Euthanasia is out of control in Canada. 241 euthanasia deaths based on dementia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article that was written by Angelo Bottone and published by thinkspot.com on March 25, 2025 examining Canada's 2023 euthanasia statistics.

Article: Canada - 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths in 2023 (Link).

Bottone reports on Canada's basic euthanasia statistics. He writes:

In 2023, 15,343 Canadians died by euthanasia or assisted suicide, according to the ‘Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying’. This marks a 15.8% increase over 2022 and represents 4.7% of all deaths in 2023. Since its legalisation in 2016, there have been 60,301 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia cases in Canada that we know of.

Bottone writes about some of the contentious concerns such as:

Dementia was cited as a medical condition in 241 euthanasia recipients in 2023, and in 106 of these cases, dementia was their sole condition.

Euthanasia for dementia is significant because Canada's law permits euthanasia for people with dementia if the person is competent and if there are other co-morbities (another medical condition). The 106 euthanasia deaths where the sole condition was dementia should be investigated by the RCMP or the College's of Physicians.

Bottone points out that in 622 deaths, natural death was not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” This category, called Track 2, allows euthanasia for non-terminal patients. Loneliness, as a reason for euthanasia, was far more common among Track 2 deaths than Track 1 (terminally ill) deaths.

Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia stated:

“When other people express loneliness or a loss of dignity or a desire to die, we usually respond with support or prevention. But with people with disabilities, we respond with an offer for MAID,”

Bottone notes that the percentage of people with disabilities among non-terminal euthanasia recipients was significantly higher: 58.3% compared to 33.5% for people with terminal conditions.

Bottone completes the article by explaining that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) who brought the original euthanasia case (Carter case) to the court has changed their position. Bottone reports the BCCLA concerns:

However, the regime has become so permissive that even the BCCLA has raised concerns, particularly about euthanasia for prisoners and disabled individuals. The organisation has highlighted reports of people accessing MAID due to intolerable social circumstances or being offered it in cases that may not meet legal requirements.

“Of particular concern are reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated individuals were shackled to their beds, the programme’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and healthcare practitioners offering MAID when patients sought support for living,” the BCCLA stated.

Previous articles on this topic:

• Article: Canada - 15,343 reported euthanasia deaths in 2023 (Link). 
• Euthanasia is a national tradgedy and only getting worse (Link). 
• Canada euthanasia: Unmasking health and social failure (Link) 
• Canada's euthanasia deaths continue to rise with an estimated 16,500 in 2024 (Link).

The group that legalized euthanasia in Canada admits that it's being abused.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The National Post published a Special Report by Miranda Schreiber on December 19, 2024 explaining that the group that was behind Canada's euthanasia law is now saying that the euthanasia law is being abused.

A similar article was written by Cameron Henderson and published by The Telegraph on October 26, 2024.

Schreiber explains that the BC Civil Liberties Association, which is the group that carried the Carter case through the British Columbia trial court and then up to the Supreme Court of Canada is warning that euthanasia has become too easy to obtain and the government must enact safeguards. Schreiber reported that:

Liz Hughes, who has served as BCCLA executive director since June 2023, said in a statement to the National Post that the group is “aware of concerning reports of people being offered MAID in circumstances that may not legally qualify, as well as people accessing MAID as a result of intolerable social circumstances.”

Hughes called for government action: “Governments must put in place, actively review, and enforce appropriate safeguards to ensure that people are making this decision freely.”

The BCCLA’s work around MAID has evolved, Hughes said, and the organization “will continue to hold the government accountable.”

Schreiber points out that the BCCLA already agreed in September 2023 that the law was being abused.

In a video shared with the National Post by disability activists, a BCCLA litigation staff lawyer told a Zoom town hall on Sept. 27, 2023, that her work with the association “may very well involve adopting either a modified or a new policy around our position on MAID in light of the fact of, you know, that it’s being abused.”

She said she is “very uncomfortable with our previous work around MAID,” and said staff want to be “making sure people have adequate supports and access to health care and other financial resources.”

Another BCCLA staff member told the town hall “we’ve done an environmental scan, so that was a kind of review of what’s currently happening with MAID in Canada, and it’s very concerning … the whole coercive dynamic that’s inherent with, you know, disabled people and their health-care providers.”

The BCCLA were particularly concerned about euthanasia for prisoners and people with disabilities.

Of particular alarm to the staff members were reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated people were shackled to their beds, the program’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and health-care practitioners offering assisted suicide when patients asked for support for living.

Disability activist, Roger Foley, told Schreiber:

In an interview, disability activist Roger Foley said it is significant that these comments come from the civil liberties group that spearheaded the inception of Canada’s MAID program: “BCCLA was the driving force and creator of the legal challenge that decriminalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada,” Foley said.

Schreiber continues by outlining concerns with Canada's euthanasia data:

Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada last week revealed that over 15,300 Canadians died by MAID in 2023, representing a 15.8 per cent increase in deaths from the previous year. In 2023, MAID accounted for 4.7 per cent of deaths in Canada.

Quebec accounted for 36.5 per cent of all Canadian MAID deaths in 2023. Quebec’s 5,601 MAID deaths represented 7.2 per cent of the province’s total deaths — about one in every 14. B.C. is not far behind; MAID now represents 6.1 per cent of all deaths in that province.

Health Canada’s report reveals that 47.1 per cent of non-terminally ill Canadians who applied for MAID reported “isolation or loneliness” as one of the causes of their suffering. Just under half of all Canadian MAID cases (terminal and non-terminal) indicate that they want an early death in part lest they become a “perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers.”

Health Canada's Fifth Annual Report released last week revealed that MAiD was responsible for about one in 20 deaths in Canada in 2023, including 622 people who received MAID for a non-terminal illness.

Previous article on this topic:

• The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law admit abuse of the law (Link).

The group that orchestrated Canada's euthanasia law, admits abuse of the law

"In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Cameron Henderson reported for The Telegraph on October 26 that the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) admits that Canada's euthanasia is being abused. It was the BCCLA that carried the Carter case that legalized euthanasia in Canada to the Supreme Court. According to Henderson:

Assisted dying is being abused in Canada with doctors coercing patients into ending their lives, members of the group who helped to legalise it have admitted.

Henderson reports that:

The Telegraph can now reveal that members of the British Columbia Civil liberties Association (BCCLA), the group that spearheaded efforts to legalise assisted dying, have privately raised fears the practice is being “abused”.

Staff members also fear disabled people in Canada are being coerced by doctors into choosing to end their lives.

Henderson's report is published one week after the Chief Coroner of Ontario pubished a review of Ontario's experience with euthanasia which indicated that:

those on lower incomes who were offered the scheme were more likely to opt for it.

Henderson uncovers the information from a leaked footage from a video call last year between BCCLA staff and a Canadian disabled patients’ group.

In the footage a BCCLA employee admits that:

“we are seeing MAiD being abused”.

Henderson further reports that:

In one instance, they spoke of a patient who had been approved for assisted dying on the grounds of suffering from hearing loss.

On the same call, it was claimed some medical colleges in Canada had been advising against referring to MAiD on patients’ long-form death certificates, in a move which could distort the true numbers of people using it.

Some BCCLA staff members feel very uncomfortable with Canada's euthanasia law. Henderson writes:

One staff member admitted feeling “very uncomfortable” about the group’s previous campaigning on assisted suicide.

Speaking on the call, one of the two current BCCLA employees said: “It is the social and material aspect of [patients] disability and how that isn’t supported and how that’s treated in the community that’s creating intolerable conditions.

“In my view, that’s not proper,” they said, adding that healthcare providers should not raise the subject of MAiD with patients as “it’s far too easy for that to become coercive”.

In a separate voicemail message shared with The Telegraph, another alleged employee voiced regret about the campaigning group’s past agenda and spoke of trying to formulate a new policy that “distances the BCCLA from its past work”.

Henderson reports that the Joseph Arvay, for the BCCLA, argued before the courts in the Carter case that:

the risk of people unnecessarily ending their lives through an assisted dying scheme was negligible.

The euthanasia review from the Chief Coroner of Ontario of the euthanasia law was published last week. Henderson reports:

Yet fast-forward eight years, and the first official report into assisted dying deaths in Ontario, revealed last week by The Telegraph, found vulnerable people faced “potential coercion” and “undue influence” to seek out the practice.

According to the data, disproportionate numbers of people who ended their lives through assisted dying when they were not terminally ill – 29 per cent – came from Ontario’s poorest areas.

That compares with 20 per cent of the province’s general population living in the most deprived communities.

The Telegraph is reporting on Canada's experience with euthanasia as the UK parliament is scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize assisted suicide on November 29.

BC court agrees to drop court case concerning the definition of terminal illness in Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On September 10 I reported that the Lamb euthanasia court case) may soon be dropped based on new interpretations of Canada's euthanasia law. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition was an intervenor in the Lamb case. 

My predictions were based on the request by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), who were representing Julia Lamb, that the BC Court agree to drop the challenge to the section of Canada's euthanasia law requiring that a person's "natural death be reasonably forseeable" before qualifying for euthanasia.

The BCCLA argued that a wider interpretation of the euthanasia law made the legal challenge unnecessary as Julia Lamb was now assessed as "qualifying" for euthanasia.

Kelly Grant, reporting for The Globe and Mail confirmed my comments in an article on September 18 explaining why the court agreed to drop the challenge to the euthanasia law. Grant wrote:

Ms. Lamb’s case, which was scheduled to go to trial in November, took an unusual turn when the federal government’s medical expert explained in a written submission that Ms. Lamb would, in fact, be eligible for an assisted death – largely because a consensus has developed in the medical community over the past three years that a patient’s death does not have to be imminent to count as reasonably foreseeable.

On September 11, the Quebec Superior Court struck down the same requirement that a person be terminally ill before they qualify for euthanasia in Canada. It is possible that the BCCLA knew that the Quebec Superior Court was likely to strike this section of the law, but I am convinced that the BCCLA wanted the case dropped because in October 2017, the Supreme Court of BC ruled that new evidence could be introduced in the Lamb trial. 

Bringing new evidence into the trial led to the case becoming complicated and expensive but it also opened the door to the court providing a tighter interpretation of the provision "natural death must be reasonably forseeable." 

Since the BC court agreed to drop the Lamb case, it is incumbent on the federal government to appeal the Quebec Superior court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, to provide clarity and definition of the law.

Euthanasia court case (Lamb case) may soon be dropped based on new interpretations of Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

Soon after the federal government legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada under the phrase Medical Aid in Dying, the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) launched a case on behalf of Julia Lamb, who lives with spinal muscular atrophy, to strike down the provision in the euthanasia law requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably forseeable."

The BCCLA argued that because Lamb's death was not reasonably forseeable, therefore she did not qualify for MAiD, under the law, and thus the law discriminated against her.

EPC had argued during the euthanasia debate that the "terminal illness" definition in the bill (natural death must be reasonably foreseeable) lacked definition and meaning.

A June 2017 Ontario Court decision defined "natural death must be reasonably forseeable" as not requiring the person's death to be imminent or within a specific time frame or be the result of a terminal condition.

EPC examined the legal challenge, in Lamb, and decided that it was necessary to intervene in the case. Recently EPC was given intervener standing in the case.
 
The BCCLA has now asked the Supreme Court of BC to adjourn the case. They claim that Julia Lamb now qualifies for euthanasia and she is no longer prejudicially affected by the impugned provisions of the law.

Lamb qualifies for MAiD based on a wider interpretation of Canada's euthanasia law. The BCCLA state:

Intolerable suffering is an entirely subjective determination in Bill C-14, and given her numerous sources of suffering, including psychological suffering in the form of need for alone time and anxiety over further loss of function, when she says she is suffering enough to proceed with MAID, that satisfies the criterion.

While there was more caution in using shorter prognoses for interpreting reasonably foreseeable natural death in the first year, following the CAMAP Reasonably Foreseeable Clinical Practice Guideline and the A.B. v. Canada determination some clinicians gained comfort with extending prognostic timeframes out to many years. At the time Ms. Lamb filed her civil claim, the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion may have been a barrier to her access.

Therefore, if Ms. Lamb were requesting MAID now I believe she would be found eligible under the current eligibility criteria. She would not need to reach her feared state of invasive mechanical ventilation or to engage in voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED).

Canadian physicians and nurse practitioners have been on a steep learning curve over the past three years in interpreting the Bill C-14 eligibility criteria. The law as it stands contains enough flexibility in the interpretation of the end of life criteria that it is not a barrier for practitioners who are comfortable with expanding access to MAID, while it serves to protect practitioners whose values do not align with removing end of life criteria for MAID. Some have commented that the flexibility in interpreting what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable natural death render the criterion meaningless as a safeguard for vulnerable patients. Rather than removing this criterion, this safeguard could be strengthened by the addition of specific prognostic requirements.

Why did the BCCLA ask for the case to be adjourned now?

1. The interpretation of the provision "natural death must be reasonably forseeable" has changed since euthanasia was legalized in Canada.
2. The BCCLA didn't want to take the chance of losing the case and enabling the court to define the provision "natural death must be reasonably forseeable" in a clear and more restrictive manner.

It is significant that in October 2017, the Supreme Court of BC ruled that new evidence could be introduced in the Lamb trial. Bringing new evidence has led to the case becoming complicated and expensive but it also opened the door to the court deciding to define to the provision "natural death must be reasonably forseeable."

I am concerned about Julia Lamb. On August 10, the apartment where Julia Lamb, and her husband Gregory lived was destroyed by a fire. An article published by City News 1130 states:

Julia and Gregory Lamb don’t know how they’ll survive the next year, after fire destroyed their Chilliwack home Saturday, leaving them, and many others with nothing but the clothes they escaped in.

“We don’t really have anything at this point,” Julia says, adding most of her expensive equipment was damaged in the fire, including her electric wheelchair charger and breathing machine.

It is possible that the fire that destroyed her medical equipment and belongings changed her feelings about euthanasia.

The phrase "natural death must be reasonably forseeable" remains undefined and lacks meaning in the law.

BC Court opens door to hearing new evidence on 'MAiD' in Canada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Only days after Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide under the term "MAiD" the BC Civil Liberties Association launched the first court case to expand Canada's euthanasia law.

• Canadian Senate passes euthanasia bill in time for summer break.

The Lamb case concerns the fact that Canada's MAiD legislation attempted to limit euthanasia to people with terminal conditions. The legislation states that a person qualifies for lethal injection when they have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" and that their "natural death must be reasonably forseeable." (Section 241.2(2)d)

In the Lamb case, the BC Civil Liberties Association is attempting to strike down the requirement that a person's "natural death must be reasonably forseeable."

Because the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision did not indicate that a person who qualifies for euthanasia should be terminally ill, therefore Canada's federal government is expected to prove that the terminal illness definition is a reasonable limit.

• Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision is irresponsible and dangerous.

By Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the British Columbia Supreme Court enabling the government to introduce new evidence to establish their position, the government, and intervenors, in a limited manner, can attempt to overcome some of problems with the Carter decision.

CTV news reported that Justice Hinkson stated:

The federal government's legislation, which came into effect last year, needs to be assessed on "relevant, current evidence,"  

Barring the courts from considering the most up-to-date information would prevent a judge from being able to decide what evidence is important and how much weight it should be given.

It is concerning that a June 2017 Ontario Court decision defined "natural death must be reasonably forseeable" as not needing to be imminent or within a specific time frame or be the result of a terminal condition.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities says the conversation around end-of-life practices ignores the point of view of disability rights advocates.

The organization created a campaign against euthanasia, Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will ask the court for intervention standing in this case.

Second plaintiff in British Columbia case dies by euthanasia.

By Taylor Hyatt - Policy Analyst, Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet

Taylor Hyatt

CBC News recently reported that Robyn Moro, one of two plaintiffs in a court case challenging the “reasonably foreseeable” death requirement of Canada’s euthanasia law, received a doctor’s assistance to die at the end of August.

Ms. Moro had Parkinson’s disease. She was allegedly allergic to many of the pain medications commonly used by people with her condition. Her request for euthanasia was originally denied in March because her doctor did not believe her death was “reasonably foreseeable.”

According to the CBC report, Ms. Moro’s doctor (Ellen Wiebe) refused to grant euthanasia requests from patients who were believed to have more than five years to live, based on statistical projections of the life expectancy of the named plaintiff in the Carter case.

However, Dr Wiebe changed her mind following an Ontario Superior Court ruling in June of this year in the case of AB v. Attorney General of Canada. In that decision, Judge Paul Perell stated that the “reasonably foreseeable” death standard does not require a person's illness to be terminal. Nor does their death need to be imminent or likely to occur within a given period of time.

According to CBC, Dr. Wiebe calculated that AB, the subject of the Ontario Court ruling, might have lived another 10 years. This became her new limit. Since she believed Ms. Moro could not survive that long, Wiebe felt Moro was now eligible for euthanasia.

In the AB case, Judge Perell also said “reasonably foreseeable” death applies to a person “who is on a trajectory toward death because he or she: 

(a) has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; (b) is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and (c) is enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.” This could be interpreted to mean that if you satisfy criteria (a) through (c), then your death is reasonably foreseeable.

Even though Ms. Moro has passed away, she will remain a part of the case, assuming the court allows her husband to stand in for her, or relies on Moro’s written statements.

The other plaintiff is Julia Lamb, a woman with spinal muscular atrophy living in British Columbia. Although her condition is progressive, it is not terminal. Ms. Lamb is currently able to work part time and live independently with attendant services. However, she is afraid that a sudden decline in her condition will prevent her from breathing and eating independently and using her hands.

There are many reasons to oppose the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Here are just a few.

It’s Unnecessary – Everyone has the option to commit suicide or to refuse medical care and have palliative sedation on demand. 

It’s Discriminatory – While people without disabilities receive suicide prevention services if they express a wish to die, people with disabilities will be encouraged and assisted to kill themselves. 

Choice is an illusion – The choice to die cannot be free as long as people with disabilities don’t have the choice in where and how to live. 

Safeguards don’t work – Where these practices are legal, safeguards do not prevent people from disabilities from being wrongly killed.

To view the Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet videos, use this link.

Contact the disability rights group Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet:
Web site – http://tvndy.cahttps://www.facebook.com/ToujoursVivantNotDeadYet/Email – info@tv-ndy.caTwitter – @tvndy.

Legalizing assisted suicide is dangerous - just look at Canada

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Professor and author, Kevin Yuill, has written another excellent article that Spike published on July 20, 2017 titled: Legalizing assisted suicide is dangerous - just look at Canada. 

Yuill, who was born in Canada, refers to the recent Canadian experience with assisted dying to urge British citizens to reject assisted suicide.

The British court is currently dealing with the Conway case, a case that seeks to strike down the laws protecting people from assisted suicide in the UK. With reference to the recent Canadian experience, Yuill writes:

The CBC reported recently that, by the end of 2016, there had been 1,324 cases of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada – that is, assisted suicide and euthanasia. This number is likely to increase. Before the ink was dry on C-14, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association launched a court case to ‘strike down’ as unconstitutional the somewhat slippery provision that a person’s ‘natural death must be reasonably foreseeable’ to qualify for death by lethal injection. 

In the weeks that followed C-14’s passage into law, the Canadian federal government announced that it would conduct research into the possibility of extending the benefits of euthanasia to people with dementia, ‘mature children’, and those with solely psychological suffering. In the case of a 77-year-old woman suffering from non-terminal osteoarthritis, the judge chided doctors who had refused euthanasia on the grounds that her disease was not terminal. He granted the woman the right to die as she was ‘almost 80’ with ‘no quality of life’. And, of course, her death was judged to be ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

In the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced that it would force doctors to either euthanise patients who wanted to die, or refer them to someone who would. Three years ago, it was a crime for doctors to kill their patients in Canada. Now, doctors could lose their licence for refusing to participate in killing their patients. 

Judges and juries are generally sympathetic in tragic cases like Conway’s. But there is no need to change the law. We should take the court case in Canada, which opened a Pandora’s box, as a warning about the dangers of legalising assisted suicide.

Previous articles by Kevin Yuill

• The narcissism of assisted suicide.
• Isn't assisted suicide really suicide?

The first court case to expand euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has wasted no time in launching the first legal challenge to Canada's recently passed euthanasia and assisted suicide law.

Globe and Mail reporter Laura Stone informs us that the BC Civil Liberties Association is launching a court case to "strike down" as unconstitutional the provision in the euthanasia law that states a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" to qualify for death by lethal injection.

According to the Globe and Mail article:

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, along with a woman who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, say they will launch a legal challenge to the government’s new law in Vancouver on Monday. 

The rights group argues that the law, which passed in Parliament 10 days ago, is unconstitutional. 

The Liberal government faced mounting criticism that the law, known as Bill C-14, was too restrictive, due to a provision that says a patient’s natural death must be “reasonably foreseeable” in order to qualify for assisted death. The Senate voted to remove that requirement, but the Liberal government rejected the amendment and the Red Chamber passed the bill with several small changes.

EPC argued that the "terminal illness" (natural death must be reasonably foreseeable) definition in the bill lacked definition and meaning.

This is the first of many court challenges to Canada's euthanasia and assisted suicide law. The euthanasia lobby are wanting to extend euthanasia to "mature" minors, to people with dementia (through advanced directives) and for people with psychiatric conditions alone.

EPC will examine this legal case and then determine how we will respond.

The Deadly problems with euthanasia Bill C-14

This article was written by Dr Will Johnston and published in the Huffington Post on April 22, 2016.

Dr Will Johnston

Dr Will Johnston is the Chair of EPC - BC.

It is not surprising that many Canadians are concerned about the dangers of the new assisted suicide and euthanasia bill, C-14.

What is really not credible is how the word-benders who used the Charter "right to life" to legalize the intentional suicide or killing of some patients are now protesting that they have been cheated of total victory. While they were in court, they said that all they wanted was for competent consenting adults who were suffering terribly at the end of life to be able to have a doctor kill them, with no criminal consequences for anyone.

Now they are hopping mad that non-adults and those who are mentally incompetent, those unable to consent, those whose suffering is purely psychological, and those with years to live just might be excluded. They don't have to worry. The same semantic ju-jitsu which delivered the Carter decision to them will have no problem convincing the courts to invite whoever else to the death party.

"Even Kay Carter would not have qualified under C-14" , says the BCCLA organization, which wants assisted suicide and euthanasia to be widely available. This is hard to believe. An awful lot of people will qualify under C-14.

Are you eligible for your provincial medicare?

Are you an adult?

Do you have a grievous medical condition (like Kay Carter's spinal stenosis)?

Is it irremediable (if you decline surgery for spinal stenosis it automatically becomes irremediable)?

Are you in an advanced state (not defined) of irreversible decline (spinal stenosis won't go away without surgery)?

Is your situation intolerable (your call)?

Is your death reasonably foreseeable ( like it is for 89 year olds like Kay Carter)?

Do you want to die?

We just approved Kay Carter for assisted suicide. How hard was that?

Now let's say you have some money and some real estate and your heirs are waiting for you to die. Your doctor does some tests and thinks you have something - let's call it malignant sarcophagosis. You are duly impressed and share your story with your beneficiaries. Under C-14, your beneficiaries can tell you how you don't have to suffer and how OK it would be with them if you let a doctor, nurse practitioner, or anyone aiding them kill you . Blatantly urging someone to commit suicide remains illegal, but how do we enforce that against a quiet word, a wink and a nod?

One of your heirs can even sign the request for you, if you have difficulty writing.

Then two independent doctors will agree that malignant sarcophagosis will work for you just like spinal stenosis would have for Kay Carter. It is not surprising that they will agree, because one of those independent doctors is the one who will kill you with an intravenous injection or provide you with suicide pills. The other doctor will reliably concur, not least because there is no limit to the doctor shopping to locate a compliant one.

But what if your sarcophagosis is of milder sort, the semi-malignant kind? No problem, because your "natural death" just has to be "reasonably foreseeable", and no need to specify "the specific length of time."

But what if the physicians goofed, and you don't have malignant sarcophagosis, or the mental competence to consent, or an uncoerced wish to die? No worries, because a blanket protection called "reasonable but mistaken belief" about "any fact" protects them even if you are dead as a result.

Oh, by the way, absolutely anyone is allowed to "assist" you to administer your suicide dose, with no oversight yet mentioned in this law. If you had changed your mind and struggled, who would know?

Meanwhile, aboriginal leaders, including Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette , are justified in wondering where the intensity required to prevent suicide among youth is going to come from.

If one ounce of the effort that has been put into assisted suicide and euthanasia had gone toward suicide prevention, or of course palliative care, it would be easier to take the howls of outrage from the extremists for whom C-14 will never go far enough.

So what should be done? Ideally, throw out the law, and strengthen the wording of the current law against assisting suicide (because the Supreme Court played games with the old wording about needing to protect only the "vulnerable"). Make palliative care access, not suicide access, mandatory in law.

But failing that, at bare minimum ensure independent third party review before all proposed deaths. Don't let any two wannabe Kevorkians wave these things through. Defend the rights of all Canadians by guaranteeing that no doctor or institution will be coerced to participate, and say so loud and clear in the law.

We must not leave such a pillar of our freedom to an uncertain fate inside Ministry of Health regulations, which, "for lack of time," have not yet been revealed.

Will Johnston is a Vancouver family physician and Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC

The safety of Canadians of utmost concern as SCC rules on assisted suicide.

This article was published by Advocate Daily on February 4, 2015.

Hugh Scher

In releasing its much-anticipated ruling on assisted suicide on Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to clarify its stance on protecting Canadians from the risks of serious abuse, along with answering the larger question of Parliament’s role in such debates, says Toronto human rights and constitutional lawyer Hugh Scher.

A hearing at the high court on Oct. 15, 2014 addressed a constitutional challenge to Canada’s assisted suicide law to determine whether it should be upheld, struck down or modified.

The Supreme Court to release assisted suicide decision on Friday.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), represented by Scher, has been granted leave to intervene in the case – Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 BCCA 435 (CanLII)

The case began with a lawsuit filed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in 2011, seeking to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court determined the matter in its previous 5-4 decision in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519, 1993 CanLII 75 (SCC), where the court found s. 241 was not infringing on certain rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or that any such infringements were justified as there was no halfway measure that could meet Parliament’s legitimate objective to protect the vulnerable and promote life.

The coalition’s position is that the court should maintain its ruling in Rodriguez, says Scher.

“The Supreme Court has been asked to delve into a matter that is clearly the job of Parliament to do,” Scher tells AdvocateDaily.com. “A decision to strike down the assisted suicide law would strike a serious blow to Parliamentary sovereignty and to basic principles of democracy by effectively overriding the will of Parliament as it has been expressed consistently over the past 30 years with respect to the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia.”

Ban against assisted suicide remains the norm

This article was published in the Advocate Daily on October 16, 2014.

Hugh Scher

The priorities of disabled Canadians include access to quality living conditions, education, health care and employment – not to be granted the right to assisted suicide, Toronto human rights and constitutional lawyer Hugh Scher tells CBC’s Power & Politics. 

Click Here To Watch the Power & Politics debate following the Supreme Court Hearing On Assisted Suicide

Scher, a former chairperson of the human rights committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, made the comments in a segment on Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), which was heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Scher appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

“Nobody should be forced to suffer to death or kill themselves, but those should not be the policy choices Canadians are left with,” he said on the CBC program. 

“There isn’t one Supreme Court across the world that recognizes a constitutional right to die. The absolute ban against assisted suicide and euthanasia remains the norm in most of the world, with the exception of seven small jurisdictions.”

The Carter case began with a lawsuit filed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in 2011, seeking to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court determined the matter in its previous decision in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), where the court found s. 241 was not infringing on certain rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or that any such infringements were justified as there was no halfway measure that could meet Parliament’s legitimate objective to protect the vulnerable and promote life.

The coalition’s position is that the court should maintain its ruling in Rodriguez, said Scher.

“There’s a crying demand by some to promote this issue,” he said on CBC. “Having been unsuccessful in persuading Parliament through the course of 10 different legislative initiatives and the last one being rejected by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin across party lines in Parliament, those who promote the right to die have now taken to the courts as a means of trying to strategically have the court try to reconsider the matter.”

The court reserved its decision Wednesday.

To Read More Hugh Scher Posts Click Here

The Law and Physician Assisted Dying.

This article was written by Tom Koch and published by the CMAJ on October 13, 2014.

Tom Koch

By Professor Tom Koch

For most Canadians, the October 15 arguments at the Supreme Court in Ottawa will be about medical “aid in dying,” what the Dutch bluntly but accurately call physician assisted or directed termination. But what is really at stake in Carter et al. versus Attorney General et al is Canadian law itself, the meaning of its guarantees, promises, and injunctions. In effect, lawyers for and against “aid in dying” are asking the Supreme Court’s justices to interpret two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The result will define not simply issues of “assisted dying” but the future of Canadian law and society for years to come.

The Charter’s Section 15 guarantees that: 

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” Section Seven promises that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination … based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Justice Minister: "Laws surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians."

Hon. Peter MacKay

Hon. Peter MacKay, Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada commented on the Appeal Court ruling that upheld Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In a statement issued by his press secretary Paloma Aguilar, Justice Minister Peter MacKay also defended the Appeal Court's ruling.

"The decision made today by the B.C. Court of Appeal reinforces our government’s view that the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit medical professionals, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide, are constitutionally valid," he said.  

"The laws surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians, including those who are most vulnerable."

Link to the Canadian Press video of Hon. Peter MacKay explaining his opposition to legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The case will likely be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Links to similar articles:

BC Court of Appeal upholds protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada's federal government will not support assisted suicide.

Canada's Health Minister says no to assisted suicide.

BC Court of Appeal upholds protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of Canada is next.

By Alex Schadenberg, executive director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

On Thursday, October 10; the British Columbia (BC) Court of Appeal upheld Canada’s laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide, in a 2 to 1 decision by overturneding the disturbing lower court decision in 2012 by Justice Smith in the Carter case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), who intervened in the Carter case, applauded the BC Court of Appeal decision by stating:

“EPC is pleased that the Court has followed the lead of Canadian Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the majority of Parliaments and Supreme Courts around the world in finding that the prohibitions against assisted suicide represent an important protection against abuse of vulnerable people.”

The Carter case, was launched by the family of Kay Carter, a woman who died by assisted suicide in 2010 in Switzerland. The Carter family claimed that Kay was denied the “right” to die with dignity in Canada and her family were forced to break the law by assisting her travel to Switzerland for suicide. The BC Civil Liberties Association represented the Carter family.

On June 15, 2012, Justice Smith wrongly decided that Canada’s assisted suicide law was unconstitutional. Smith found that people with disabilities who are unable to kill themselves by suicide without assistance were discriminated by the law. 

Smith also decided that “safeguards” can effectively protect vulnerable people. Smith gave parliament one year to pass a law allowing assisted suicide and a limited form of euthanasia in Canada.

Fortunately, the federal government appealed the decision of Justice Smith to the BC Court of Appeal.

The BC Court of Appeal found that Smith did not have the right to strike down Canada’s assisted suicide law and that she made several errors and incorrect assumptions in her decision.

The BC Court of Appeal stated that Smith was wrong when she found that the circumstances had sufficiently changed since 1993, giving her the right to strike down the 1993 Rodriguez decision.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Canada’s assisted suicide law in the Rodriguez case, a case that was based on Sue Rodriguez. Rodriguez, who was living with ALS, petitioned the courts to grant her the right to die by assisted suicide.

The BC Court of Appeal also found that Smith was wrong when she assumed that the Rodriguez decision did not consider certain constitutional analysis. The BC Court of Appeal concluded that only the Supreme Court of Canada has the right to overturn its decisions.

The BC Court of Appeal decision challenged Smith’s assertion that Canada’s assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities. The majority stated that:

“those who have only a limited ability to enjoy life are not less alive and have no less a right to life, than able-bodied and fully competent persons.

EPC was pleased that the BC Court of Appeal recognized that Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide meet the legislative objective that is grounded in respect for and the desire to protect human life and the current assisted suicide law is rationally connected to its purpose.

The BC Court of Appeal also acknowledged that parliament had recently considered a bill (Bill C-384) that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. On April 21, 2010, parliament overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384 by a vote of 228 to 59.

The BC Civil Liberties Association announced that it will appeal the BC Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) will seek to intervene, if the Supreme Court of Canada decides to hear the Carter case.

Laws that prohibit euthanasia and/or assisted suicide provide equal protection in law for all people and uphold the safety of all people, in every life conditions, from having their life taken from them.

Dr. Will Johnston, the EPC - BC chair talks about the Carter Case after the BC Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision by upholding Canada's laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfoA71TGTf0&feature=youtu.be

Links to other similar articles.
EPC applauds BC Court of Appeal ruling  in assisted suicide case.
Irish Supreme Court upholds protections in law from assisted suicide using similar evidence as in the Carter case.
EPC wants BC Court of Appeal to reverse errors by the lower court in Carter case.