requirement.

Thank you to Dr Mark Komrad for alerting me to the purpose of Bill SB 1196.

California needs to reject Bill SB 1196.

Don't follow Canada's lead.

Alzheimer’s Association Terminates Partnership with Assisted-Suicide Advocacy Group

This article was published by National Review online on January 30, 2023.

By Wesley Smith

Alzheimer’s disease runs in my family. My mother and uncle both died from it, so I have intimately witnessed the worst that the disease can inflict.

I also know how much people with the condition need love, understanding, and patience. They are still the persons they have always been, just compromised and dependent.

I also know how vulnerable people with dementia are and how easily they can be manipulated. I am also aware that too many denigrate them as less than human — so-called non-persons — and view their lives as no longer worth living.

People are understandably terrified of the disease. Consequently, as the Catholic bioethicist Charles Camosy has written, people with dementia are targets of the euthanasia movement. That is why I was appalled when Compassion and Choices — the country’s most prominent assisted-suicide advocacy organization — bragged that it had partnered with the Alzheimer’s Association to advocate on behalf of Alzheimer’s patients. C & C talks a good game about end-of-life care, but their primary mission is to push suicide as an answer to serious illness.

An association dedicated to the care of people with the disease had no business affiliating in any way with a group that advocates assisted suicide.

Now, the Alzheimer’s Association has seen C & C for what it really is and has terminated the relationship. From the AA press release:

Alzheimer’s disease, the Alzheimer’s Association entered into an agreement to provide education and awareness information to Compassion & Choices, but failed to do appropriate due diligence. Their values are inconsistent with those of the Association. We deeply regret our mistake, have begun the termination of the relationship, and apologize to all of the families we support who were hurt or disappointed. Additionally, we are reviewing our process for all agreements including those that are focused on the sharing of educational information.

As a patient advocacy group and evidence-based organization, the Alzheimer’s Association stands behind people living with Alzheimer’s, their care partners and their health care providers as they navigate treatment and care choices throughout the continuum of the disease. Research supports a palliative care approach as the highest quality of end-of-life care for individuals with advanced dementia.

Right. Care — not killing! Good for the Alzheimer’s Association. I just wish more such organizations understood that the activists of C & C are suicide pushers. They are not the friends of the ill and afflicted.

Alzheimer's Association ends agreement with assisted suicide group. Killing is not caring.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alzheimer's is a terrible condition. Research, treatment and care is needed for people with Alzheimer's and their families. 

The Alzheimer's Association announced that they have ended their agreement with an assisted suicide group.

Contact the Alzheimer's Association at: media@alz.org and thank them that they have recognized that: 

Assisted suicide does not maximize quality care and support. 

A world without Alzheimer's must not be achieved by killing people with Alzheimer's

Assisted suicide is the ultimate form of abandonment. People with Alzheimer's deserve to be cared for and upheld as a human person deserving of life with dignity.

The Alzheimer's Association sent out a media release on January 29 stating that they have ended their agreement with Compassion & Choices. Here is the release:

January 29, 2023
Email: media@alz.org

Chicago, January 29, 2023 — In an effort to provide information and resources about Alzheimer’s disease, the Alzheimer’s Association entered into an agreement to provide education and awareness information to Compassion & Choices, but failed to do appropriate due diligence. Their values are inconsistent with those of the Association. We deeply regret our mistake, have begun the termination of the relationship, and apologize to all of the families we support who were hurt or disappointed. Additionally, we are reviewing our process for all agreements including those that are focused on the sharing of educational information.

As a patient advocacy group and evidence-based organization, the Alzheimer’s Association stands behind people living with Alzheimer’s, their care partners and their health care providers as they navigate treatment and care choices throughout the continuum of the disease. Research supports a palliative care approach as the highest quality of end-of-life care for individuals with advanced dementia.

About the Alzheimer's Association

The Alzheimer’s Association is a worldwide voluntary health organization dedicated to Alzheimer’s care, support and research. Our mission is to lead the way to end Alzheimer's and all other dementia — by accelerating global research, driving risk reduction and early detection, and maximizing quality care and support. Our vision is a world without Alzheimer's and all other dementia®. Visit alz.org or call 800.272.3900.

The Alzheimer's Society has recognized that promoting assisted suicide denies their clients the human and dignified care that they need and deserve. Killing is not caring.