A deeper dive into the California assisted suicide data.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On August 18 I published the article: California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data which explained the 2025 California assisted suicide report data, uncovering shoddy reporting and missing data in the California assisted suicide reports.

The article reported that the 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1,235 reported assisted suicide deaths which is up by 11% from 1,113 in 2024 and 1839 poison prescriptions written in 2025 which was up by almost 8% from 1710 poison prescriptions in 2024.

*Based on incomplete data in previous California assisted suicide reports, I predict that the actual 2025 data is around 1975 poison prescriptions and 1330 assisted suicide deaths.

Let's examine the incomplete data in the report.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written and 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and states that there were 1710 poison prescriptions written and 1,113 reported assisted suicide deaths.

Therefore the 2025 report increased the number of 2024 poison prescriptions by (119) 7.5% and the number of reported assisted suicide deaths by (81) almost 8%. 

Based on the 2024 data, you can understand why I am predicting that the 2026 California assisted suicide report will indicate that in 2025 there were approximately 1975 poison prescriptions written and 1330 assisted suicide deaths in 2025. This data does not include the people who received a poison prescription and whose ingestion status is unknown.

Reasons for data inaccuracy in the report.

The 2025 report indicates that there were 380 people who received the lethal poison but whose ingestion status was unknown. When the ingestion status is unknown, they know that the person received the lethal prescription, but they do not know if the person died or how they died. The 380 people, whose ingestion status was unknown, could have died by assisted suicide with no report being filed.

The 2025 report acknowledges that the data discrepencies and states the following:

Note that cumulative counts reported above do not match prior reports. These differences arise from several factors including: 

• the timing of forms received; 

• the registration of deaths; and, 

• the inclusion of duplicate records in prior reports, which have been removed.

There are problems with the timing of forms received and with the registration of deaths, but the removal of duplicate reports, does not explain how the 2025 report increased the numbers from previous years as removing duplicate reports would decrease the numbers.

Let's examine the 2021 assisted suicide death data. The 2025 report states that 3 more 2021 poison prescriptions were uncovered in 2025 and 2 more assisted suicide deaths. These three poison prescriptions and 2 assisted suicide deaths were found 4 years late. Where were these reports?

Further to that there are intentional euthanasia deaths in California, but just not reported. A supporter of ours sent us the following private message:

California is MUCH further down the road than the public understands. In 2024 I was in a 'recovery' nursing home/hospice in Sacramento. I was in for congestive heart failure (CHF). I was personally pressured, as was my family, to be compassionate and face an objective reality: "He is incurable and about to die" My death at their hand would NOT have been reported. CHF would be listed as the cause. THAT is the law and practice in California.

Other issues from the report.

The report indicates that 94.3% of the people who are approved for assisted suicide are receiving hospice and/or palliative care. This is a bold statement considering the fact that the assisted suicide doctors are encouraged to enroll assisted suicide requesters into palliative care.

It is one thing to be enrolled in hospice and/or palliative care. It is another thing to be receiving hospice and/or palliative care. In other words, the death lobby wants it to appear that nearly everyone who died by assisted suicide was also being cared for by hospice and/or palliative care.

There needs to be an independent study conducted by a doctoral student who is honestly attempting to uncover the real data. It is very likely that there is a large number of unreported assisted suicide deaths in California.

Assisted suicide is for the privileged.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in January 2026 that California has the most diverse population in the US. The January 2026 report stated that in July 2025:

No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of the state population: 41% of Californians are Latino, 34% are white, 17% are Asian American or Pacific Islander, 5% are Black, 3% are multiracial, and less than 1% are Native American or Alaska Natives, according to US Census Bureau estimates.

The 2025 California asssisted suicide report indicated that those who died by assisted suicide:

• 85.5% of the people were White, 
• 6.4% of the people were Asian, 
• 5.5% of the people were Latino, 
• 1.2% of the people where Black,
• 1% were Multiracial, and
• none of the people were Native American.

White people are predominantly dying by assisted suicide even though they represent only 34% of California's population.

The Public Policy Institute of California published in February 2026 that 35 - 37% of Californians have a University degree and yet the California assisted suicide report indicates that more than 52% of the assisted suicide deaths are people with a University degree.

The California assisted suicide reports have missing data and under-reporting is very likely and yet assisted suicide is a life and death issue. 

People have the right to know the assisted suicide reality in California and everywhere. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition calls on the California Department of Public Health to carry out an independent, in depth research project which would:

• do a large survey of how people in California are dying,
• examine the large number of cases where the person received the assisted suicide prescription, but whose ingestion status is unknown,
• examine more closely the reality of why people are asking for death by assisted suicide.

It is likely that an independent study would uncover unreported assisted suicide deaths and similar to the Netherlands, it is likely that the report would uncover that euthanasia (homicide) deaths are also happening in California.

California 2025 assisted suicide report. More deaths, Missing data.

Alex Schadenberg

The California assisted suicide report does not prove that all assisted suicide deaths are voluntary or self-administered.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2025 California assisted suicide report that was released in July 2026 indicates that there were 1235 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which was up by 11% from 1113 in 2024.

The assisted suicide death reporting problems are getting worse in California.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths. 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report updated the 2024 data and stated that there were 1113 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. That is a increase of 81 deaths. 

 

Based on the reporting problems in the 2024 report, I predicted, last year, that there were likely 1100 assisted suicide deaths in 2024, but the real number is worse (1113) and in fact there were likely many more.

Let's look at the shoddy 2023 California assisted suicide data.

The 2023 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 884 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was bad enough, but the 2024 California assisted suicide report updated the 2023 data and reported 969 assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That was a difference of 85 assisted suicide deaths representing an approxmate 9% difference.

But it doesn't stop there. The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that there were 983 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. That means two years after publishing the 2023 report the California Department of Health found 14 more 2023 assisted suicide deaths or 99 more deaths since 2023.

Now let's look at the shoddy 2022 data.

The 2022 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 853 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2023 report updated the 2022 report and stated that there were 890 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 896 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. But even worse, the 2025 California assisted suicide report stated that there were 899 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022.

I think there are reasons why the California assisted suicide reports are so flawed.

The data indicates that there are a huge number of people who received the lethal poison prescriptions that were unaccounted for in the previous reports.

The 2025 California assisted suicide report states that 1839 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1710 in 2024 and 1418 in 2023.

But the 2024 report indicates that there were 1591 poison prescriptions written which was up from 1409 in 2023 and 1332 in 2022.

That means that the 2024 report did not account for 119 poison prescriptions that the 2025 report uncovered from 2024, even though the assisted suicide report is published more than 6 months after the year end. 

What is even worse is that the 2025 report indicated that there were 1418 poison prescriptions in 2023 even though the 2024 report indicated that there were 1409.

How did the California Department of Health stumble on 9 more assisted suicide prescriptions and possible deaths two years after they happened?

But there is more.

 

The 2025 California assisted suicide report indicates that there were 1839 poison prescriptions written, 1159 people died from those poison prescriptions, 76 people died from poison prescriptions from previous years, 300 people died from natural causes and 380 people received the poison prescription but their ingestion status is unknown.

How many of the 380 people who received a poison prescription in 2025 and whose ingestion status is unknown actually died by assisted suicide?

The California Department of Health has no idea if these 380 people died, and if they died did they die by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.

This problem is not new. The 2024 California assisted suicide report stated that 388 people who received the poison prescription in 2024, their ingestion status was unknown. Many of the 388 show up as assisted suicide deaths in 2025 but the majority of them remain unknown. Did they also die by assisted suicide?

Here is what you need to know.

Based on the California Department of Health assisted suicide reporting problems, there were likely at least 1350 California assisted suicide deaths in 2025 and close to 2000 poison prescriptions written in 2025.

It is also likely that there are unreported assisted suicide deaths in California and further to that the problem with the assisted suicide reports continues.

 

Why are the reporting problems important?

 

The media will suggest that there was only an 11% increase in assisted suicide deaths in California with 1113 in 2024 and 1235 in 2025. 

 

But based on the reporting problems there were likely at least 1350 assisted suicide deaths in 2025 which is greater than a 21% increase.

 

Further to that, a large percentage of people who receive the poison prescription, the California Department of Health has no idea if they died by assisted suicide or died a natural death. There could be another large group of Californians who died by assisted suicide but no assisted suicide report was submitted.  

Further to that, there is no proof in the California assisted suicide reports that all of the assisted suicide deaths were voluntary or self-administered.

I would suggest that a doctoral student could earn a doctorate by doing a deep dive into the real assisted suicide data in California. 

 

In the next few days I will provide a deeper dive into the California 2025 report. 

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. 

Fewer Animal Euthanasia Deaths — but More Human Euthanasia Deaths

This article was published by National Review online on April 21, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

After a bear was euthanized in California because she paw-swiped a human who owned a house under which the bruin and her cubs were living, there was a popular outcry. Now, a bill has been put in the hopper in the California State Senate promoting “coexistence” between people and wild animals. From S.B. 1135:

It is the policy of the state that the management of wildlife shall include an emphasis on the coexistence of humans and wildlife through department-led efforts to reduce, minimize, and mitigate conflicts. These efforts shall also seek to align with the state’s conservation, public safety, environmental planning, and climate adaptation goals and to be accomplished through coordination and cooperation between the department and wildlife coexistence partners.

Here are the details:

Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department shall establish the Wildlife Coexistence Program to manage and promote wildlife coexistence by conducting all of the following activities:
(a) Managing, tracking, and responding to wildlife conflict calls, reports, and incident responses.
(b) Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating conflicts between humans and wildlife by proactively and continuously implementing best practices that emphasize effective and ecologically appropriate nonlethal conflict resolution solutions developed using best available science and indigenous knowledge.
(c) Investigating, documenting, and analyzing reported human-wildlife incidents, including, but not limited to, depredation, perceived or actual human-wildlife conflicts, and wildlife health issues.
(d) Maintaining a statewide wildlife incident reporting tool.

Okay. That’s going to take a lot of time, effort, and resources in a state in which homelessness is rampant, children aren’t learning in school, and the public debt is increasing. Still, my main concern is public safety. Dangerous animals that have attacked humans should be euthanized, it seems to me.

There is also a major push around the country for “no kill” animal shelters. I’m fine with that, particularly for adoptable pets. But aren’t our moral sensibilities being inverted? As we see a greater push for fewer animal deaths by euthanasia, concomitantly, euthanasia activists are pressuring for policies to increase the number of ill and disabled people who are killed by assisted suicide or a lethal jab.

In 2024, I wrote about a California assisted-suicide activist who, in the California Health Report, urged the medical community to be more proactive in informing qualifying patients of their right to be killed. (This happens all the time in Canada.) The fellow groused that Canada had so many euthanasia deaths whereas California — with an equivalent population — had so comparatively few.

Meanwhile, Compassion and Choices (formerly and more honestly known as the Hemlock Society) sought to increase the number of people of color who opt for assisted suicide. Similarly, Thaddeus Mason Pope — the bioethicist leading the charge for radicalizing access to euthanasia and assisted suicide, took to the pages of the American Journal of Bioethics to advocate the “Top Ten Expansions” he wanted to see to increase access to euthanasia. He concluded:

The United States took an early worldwide lead with MAID when Oregon enacted its Death with Dignity Act in 1994. But . . . the United States has lost its lead. And it is quickly falling to the back of the pack in terms of MAID safety and access.

I would put it differently. The U.S. isn’t falling into the moral abyss as fast as some other nations, but we are falling.

I am all for reducing the number of animals that are euthanized, consistent with public safety, the protection of livestock, and the ability to care for them humanely. I just wish we were equally committed to “no kill health care” for humans.

Previous similar article:

• Animals can have no kill shelters. Why not humans? (Read).
  

A deeper analysis into the Oregon 2025 assisted suicide report

A 2025 Oregon assisted suicide death took 123 hours (more than 5 days) to die.
Assisted suicide is not a peaceful or a dignified way to die.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On April 6 I reported that the 2025 Oregon assisted suicide report stated that there were 637 poison prescriptions written in 2025 which was up from 609 in 2024. I also reported that the 2025 Oregon report indicated that there were 400 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2025.

I then stated that based on reporting issues there were likely 450 (not 400) assisted suicide deaths in 2025.

As stated in the headline, in 2025 the longest time of death was 123 hours (more than 5 days). Deaths that take 123 hours are clearly not a peaceful or dignified deaths. In 2023 the longest time of death was 137 hours (almost 6 days).

It is possible that there were other long drawn out deaths, but the Oregon report only has data when someone else was present at the death. The Oregon report indicates that data is only available in 291 of the 400 deaths.

Oregon assisted suicide reported deaths:

The 2024 Oregon report stated that there were 376 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. The 2025 report updated the data and stated that there were 421 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024. Therefore more than 12% (45) of the Oregon assisted suicide death reports were received late.

When an Oregon doctor prescribes the assisted suicide poison cocktail the Oregon assisted suicide law requires that same doctor to send a report to the Oregon Health Authority after the patient died. 

The 2025 report stated that a doctor was present at the death in 111 of the 400 reported assisted suicide deaths and in 2024, a doctor was only present at the death in 117 of the 421 reported assisted suicide deaths. Since the prescribing doctor is usually not present at the death, it doesn't surprise me that many of the reports are submitted to the Oregon Health Authority late.

Based on the fact that more than 12% of the 2024 reports were reported in 2025, I predict a similar outcome in 2026 resulting in approximately 450 reported 2025 assisted suicide deaths being declared within the 2026 Oregon report.

For further clarification. The 2025 Oregon report stated that there were 389 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. The 2024 report stated that there were 386 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023 and the 2023 report stated that there were 367 reported assisted suicide deaths. That means there were 2023 assisted suicide reports submitted in 2024 and there were 2023 assisted suicide death reports submitted in 2025.

Are there unreported assisted suicide deaths in Oregon?

The Oregon Health Authority does not investigate the deaths of people who were prescribed and receiving a poison cocktail but whose doctor did not submit an assisted suicide report. Therefore I can only speculate that some Oregon assisted suicide deaths go unreported.

The data is suspicious.

According to the 2025 Oregon assisted suicide report, 637 poison prescriptions were obtained. The 637 poison prescriptions resulted in 358 people who were known to have died by assisted suicide, (42 people were known to have died by assisted suicide but received the poison in previous years), 100 people died a natural death and the ingestion status was unknown in 179 cases of which 80 died but the ingestion status was unknown and for 99 people the death and ingestion status was unknown.

When the ingestion status is unknown the Oregon Health Authority does not know if the person died a natural death or died by assisted suicide.

Since I am predicting that 50 of the 179 "ingestion status unknown" cases are assisted suicide deaths where the assisted suicide report will be received late. But considering the fact that a doctor is usually not at the death, it is likely that some of the remaining 129 "ingestion status unknown" cases are actually unreported assisted suicide deaths.

Oregon is not the only state with these reporting problems.

The California 2024 assisted suicide report also reported that a significant number of assisted suicide reports received late, but the 2024 California report also indicated that of the 1591 Californians who received the poison prescription, the ingestion status was unknown for 388 of the people. It is likely that California has a problem with the under reporting of assisted suicide deaths.

Are there other ways that the Oregon law lacks oversight?

The Oregon assisted suicide law was sold to the public based on competent adults who are freely consenting and "self-ingest" the poison. 

In most Oregon assisted suicide deaths there is no way to know whether those conditions were met. The first reason is that a medical professional is usually not at the death. The second reason is that the Oregon law relies on a self-reporting system, meaning, the doctor who prescribes the poison is also the doctor that is required to report the death. There is no effective oversight in a self-reporting system. Doctors will not self-report abuse of the law. The third reason is that the Oregon Health Authority does not have the legislated authority to research the cases where the person died and the ingestion status is unknown.

Killing has become a specialty.

The 2025 report states that 155 physicians prescribed assisted suicide poison at least once, but one physician, in 2025, prescribed the assisted suicide poison 101 times. In 2024 one physician prescribed the poison 84 times and in 2023 one physician prescribed the poison 76 times. It is very likely that one physician has prescribed the assisted suicide poison 261 times in the past three years.

Inadequate pain control is not a primary reason for assisted suicide requests.

The death lobby sells the legalization of assisted suicide based on the fear of dying a painful death, but the data indicates that most people do not seek assisted suicide based on inadequate control of pain. 

The 2025 report states that the three main reasons that Oregonians asked for assisted suicide were: 89% Losing autonomy, 89% Less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable, 65% Loss of dignity (an undefined concern).

There is much more that I could write about the 2025 Oregon assisted suicide report but I will conclude by pointing out a few more concerns:

• 2 out of 637 people who were prescribed poison received a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and in 2024 not one of the 609 who were prescribed poison received a psychological or psychiatric evaluation.

• 54% of the people who died by assisted suicide were women.

• There were 37 out of state residents who were prescribed poison.

More information on these topics.

• Oregon 2024 assisted suicide report (Read).
• The California 2024 assisted suicide report. The data is not accurate (Read).
• Washington state had a record number of assisted suicide deaths (Read).

California 2024 assisted suicide report. The data are not accurate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The California assisted suicide statute assumes that assisted suicide deaths are voluntary or self-administered. The lack of oversight in the law makes it impossible to assure that every death was voluntary and self-administered.

The 2024 California assisted suicide report that was recently released states that there were 1032 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024 which was up from 969 in 2023.

The data are not accurate. 

The 2023 California assisted suicide report indicated that there were 884 reported assisted suicide deaths. Based on reporting problems, I predicted, last year, that the actual number was likely 925, but the 2024 report indicated that there were 969 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023. The difference of (969 - 884) means that 85 assisted suicide deaths were reported late in 2023 representing an almost 9% difference.

Based on the California reporting system, I predict that the 2025 California report will indicate that there were at least 1100 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2024.

The previous data is also problematic. 

The 2024 California assisted suicide report indicated that there were 896 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022, the 2023 report indicated that there were 890 in 2022 and the 2022 report indicated that there were 853 in 2022. Why are the medical professionals filing the assisted suicide reports so late?

Further analysis: Ingestion status is unknown.

The 2024 report indicated that of the 1591 Californians who received the poison prescription, the ingestion status was unknown for 388 of the people. The problem with the unknown ingestion status increased greatly. The 2023 report indicated that there were 276 Californians who received the lethal poison but whose ingestion status was unknown. 

When the ingestion status is unknown, they know that the person was approved and received the lethal prescription, but they do not know if they died or how they died.

Based on the data we know that some of the 388 people, whose ingestion status is unknown, died a natural death and some of them died by assisted suicide but it is also likely that some of the 388 people died by assisted suicide but the assisted suicide death was unreported.

California uses a self-reporting system, meaning the medical professional who prescribed the poison prescription same person who is obligated to submit the assisted suicide death report. It is impossible to know that a person died by assisted suicide when the medical professional fails to submit the assisted suicide report and there is no oversight that uncovers unreported assisted suicide deaths.

More inaccurate data: Increase in lethal poison prescriptions.

The 2024 report indicates that there were 1591 lethal poison prescriptions written which was up from 1409 in 2023 and 1332 in 2022. 

But the data is problematic. The 2023 report indicated that there were 1281 lethal poison prescriptions written in 2023 and 1328 in 2022. Why is there a discrepancy of (1409 - 1281) 128 poison prescriptions for 2023 within the 2024 report?

Based on the data from previous years, it is likely that at least 1700 poison prescriptions were written in 2024. 

I can understand the problem with late reporting of assisted suicide deaths. I can understand the problem of under-reporting of assisted suicide deaths. I can't understand the discrepancy concerning the poison prescription data. Prescriptions can also be tracked through through the pharmacy system, therefore the discrepancy should not exist.

The Times of San Diego reported that the California legislature passed Bill SB 403, a bill that expands the California assisted suicide law by removing the requirement that law be reviewed in 2031 and by removing certain reporting requirements.

Based on the lack of accurate data in the 2024 California assisted suicide report, I can understand why the California legislature would want to hide the date in future reports.

More articles on this topic:

• California 2023 assisted suicide report (Link). 
• It's time to audit the death bureaucracy (Link). 
• How America Abandoned its assisted suicide safeguards (Link).
• Assisted suicide laws, once legal, inevitably expand (Link).
• California doctor faces up to 10 years in prison for fraudulently diagnosing his patients as terminal (Link).
  

It's time to audit the death bureaucracy

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate the assisted suicide drug cocktails. (Petition Link).

Last week the Washington Examiner published an editorial opinion calling on the US states that have legalized assisted suicide to audit their death bureaucracy. The article states:

A deeply disturbing investigative report in UnHerd last week uncovered rampant violations of physician-assisted suicide practices in states with the oldest and largest programs. The 11 states that have legalized assisted suicide require clinicians to submit compliance forms shortly after the “patient’s” death. But the chaotic assisted-suicide bureaucracy rarely follows regulations, and clinicians put people to death with little to no oversight.

Between 2009 and 2023, 515 compliance forms and 293 “written request” documents were missing in the state of Washington. In all, one-third of the state’s assisted suicides were improperly reported. In Colorado, which passed its End of Life Options Act in 2016, almost 1,800 compliance forms are missing. And in New Mexico, where annual compliance reporting is also required by law, there has not been a single report issued since assisted suicide was enacted in 2021. For years, the state’s website suggested that a report was “coming soon,” but state officials quietly removed that promise from its website this summer.

Disturbingly, there have been no suspensions or revocations of clinician licenses connected with these irregularities.

Failing to report an assisted suicide is no mere statutory violation. Washington law states medical providers and pharmacists who neglect to “make a good-faith effort to file required documentation in a complete and timely manner” risk losing immunity protection for criminal acts.

The missing compliance reports are only the tip of the iceberg. Officials in Colorado and California were unable to provide numbers for the total assisted suicides carried out by clinicians and held no record of the type of drugs prescribed to more than 1,000 “patients.” Authorities in Oregon don’t know the result of 178 cases from 2024 in which “aid in dying” medications were prescribed.

Did the “patients” take the drugs in those cases? Did those drugs cause death? Did the “patients” even die? Oregon has no records on any of this.

Record keeping in Washington is even worse. By law, the state is supposed to perform a review of reporting compliance each year. But, blaming funding cuts, officials announced that they will no longer issue these legally required reports.

As more and more states consider whether to adopt assisted-suicide laws, a true accounting is needed to provide voters with accurate information about the outcomes of these laws in states where they are already established.

Given the gravity of the new revelations, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, in coordination with the Justice Department, should launch an immediate investigation into states’ assisted-suicide programs. It should focus on three critical areas: the failure to file mandatory compliance forms, inadequate tracking of lethal prescriptions, and the absence of disciplinary action against clinicians who endanger “patients” through noncompliance.

As assisted suicide spreads, the risk grows that vulnerable people, those feeling like burdens or facing financial strain, will be nudged toward death rather than helped to live. This is not compassion — it’s the worst sort of cultural and moral failure.

It is time for accountability.

More articles on this topic:

• How America Abandoned its assisted suicide safeguards (Link).
• Assisted suicide lobby launches court case to force Colorado to permit suicide tourism (Link). 
• The push to legalize and extend assisted suicide in America (Link).
• Oregon 2024 assisted suicide report (Link). 
• Death by assisted suicide is not what you think it is (Link).  
• Assisted suicide laws, once passed will inevitably expand (Link). 
• New York assisted suicide bill is a "bait and switch" (Link). 
• Oregon bill would expand assisted suicide again (Link).

I'm Sorry My Colleague Killed Your Sister.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was cleaning up my emails and came across an excellent article that I remember reading, but that I had missed when blogging. Jeremy Bannon had an published by First Things on May 23, 2025 titled: I'm Sorry My Colleague Killed Your Sister. Bannon wrote:

A few weeks ago, while walking through the halls of the hospital where I work, I ran into the brother of a former patient. I asked him how his sister was doing, having positive memories of journeying alongside her as she recovered from a stroke. He proceeded to inform me that she was “gone.” Saddened, I offered my condolences and asked what had happened. “She went for MAiD,” he said, his gaze drifting into a thousand-yard stare just to my right. “We didn’t agree with her choice, but she said that if she was not able to walk on her own after a year, she was going to go for it.” Sure enough, a year went by and she still was not able to walk on her own. I replied: “I’m sorry my colleague killed your sister.”

As I said it, a wave of sadness hit me, not just for the despair this woman must have felt, but also that a doctor—one who had sworn an oath to “do no harm”—had affirmed her darkest thoughts.

Bannon then writes:

The brother seemed surprised at what I’d said. I told him it had been a pleasure taking care of his sister and assured him that this was not the “medicine” that I had signed up for. He thanked me, almost as if my view of care was a unique approach to “the healing art.” In Canada, it increasingly is.

The curious thing about my “unique” way of practicing medicine—where I refuse to kill my patients—is that it’s actually not unique at all. Historically, medical ethics has always maintained that doctors have no business killing their patients, as evidenced by texts from ancient China, India, and Greece, all the way up to modern times. It was not until 2016 that it became legal in Canada for doctors to kill their patients, and then only for cases that were “grievous,” “irremediable,” and “terminal.” Physicians were assured that “their independent, professional judgment makes them uniquely capable of detecting a patient’s vulnerability.” 

The normal medical practise of not killing patients has in a short period of time shifted to a the normalization of patient homicide. 

Bannon compares Canada's euthanasia program to the California assisted suicide program. Both were legalized in 2016 but Canada, which has a similar population as California, had a little more than 60,000 deaths between legalization and 2023 and in the same time-frame California had almost 4300 assisted suicide deaths. Bannon continues:

The independent investigative panel probing the reason for Canada’s rapid uptick in MAiD deaths found that 428 cases did not meet the criteria for euthanasia, making the deaths legally homicides (and these are only the cases that we know about). But there has been no referral to criminal authorities.

There have been a few instances where provincial police have launched criminal investigations. One woman with an untreated post-concussion syndrome was euthanized without her daughters’ knowledge. Another investigation and subsequent lawsuit found that a bipolar man received MAiD while on a day pass from a hospital stay without anyone’s knowledge. 

Bannon then comments on the fact that the government has already approved euthanasia for mental illness alone, that it has agreed to implement in March 2027. Bannon then comments on the discriminatory nature of the law

The protocol for administering MAiD reveals a sinister view of anyone who is not completely sound in body and mind. If I, in good health, wanted to die and attempted to kill myself, physicians would have the ability, by law, to restrain me against my will and ensure that I receive treatment for this desire to die. But if I was handicapped or ill, then the same physicians could help me end my life. The MAiD system says that the healthy are worthy of suicide prevention, and the disabled and ill are not. This is not just my opinion, but also that of the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights. Furthermore, the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has formally recommended that Canada repeal its Track 2 MAiD program due to such injustices. The bias doesn’t stop with the sick and disabled: Many Canadian MAiD providers are quietly struggling with euthanasia requests from vulnerable populations, including the poor, homeless, and those living in long-term care homes.

Bannon finishes his article with the axiom:

It is often said that the true measure of a society lies in how it treats its most vulnerable members. By that standard, Canada is a society that is headed down a very dark path.

Thank you Dr Bannon for being opposed to patient homicide.

California hospice operater sentenced to 12 years in prison for medicare fraud

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The US Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs reported on May 6, 2025 that Petros Fichidzhyan, 44, of Granada Hills, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for his role in a hospice 17 million dollar medicare fraud.

The Department of Justice Press Release stated:

According to court documents, Petros Fichidzhyan, 44, of Granada Hills, schemed with others to bill Medicare for hospice services that were not medically necessary and never provided. Fichidzhyan and his co-schemers controlled hospice entities and used foreign nationals’ personal identifying information (PII) to conceal the scheme, using the PII to, among other things, open bank accounts, submit information to Medicare, and sign property leases. The defendant and his co-schemers also misappropriated the names and PII of several doctors, two of whom were deceased, to fraudulently bill Medicare for purported hospice services. Medicare paid the sham hospices nearly $16 million, of which Fichidzhyan received nearly $7 million, with more than $5.3 million laundered through a dozen shell and third-party bank accounts. Fichidzhyan also obtained more than $1 million in false claims paid to his home health care agency, which fraudulently used a doctor’s name and identifying information as having certified Medicare beneficiaries for home health care. When the doctor confronted Fichidzhyan about the fraud, Fichidzhyan attempted to cover up the scheme by paying the doctor $11,000.

This article is not to attack genuine hospice care, but rather to emphasize that California legalized assisted suicide in 2016 and people are dying by assisted suicide, sometimes based on a lack of available hospice services. Medicare fraud not only steals from the government healthcare system but rather it also effects the funding and trust of genuine hospice care services.

The Department of Justice Press Release further stated that:

“For years, the defendant, working with others, ran multiple sham hospice and home health care schemes, fraudulently billing Medicare over $17 million,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The defendant’s egregious scheme relied on layers of deception and sophisticated money laundering, and wasted millions in taxpayer money. With the help of our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is fully committed to stopping these criminal networks and protecting the public fisc.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports genuine hospice care that enables people to live with true caring and compassion until their natural death.

Maine and New Jersey are debating assisted suicide expansion bills.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have written several articles explaining that the assisted suicide lobby in the US employ a "bait and switch" tactic. The assisted suicide lobby designs legislation that is designed to pass, with the intention of expanding the law later. The assisted suicide lobby knows that it is harder to legalize assisted suicide than to expand the bill once assisted suicide is legal.

I have already written about the Vermont, Oregon, Washington State and California bills to expand assisted suicide laws in 2025. Maine and New Jersey also have bills to expand their assisted suicide laws.

Maine Bill LD613 permits the attending physician to waive the waiting period. The bill states:

The attending physician may waive any portion or all of the waiting periods if, in the attending physician's medical opinion, it is in the best interests of the qualified patient, given the qualified patient's condition.

New Jersey S3588 also permits the 15 day waiting period to be waived. The bill states:

This bill waives the 15-day waiting periods in the case of a patient who, based on reasonable medical certainty, is not expected to survive for 15 days. The attending physician will be required to document the medical basis for the determination that the patient is not expected to survive for 15 days. The bill retains the 48-hour waiting period between submission of a written request and the issuance of a prescription for medical aid in dying medication.

Therefore there are six states in 2025 that have bills to expand their assisted suicide law.

The good news is that Montana Bill SB 136 passed in the Montana Senate by a vote of 29 to 20 and will soon be debated in the Montana House. This is a potential massive victory.

Assisted suicide laws, once passed will inevitably expand (Article Link).

The assisted suicide lobby emply a "bait and switch" tactic where the bill is designed for legalization and once legal it is later expanded. (Article Link).

California bill may extend assisted suicide to euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

There are currently three states, in 2025, that have bills to expand their assisted suicide laws (Vermont, Oregon and Washington State).

Senator Blakespear, who last year sponsored Senate Bill 1196, a bill that would have expanded the California assisted suicide law to include euthanasia and removed the terminal illness requirement from the law, indicated that she will be sponsoring Bill SB 403, a bill to expand California's assisted suicide law.

Thaddeus Pope

The text of SB 403 has not been released but on February 18, euthanasia and assisted suicide activist and academic, Thaddeus Pope, published on his Medical Futility Blog that:

California is again looking to amend its 2015 End of Life Option Act. S.B. 403 will likely call for a study committee to examine several amendments:

1. Permitting IV self-administration of medications - because it is significantly safer and more effective than ingestion of medications,
2. Permitting APRNs to prescribe - because this has improved access with no risk to safety in other states (NM HI WA CO),
3. Eliminating the 6-month terminal illness requirement - because it is arbitrary and excludes patients with serious irreversible illnesses who want to avoid intolerable suffering,
4. Eliminating the sunset clause - because the EOLOA expires in 2031,
5. Eliminating the residency requirement - because it is unconstitutional and patients are coming to California for MAID anyway,
6. Other amendments.

SB 403 is very similar to last year's SB 1196. Since the language of the bill is not released I can only comment on the concepts related to the changes.

 

1. Permitting IV self-administration will allow for euthanasia, which is homicide. Euthanasia is done in Canada by IV administration. Since there is no oversight in California's assisted suicide law, meaning, the doctor who assists the death is also the person who reports the death (no third party involvement) therefore allowing IV self-administration cannot be distinguished from IV administration. Therefore permitting IV self-administration in fact will also allow euthanasia (homicide).

2. Permitting non-doctors to assist suicide by prescribing lethal poison is based on the lack of doctors who are willing to assist the suicides of their patients. More people who are permitted to kill leads to more killing.

3. Replacing the 6 month terminal illness requirement with a definition of serious irreversible illnesses who want to avoid intolerable suffering eliminates the terminal illness requirement. 

 

Eliminating the terminal illness requirement leads to people with disabilities "qualifying" for death by lethal poison for reasons of poverty, homelessness, an inability to obtain necessary services or medical treatment as has happened in Canada. The Ontario Coroner's MAiD death review committee report indicated that some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Article Link).

4. Eliminating the residency requirement allows for suicide tourism. Pope states that the residency requirement is unconstitutional. In September 2024 a New Jersey court disagreed with Pope. Further to that, Pope admits that non-residents are already dying by assisted suicide in California. Breaking the law is not a reason to change the law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will expose SB 403 and this article will be updated when the language of the bill is officially released.

Assisted suicide laws, once legal, inevitably expand

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When a jurisdiction is debating an assisted suicide bill, many organizations and individuals present information about the necessary safeguards that the jurisdiction must implement to “safely” legalize assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition knows that it is not possible to “safely” legalize assisted suicide and once legal the law will inevitably expand.

Great Britain is currently debating an assisted suicide bill  sponsored by Kim Leadbeater. Many states have already introduced assisted suicide bills in 2025 and we anticipate many more legalization bills this year. We know that some states that have legalized assisted suicide will debate bills to expand their law.  

This article focuses on the experience with assisted suicide in jurisdictions where it is legal. 

Nearly every jurisdiction that has legalized assisted suicide, later expanded their law.

The assisted suicide lobby groups know that it is more difficult to legalize assisted suicide than it is to expand the law once it is legal.

On June 5, 2024 Colorado Governor Gary Polis signed Senate Bill 24-068 which expanded their state assisted suicide law by: allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe assisted suicide, reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 7 days, and allowing the doctor or advanced practise registered nurse to waive the waiting period if the person is deemed to be near to death (same day death).

In previous years other states expanded their assisted suicide laws.

In 2019 Oregon passed Bill SB 0579 which expanded their assisted suicide law by giving doctors the right to waive the 15 day waiting period when a person was deemed to be near to death.

In 2021 California passed Bill SB 380 which expanded their assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours. It forced doctors who oppose assisted suicide to be complicit in the act and it forced all medical institutions to post their policy on assisted suicide.

In 2022 Vermont expanded their assisted suicide law by removing the 48 hour waiting period, (allowing same day death), removing the requirement that an examination be done in person, (allowing approvals by telehealth), and it extended legal immunity to anyone who participates in the act.

In 2023 Washington State expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison, by reducing the waiting period to 7 days and to force healthcare institutions and hospices to post their assisted suicide policies.

In 2023 Hawaii expanded their assisted suicide law by reducing the waiting period from 20 days to 5 days, by allowing the waiting period to be waived if the person is deemed to be near to death and by allowing advanced practice registered nurses to approve and prescribe lethal poison.  

In 2023 Oregon expanded their assisted suicide law by passing House Bill 2279 which removed their state assisted suicide residency requirement.

In 2023 Vermont also expanded their assisted suicide law by passing Senate Bill 26 which removed their state assisted suicide residency requirement.

Oregon and Vermont removed their assisted suicide residency requirements in response to legal challenges by Compassion & Choices, an assisted suicide lobby group. By removing the state residency requirement assisted suicide was expanded nationally because anyone in America can die by assisted suicide in Oregon and Vermont.

There is currently a lawsuit by Compassion & Choices challenging the New Jersey state assisted suicide residency requirement. On September 19, 2024, a US District Court Judge upheld New Jersey’s right to limit assisted suicide to state residents. This decision was appealed by Compassion & Choices on October 18, 2024.

It must be noted that Compassion & Choices support legislators' attempts to legalize assisted suicide, but once it is legal they soon go on the offensive to expand that law.  

This was also true in Canada, where euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in June 2016 (Bill C-14) and the law was expanded by Bill C-7 in March 2021 by (among other things) removing the terminal illness requirement, removing the 10-day reflection period, allowing euthanasia for incompetent people who were previously approved and allowing euthanasia for mental illness alone. The implantation of euthanasia for mental illness alone has been delayed until March 2027.

Groups that support euthanasia will state that Bill C-7 was related to the Truchon court decision in Quebec, but Bill C-7 expanded the law further than the Truchon required.

Push back to assisted suicide legal expansions in America.

In March 2022 a group of California doctors launched a court case designed to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose assisted suicide. In September 2022 US District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha ruled that the California End of Life Options Act that had been amended by Bill SB 380, violated First Amendment rights of doctors by requiring them to participate in assisted suicide.

In April 2023, The United Spinal Association, Not Dead Yet, the Institute for Patients’ Rights, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Lonnie Van Hook and Ingrid Tischer launched a lawsuit to strike down the California assisted suicide law. The case asserts that the California assisted suicide law is a discriminatory scheme that contravenes the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case continues.

It is harder to legalize assisted suicide than to expand the law after it is legal. No new state assisted suicide law has become law in the past three years yet in that same time 5 states, that had legalized assisted suicide, expanded their law.

Expansion occurs for many reasons

When we examine the expansions of the American assisted suicide laws we recognize several key themes. There is the removal of waiting or reflection periods, allowing non-physicians to do the act, and allowing non-residents to die by assisted suicide.

Other expansions to assisted suicide laws include the redefinition of the language of the law.

In December 2017, Fabian Stahle, a Swedish researcher asked the Oregon Health Authority how they define terminal illness. Stahle learned that the Oregon Health Authority defined the six month terminal illness prognosis as including someone who would have a six month prognosis if they reject effective medical treatment. This was clearly an expansion of the law by redefining the language of the law.

A similar redefinition of the meaning of the law has occurred in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has never actually amended their law but they have changed the interpretation of the meaning of the law.

For instance, originally the Netherlands did not consider euthanasia for people with psychological conditions. In 2009, an interpretation of the law suggested that euthanasia for people with psychological conditions was possible. Since that time the number of deaths for psychological conditions has continuously expanded.

In Canada, most of the expansions to the MAiD law have been based on equality. The Truchon court case in Quebec was decided based on the concept that preventing MAiD for people who do not have an irremediable medical condition was discriminatory. Justice Baudouin decided that it was unconstitutional to deny some people MAiD based on the person not being terminally ill.

Once legal, expansion of the law is inevitable.

When a legislature debates an assisted suicide bill they will do so based on the language of the bill. They will argue that the bill before them is tightly worded with effective “safeguards” but even if this were true, most often a bill that is legalized is expanded a few years later.

Once assisted suicide is legal, restrictions on the law become discriminatory. For instance, it becomes unjust to force a person to wait to die, it becomes unjust to limit it to terminal illness, it becomes unjust to limit it to physical conditions, it becomes unjust to force people to have to self-administer.

Before legalization, everyone is equal under the law. Everyone is equally protected from being killed or equally protected from suicide. Once legal, people who “qualify” under the law are medically abandoned as they are told that they can have treatment or death. In other words, death becomes an alternative to treatment and care.

Legislators need to know that we oppose killing people. 

We don’t just oppose killing people who are terminally or chronically ill, but we oppose killing all people. 

Legislators need to know that we support caring for people and not abandoning them to death.