They ended the life of a two-year old. I refuse to call that care.

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on September 17, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

The first Dutch case under its expanded child life-termination framework should horrify us—not because the child wasn’t suffering, but because suffering became the justification for intentionally ending a life that could never consent.

I have covered euthanasia and MAiD for years.

I have read the legislation. The committee reports. The cases. The sanitized medical language. The phrases designed to make something irreversible sound clinical, controlled and humane.

I know what I am looking at and this one has deeply upset me, I am angry. The person at the centre of this case was not an adult making an informed decision about their own body.

This was a child. Not yet two years old.

A profoundly disabled child with catastrophic medical problems whose life was intentionally ended by adults and now, in September 2026, the Dutch committee responsible for reviewing the case has concluded that the physician acted with due care.

I keep coming back to the same question…..how the hell did we get here?

A child cannot consent to death, the entire modern argument for euthanasia is usually sold through the language of autonomy.

My body. My choice. My suffering. My decision.

You may disagree with me about euthanasia for competent adults. Fine, but that argument collapses here.

A two-year-old cannot understand death.

A two-year-old cannot understand euthanasia.

A two-year-old cannot weigh treatment options.

A two-year-old cannot give informed consent.

A two-year-old cannot make a voluntary and considered request to die.

The Dutch system recognizes that basic reality. Ordinary euthanasia requires such a request, which is why children this young fall under a separate framework allowing physicians, under certain circumstances, to intentionally terminate the lives of seriously ill children.

That distinction should stop every one of us cold because we are no longer talking about someone choosing death for themselves. We are talking about adults deciding that another human being’s suffering has reached a point at which deliberately ending that human being’s life is acceptable.

That is an entirely different ethical universe and yes, this child was terribly sick. I am not going to minimize what this family was facing.

The child was born at 26 weeks.

There was extensive brain damage, severe cerebral palsy, visual impairment, serious seizures that were extraordinarily difficult to control, swallowing problems, breathing problems and other severe complications. Doctors did not expect the child to survive into adulthood.

According to the committee record, the child was developmentally around six weeks old at nearly two years of age, had no verbal development and had only minimal ability to communicate.

That is devastating, I cannot imagine watching your child suffer like that, I cannot imagine being told there may be no cure coming. I am not interested in sitting comfortably behind a keyboard and calling desperate parents monsters. That is not my argument.

My argument is that compassion for suffering cannot mean eliminating the human being who is suffering, there is a difference and we are losing it.

Then I read what the doctors actually said, this is the part that made me even angrier.

The first independent physicians consulted did not simply rubber-stamp what happened. According to the committee’s own record, those doctors concluded that the child’s condition was irreversible—but that at that moment there was not continuous unbearable suffering and that reasonable alternatives still remained.

Those alternatives included palliative options and additional medications that might have controlled the seizures more effectively. The physician attempted the recommended medication. The child experienced additional side effects and treatment was stopped.

The parents did not want prolonged sedation that would eventually result in death without fluid or nutrition, and the treating physician did not view palliative sedation as a reasonable answer.

Then another physician outside the region was consulted. That doctor reached a different conclusion: that the suffering was unbearable and that there was no other reasonable way to relieve it and the procedure went ahead.

Read that again.

The initial independent medical opinions said reasonable options remained.

A later doctor disagreed, and the child died. You can dress that sequence in whatever bureaucratic language makes everyone more comfortable.

I am not comfortable. The rules weren’t even fully written and then we get to the part that almost reads like satire if the consequences weren’t so horrifying. The regulation governing children aged one through twelve did not yet contain its own due-care requirements.

The committee therefore relied on requirements originally written for newborns, together with criteria approved by the Dutch paediatric association in October 2024. There was also no guideline for carrying out the procedure.

The committee’s judgment records that the physician actually searched for a protocol and could not find one.

Stop there.

A country expanded a framework allowing intentional life termination in children between one and twelve. The first reported case occurs, a child dies and the official record says parts of the framework and implementation guidance still had not been written.

Yet we’re supposed to feel reassured by the word safeguards.

I don’t.

“Handled with due care”

The committee ultimately found that the physician had acted with due care. That phrase bothers me more than I can explain, because “due care” sounds comforting.

It sounds responsible, professional, measured, safe…. but the outcome remains exactly the same. A child who was alive became dead because adults intentionally caused that death. That is not the same thing as withdrawing futile treatment.

It is not the same thing as allowing the natural process of dying. t is not the same thing as treating pain aggressively while knowing a dying patient may pass. It is not the same thing as palliative sedation. Intent matters, words matter here.

The Dutch framework itself recognizes that: the objective of the intervention is to end life because the suffering has been judged hopeless and unbearable.

That distinction matters enormously to me. I believe medicine should treat suffering, that medicine should aggressively control pain. I believe families caring for profoundly disabled children deserve more resources than most governments will ever provide them.

Nursing, respite, palliative medicine, hospice, psychological support, specialists, equipmen and financial support. Everything and when treatment has truly failed and death is coming, medicine should make that death as peaceful and humane as humanly possible but there is a moral difference between accompanying somebody through death and intentionally causing it.

I refuse to erase that distinction. What upset me most is there is another sentence in the committee material that I haven’t been able to shake.

The committee wrote that:

“All facets of ‘being human’—regarding motor skills, behavior, and personality—were severely impaired and were not going to improve.”

Think for a second about that language.

Motor ability.

Behaviour.

Personality.

Developmental disability.

Communication.

Dependence.

Those things may be medically relevant when treating a person. Of course they are, but when the end result of an assessment can be intentional death, disabled people have every reason to ask where these judgments take us.

Human worth cannot become proportional to independence, humanity cannot depend on verbal communication. Dignity cannot depend on whether you can feed yourself. Your right to continue existing cannot depend on how “burdensome” your medical condition appears to somebody else.

That is the territory that terrifies me, this is why precedent matters here. The Netherlands expanded this particular framework in 2024 and officials estimated that no more than approximately five children a year might qualify.

This was the first reported case under that expansion and, at the time of the committee’s judgment, the only one.

Somebody will inevitably say:

It’s one case.

It was exceptional.

The child was extremely sick.

All of this may be true so I don’t need to exaggerate it. I’m not pretending thousands of children are suddenly going to die, but one case is enough to ask what principle has just been established.

A law changes then a framework is created, next the first case happens. A committee declares that it met the standard and that decision then becomes part of the guidance surrounding future cases. That not me making up some conspiracy, that’s just how precedent works.

My answer is still a hard, hard no.

I understand that people will read this case differently, some will believe the physician acted compassionately, cool. But I cannot. Some will believe the parents faced an unbearable situation and made the most merciful decision available to them.

I don’t need to hate those people to oppose what happened, I don’t need to call the doctor evil. My argument is bigger than one doctor or one family, I reject the philosophy that says there comes a point where intentional death becomes an acceptable medical response to human suffering and I reject it most agreesively when the person whose life is being ended can’t ask for it!

Care for the child, treat the seizures, control the pain, help them breathe, support the family, pour resources into their care and when death comes despite everything medicine can do, surround that child with comfort and love.

But please don’t tell me intentionally causing the death of this child is simply another form of health care, we have to stop with this nonsense.

Don’t clean it up with words like procedure. Don’t hide behind due care and don’t tell me autonomy justifies it when the tiny human being at the centre of the decision had none.

A two-year-old cannot choose to die by a doctors hands, so adults chose instead. That’s just the reality of what happened here. Then another group of adults reviewed their decision afterward and determined that the rules had been followed and I am supposed to find reassurance in that.

I don’t. I find it hyper disturbing. Why aren’t enough people saying something.

We need to hit the breaks hard. We are rationalizing kidding children, say what this is.

I believe future generations will look back at this era and ask how doctors became authorized to intentionally end human lives in the name of compassion. They will ask how suffering became confused with the value of the person suffering, and then they will ask, how young we were ultimately willing to go.

In the Netherlands, we now know at least part of that answer.

Not yet two years old and that should disturb every single one of us.

Two-year old killed by euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The NL Times reported on September 9 that the first euthanasia death in the Netherlands of a child under the age of 12 was done at the end of 2025. The child was around 2 years old.

The Netherlands has allowed infant euthanasia (under the age of 1) for many years based on the Groningen Protocol. This case is different because the child was not a newborn

The recent article is a follow-up report to an article that was published in June, 2026 confirming that the first child euthanasia death happened.

The NL Times report stated that:

This child was born very prematurely, at only 26 weeks of gestation. It quickly became apparent that the child had suffered severe brain damage, resulting in severe cerebral palsy and a visual impairment. This was compounded by frequent and severe epileptic seizures, which were largely unresponsive to medication. This left the child restless and unable to sleep for long periods. They also had mucus in their lungs, which made breathing and swallowing very difficult.

The report justifies the killing based on the child being born prematurely and having significant disabilities. But the child had lived approximately 2-years-old, meaning, that the killing was actually based on the disabilities since the child had survived two years since birth.

This case reminds me of the first child euthanasia death that was on July 24, 1939. The Nazi euthanasia program was launched in 1939 after Adolf Hitler received a letter from Richard Kretschmar, the father of an infant (referred to as "Case K" or the 'Knauer child'). Historians now know that the child was Gerhard Herbert Kretschmar.

The letter stated that Gerhard was born on February 20, 1939, that he was blind, had one leg and part of one arm was missing and was described as "an idiot". Hitler sent Dr Karl Brant to see the child in a hospital in Leipzig. Brant testified at the Nurembourg trial that he had been instructed that if the father's letter was correct that the physicians at the hospital would be told that euthanasia could be carried out - in Hitler's name. Gerhard was euthanized on July 24, 1939.

History indicates that the German T4 euthanasia program, that followed, began with parental request for euthanasia and in the end resulted in the deaths of, at least, 250,000 to 275,000 people with disabilities.

Further to that, the technique in killing large numbers of people by gas was first developed in the psychiatric hospitals for the euthanasia program and later installed in the death camps for killing millions of people. According to the Holocaust Museum, T-4 staff were redeployed to the death camps. 

Canada is debating Child euthanasia.

A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 calling for a drastic expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada. Among other recommendations, the report recommends that euthanasia be expanded to include children "mature minors."

While presenting to the AMAD Committee on September 7, 2022 Dr Louis Roy from the Québec College of Physicians urged Canada's Federal government to adopt a protocol to permit infant euthanasia. Dr Roy suggested that this should only be allowed in rare circumstances, such as a newborn who is unlikely to survive.

Infant euthanasia opens the door to a new justification for killing since the baby lacks competence and is not autonomously capable of choosing to be killed. Infant euthanasia is a form of eugenics whereby protocols will determine which lives are worth living.

While the AMAD committee didn't accept the recommendation from the Québec College of Physicians researchers at Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto have also considered the issue. 

Guidelines for child euthanasia. 

Article: Sick Kids Hospital Toronto will euthanize children with or without parental consent (Link). 

A report from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (October 2018) stated that they are ready to do euthanasia on children but their policy states that a child should be able to die by euthanasia without the consent or knowledge of the parents. 

An article by Sharon Kirkey published by Sun Media, published on October 9, 2018; reported that "ethicists" at the Children's Hospital believe that there is no difference between killing someone and letting them die. Kirkey reported:

The working group said it wasn’t convinced that there is a meaningful difference for the patient “between being consensually assisted in dying (in the case of MAID) and being consensually allowed to die (in the case of refusing life-sustaining interventions).” 

Sick Children's hospital draft policy applied the same "ethics" for mature minors making medical decisions as making death decisions. Canadian provinces allow mature minors to make decisions about their own care, including withdrawing or withholding life support. In Ontario a minor can provide consent for treatment or withdrawal of treatment if they understand the “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of their decision. The Sick Kids' hospital policy stated that they encourage minors to involve their families in medical decisions.

Kirkey explained that the Hospitals for Sick Children draft policy would permit children to decide to be killed by euthanasia without the consent of the parents:

The draft policy argues the same rules should apply to MAID since there is no meaningful ethical or practical distinction from the patient’s perspective between assisted dying and other procedures that result in the end of a life, such as palliative sedation (where people sleep until they die) or withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments. 

The draft policy by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children set out what can be expected if Canada permits euthanasia for children (mature minors).

The child euthanasia issue is being promoted by the death lobby and medical "ethicists." The euthanasia death of a two-year old in the Netherlands is a very serious issue and has international overtones. 

Is MAiD Medical Murder? A Podcast Discussion

Podcast exposes red flags regarding MAiD in Canada

Viviana Runstedler
Staff Writer, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Christopher Shaw

*The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition refers to (MAiD) euthanasia as medical homicide.

We are pleased to share information on a podcast episode that exposes the truth about (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada that mainstream podcasts avoid discussing.

On an episode aired July 17th 2026, the Children’s Health Defense (Canada Chapter) interviewed two medical professionals about (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada. 

Dr Christopher Shaw is a neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia as well as the co-chair of the scientific and medical advisory committee of the Canadian Citizens Care Alliance. Dr York N. Hsiang is a professor emeritus of surgery also at the University of British Columbia and a member of the scientific and medical advisory committee of the Canadian Citizens Care Alliance. Together, these two doctors presented a helpful overview of the current state of MAiD in Canada and shared eye-opening information concerning the ongoing execution of MAiD.

Dr York N. Hsiang

Dr Hsiang began by reminding listeners that MAiD is now the 5th leading cause of death in Canada and is an effective way to recoup healthcare costs. He briefly reviews recent discussions to expand Canadian MAiD approvals for mental illness and for minors. He went on to discuss issues within the current MAiD system.

One major issue presented by Dr Hsiang involves the misuse and misunderstanding of the drugs used in MAiD. The drugs used in Canada are essentially anesthetics used in very high doses to cause death. He referenced a 2022 article in the Canadian Medical Association journal that “only 21% of the physicians who are actively giving MAiD can be said to fully understand the drugs that they are giving for MAiD” (timestamp 8:30)

Dr Hsiang continues:

“about a quarter of patients took over an hour to die. And this is, clinically, this meaning you no longer have a heartbeat. Your brain could still be functioning, but you no longer have a heartbeat and so you are then deemed to be dead. The shocking thing is that when you actually look at the drugs that are being used, many of the drugs, in particular being the kill shot, the cardio-toxic drugs, in one quarter of those patients was not given. Why was that? Was that the reason why patients were taking over 1 hour to die? At the same time when MAiD is explained to be a painless procedure, less than one percent of the patients actually received a true medication for pain, in other words a narcotic. Very very surprising. And so, I have concerns that as the program gets expanded even more there’s going to be more practitioners that want to get on to this because it is lucrative and the majority of them don’t have any training. Nobody has training in how to kill a patient, our whole training is how to save a patient and keep them alive.” (timestamp 10:15)

Dr Hsiang is not the first doctor we have heard expressing concern about the administration of euthanasia and how the drugs may actually affect the person experiencing a euthanasia death. EPC has previously reported on euthanasia deaths which caused great distress to the deceased and family members present at the death. 

The National Post also covered this issue in 2022, recognizing that until euthanasia was legalized, doctors had never given doses this large of these particular drugs. The National Post article included a quote from Dr Joel Zivot suggesting that euthanasia could “feel like drowning” and that he “worries paralytics could mask an unpleasant death.” Zivot’s conclusions were based on his work studying capital punishment via lethal injection in the US which uses a common sedative to Canadian euthanasia protocol.

Another red flag that Dr Hsiang has identified in Canada is:

“physician zealots who contact family practitioner offices, and this I have heard from discussing this with family doctors, that they want to know on each family doctor’s list how many patients are eligible for MAiD. There is a financial incentive for these doctors since they are reimbursed quite well for a very short procedure.” (timestamp 9:08)

This quote highlights the pressure being placed on many Canadians to accept and utilize euthanasia. Discussion also turned to the Dying with Dignity Canada “Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Activity Book” created for children. This child-centric material is especially dark considering the context of possible expansion of MAiD eligibility to impressionable minors.

Dr Hsiang and Dr Shaw also speculate that since euthanasia is used to facilitate organ donation, the expansion of eligibility to minors would increase accessibility to “younger” organs for donation and this may be a contributing factor behind these criteria expansions. We have covered several of these issues on the blog over the years; our posts related to organ donation can be found here.

Drs Hsiang and Shaw are currently working on a book about euthanasia, expected to be published next year. The portion of the podcast regarding euthanasia ends at timestamp 16:40. We thank these doctors for working independently of mainstream discussions to bring these issues to light in an open forum.

Netherlands: Doctors are feeling pressured to approve euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands Times reported on March 26, 2026 that there were 10,341 reported euthanasia deaths in 2025 representing 6% of all deaths, an increase of 3.8% from 9,958 in 2024.

Last week, the Netherlands Minister of Public Health, Sophie Hermans, confirmed that at least one child has now died by euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands Times published an article on July 3, 2026 concerning a study that has examined the cultural changes that are feeding the increase in euthanasia deaths. The article states:

Lead researcher and healthcare ethicist Els van Wijngaarden of Radboudumc observes that “the euthanasia law has not changed, but its application has.” Last year, cancer was the reason for euthanasia in only about half of all cases. In the late 1990s, this was still 90 percent. Other reasons, like dementia and mental disorders, increased.

Views on end-of-life suffering have changed significantly, the researchers note. Euthanasia is more frequently a topic of conversation, and religious views play an increasingly smaller role.

The report also studied changes in the Netherlands healthcare system.

The report also highlights the pressure on the healthcare system. According to the researchers, healthcare cutbacks, staff shortages in terminal and elderly care, and problems in mental healthcare can reinforce or encourage euthanasia requests. “For example, when patients notice that their quality of life is declining due to pressure on the healthcare system, this could influence their choice for euthanasia,” the researchers state.

Van Wijngaarden cannot say whether the pressure on the healthcare system directly leads to more euthanasia requests. According to her, more research is needed for that. However, she finds the shortcomings in the healthcare system alarming. "You do not want pressure on the healthcare system to go hand in hand with increasing acceptance of euthanasia." Researchers are therefore calling for further investigation into the role of that pressure.

The report also examined pressure on physicians to kill by euthanasia.

The report also notes that doctors are experiencing increasing pressure from patients and their loved ones because euthanasia is increasingly seen as a normal way of dying. Patients are increasingly reluctant to accept when a doctor rejects a request for euthanasia, which in turn can make doctors more reluctant to allow it. The Termination of Life Review Act, which allows people to apply for euthanasia, is based on the principles of “mercy, the protectability of life, and autonomy.”

According to the researchers, that balance is shifting, with autonomy becoming increasingly important to patients. People increasingly believe they are entitled to euthanasia, even though this is not the case. “Euthanasia continues to be considered a special medical act. Many doctors experience its execution as morally burdensome, emotionally stressful, and time-consuming,” Van Wijngaarden said.

The report found that doctors are feeling pressured to approve euthanasia.

The Netherlands Times reported that Mirjam Bikker (CU) who ahad requested that the government conduct the study, called it: 

"alarming" that "the shortage of care contributes to the rise in euthanasia." 

Researcher Van Wijngaarden thought that is "too simplistic."

The euthanasia report was presented to Minister of Public Health, Sophie Hermans (VVD) on Thursday July 2, 2026.

More articles on the Netherlands euthanasia law.

• Child euthanasia confirmed in the Netherlands (Read).
• Dutch psychiatrist warns Canada don't extend euthanasia to mental illness (Read).
• Psychiatric euthanasia and suicide prevention in the Netherlands (Read).
• Netherlands 2025 euthanasia report. Euthanasia deaths surpass 10,000 (Read).
• Autistic teenager euthanized in the Netherlands (Read).
• Euthanasia for young people and psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands (Read).

The Netherlands is euthanizing children.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill was published by Spiked on June 28, 2026 concerning the expansion of euthanasia in the Netherlands to now allow children to be euthanized.

Article: Child euthanasia confirmed in the Netherlands (Read).

Yuill, who is emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia explains:

For the first time in the history of the Netherlands, a child has been euthanised by the state. The Dutch health minister revealed this week that Sophie Hermans, a child under the age of 12, was given a lethal injection in late 2025.

This case follows another relaxation of the safeguards on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In 2002, the Dutch decriminalised euthanasia and assisted suicide for competent adults. The law expanded to cover 16- and 17-year-olds, with parental consultation, and 12- to 15-year-olds with parental consent. In 2023, another change in the law allowed children under the age of 12, according to Dutch MP Harry Bevers, to ‘die with dignity’ if there is no possibility of recovery and they faced unbearable pain and distress.

The Netherlands didn't technically change their euthanasia law but rather they extended the Groningen Protocol, which allowed euthanasia of newborns, to include children under the age of 12. Yuill continued:

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is officially only permitted if the request comes from the patient and if a doctor agrees that they are suffering unbearably. But how can a minor request something a child cannot possibly comprehend – namely, the end of his or her life? How can a young child understand the need to maintain his or her dignity? The age of consent for sex is 16 in the Netherlands, and those below the age of 18 cannot legally get married. The Dutch government advises that children under the age of 15 should not use social media. And yet, Dutch children now have the ‘right’ to request a lethal injection.

In fact, the Netherlands appears to be moving relentlessly and thoughtlessly towards a euthanasia model employed in Europe in the 1930s. Then, euthanasia proposals began as requests from patients. However, when Nazi Germany began its euthanasia programme in 1939, the ‘patients’ were generally children with physical and intellectual disabilities. They did not consent – let alone request – euthanasia.

Yuill states that doctors in the Netherlands are not the same as doctors in Nazi Germany, nonetheless child euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living.

Yuill shares some of the crazy euthanasia stories from the Netherlands and then states:

Similarly, the expansion of euthanasia to children was motivated – in the words of then health minister Ernst Kuipers – by the hope it would ‘end the “dilemma for doctors” to administer euthanasia to young children who can’t decide for themselves’. The voluntary part of ‘voluntary’ euthanasia seems to have disappeared.

Yuill explains that most Canadians were unaware that Canada had planned to expand euthanasia to mental illness alone in March 2027.

Yuill ends the article by stating:

All of this is why we in the UK must look very critically at the legislation recently brought forward by Labour MP Lauren Edwards. The bill – which supporters will not allow to be amended – is not safe in its current form. Indeed, that is why there were 1,200 amendments tabled when it was first introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. And the experience of every jurisdiction where euthanasia is legal would tell us that it would only get worse.

Belgium expanded euthanasia to children in February 2014.

In February 2023 a Canadian parliamentary committee decided that Canada should expand euthanasia to children (mature minors).

Euthanasia, once legal, always expands.

Child euthanasia confirmed in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Preveniton Coalition

As we celebrate a victory after a government committee decided that Canada should not extend euthanasia to people with a mental illness alone, the Netherlands government has confirmed that at least one child has been killed by euthanasia.

We received an update from the Care Not Killing Alliance that the NL Times reported on June 23, 2026 that:

For the first time, a doctor in the Netherlands has ended the life of a terminally ill child, Minister Sophie Hermans of Public Health wrote in a letter to parliament. The special committee established to assess euthanasia for children received the report last year, NOS reports.

The assessment committee has reviewed the case, spoken with the doctor involved, and passed its assessment to the Public Prosecution Service (OM), Hermans wrote. The OM will determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with the law. The assessment committee’s recommendation will weigh heavily in this decision.

Let's be clear, the assessment committee recommendations that the Public Prosecution Service is seeking happens after the death of the child. If the Public Prosecution Service finds concerns with the death, it won't matter because the child is already dead.

Now that the Netherlands have reported a child euthanasia death, I am concerned about the further spread of this scourge to other countries including Canada.

A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) that was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 called for a further expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada by recommending, among other things, that euthanasia be expanded to include children considered "mature minors."

As bad as euthanasia for "mature minors" is, during a presentation by Dr Louis Roy from the Québec College of Physicians to The Special Joint Committee on euthanasia on September 7, 2022, Roy urged Canada's Federal government to permit infant euthanasia. Dr Roy suggested that euthanasia of newborns should be allowed in rare circumstances, such as a newborn who may not survive.

Euthanasia of newborns is eugenic, the belief that some lives are not worth living.

Fortunately Canada has not expanded euthanasia to mature minors but euthanasia lobby groups such as Dying with Dignity have been lobbying the Canadian government to make this expansion.  

Euthanasia was legalized based on the concept that it would be limited to competent adults who were terminally ill and freely capable of consenting to be killed. Child euthanasia does not fit this paradigm, but the euthanasia lobby was never actually concerned with consent or competence. Those were just sales pitches to create support for the concept of allowing doctors and nurse practitioners to be legally permitted to kill.

Alberta Bill 18 will provide limits to euthanasia.

Alberta Bill 18: Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alberta's Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery, introduced Bill 18: the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act (today) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026.

Bill 18 is designed to create greater oversight of (MAiD) euthanasia in Alberta through provincial powers and will accomplish a few key outcomes. Bill 18 will:

• require the individual to have a 12 month terminal prognosis, thus preventing Track 2 euthanasia approvals. Track 2 refers to euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill.
• prevent the expansion of euthanasia to people with mental illness alone, 
• prevent the expansion of euthanasia to "mature minors", 
• prevent euthanasia for people who cannot consent.
• prevent euthanasia by advanced request.
• prevent out of province referrals,
• require the assessor to contact other practitioners who have cared for the patient, before approval.
• require (MAiD) euthanasia practitioners to receive specific training,
• prevent health care practitioners from introducing euthanasia, without a request,
• require Regulatory Colleges to sanction practitioners who violate the act.
• provide conscience rights by enabling practitioners to refuse to participate or provide assessments for (MAiD) euthanasia,
• enable institutions to refuse to participate or provide assessments for euthanasia,
• require practitioners who refuse to participate or provide assessments to provide information to patients wanting to access euthanasia.

Alberta Health Services released its 2025 (MAiD) euthanasia data indicating that there were 1,242 reported euthanasia deaths in Alberta which was up by more than 11% from 1,117 in 2024. Alberta represents 11.8% of Canada's population.

Based on the data, as of March 18, 2026 there has likely been more than 6500 Alberta euthanasia deaths since legalization.

Bill 18 doesn't prohibit euthanasia but it provides reasonable controls over euthanasia, while preventing euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill or living with mental illness as their sole underlying condition, and it prevents further expansions of euthanasia in Alberta. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Bill 18 and we urge other Canadian provinces to follow Alberta's lead.

Euthanasia of the mentally ill in the Netherlands is increasing.

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

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

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

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

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

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

This increase has had a deleterious impact on suicidal youth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors conclude:

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

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

Euthanasia for young people and Psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors continue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Kelsi Sheren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not healthcare reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s eugenics.

Alberta announces (MAiD) euthanasia oversight bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Government Minister Joseph Schow

Alberta's Government House Leader Joseph Schow held a press conference on February 24, 2026 to announce Alberta legislative initiatives for the upcoming government session.

One of the Alberta initiatives will be a bill to regulate specific parts of the (MAiD) euthanasia law that apply to the oversight of the Alberta government.

Minister Schow stated in the press conference: begins at 7 minutes 27 seconds. (Link to the video)

We will protect vulnerable Albertans by regulating any medical assistance in dying performed in Alberta.

The federal government has rapidly expanded medical assistance in dying and even plans to make it available to those with mental health challenges as their sole underlying condition.

After opposition from Alberta and every other province this was paused until next year (March 17, 2027).

Our government is taking steps to protect vulnerable Albertans by prohibiting medical assistance in dying in Alberta for select groups including mature minors, individuals with a mental illness or disorder as their sole underlying condition, individuals making advance requests and adults without healthcare decision making capacity.

Other changes will increase oversight and regulate healthcare workers involved in referring, assessing or performing medical assistance in dying.

The press conference did not mention specifics concerning oversight and the regulation of healthcare workers, but Canadian provinces have the power to regulate (MAiD) within their jurisdiction.

Canada's federal government legalized euthanasia in June 2016 (Bill C-14) by creating an exception in the Criminal Code for homicide. The federal government further expanded the law in March 2021 (Bill C-7) by removing the requirement that a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable by creating a two tier law 

 

How SickKids Toronto and Parliament Aligned on “Mature Minors"

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on January 29, 2026.

How is Canada moving toward Assisted Dying for children.

By Kelsi Sheren

Canada is approaching a line it has spent years insisting does not exist, you know the one so many of us have been warning about.

CHILDREN may be NEXT.

In February 2023, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) tabled a report in the House of Commons recommending a further expansion of MAID eligibility. Buried among its many recommendations is one that fundamentally alters the relationship between children, parents, and the state. That alone should concern every parent in this country.

The report recommends that MAID be made available to “mature minors.”

More terrifying was how parental involvement is treated. What the parliamentary report actually recommends is very uncomfortable. 19 of the AMAD report states:

“That the Government of Canada establish a requirement that, where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.”

This is not ambiguous language. Remember when they said children should cut their breast off at 12? The only difference here is that, MAID (murder and poisoning by your dr—IS PERMANENT)

Parents or guardians “may or may not be consulted”, depending on what assessors determine is “appropriate.” Even if consulted, their consent is not required. If a minor is deemed to have decision-making capacity, their will takes precedence.

In other words, under the framework Parliament is considering, a child could be euthanized without parental consent.

This is not speculation. It is policy design, and this liberal government is quite alright with killing your children no matter what you do or say.

This idea didn’t start by the current corrupt government, it was pushed by the mentally ill people in the pro death cults of the country. To understand how Canada arrived here, it helps to look back a bit.

In 2018, ethicists at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) published a draft policy on MAID for mature minors in the Journal of Medical Ethics. That policy laid the philosophical groundwork now reflected in the AMAD report.

The SickKids Children’s Hospital working group argued that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between assisted dying and other end-of-life medical decisions already available to minors.

As journalist Sharon Kirkey reported at the time:

“The working group said it wasn’t convinced that there is a meaningful difference for the patient ‘between being consensually assisted in dying (in the case of MAID) and being consensually allowed to die (in the case of refusing life-sustaining interventions).’”

That equivalence is hyper critical here.

If withdrawing treatment and actively administering a lethal injection are ethically the same, then the same consent standards apply and in much of Canada, mature minors already have the legal authority to refuse treatment.

Most Canadian provinces allow minors deemed capable to make their own medical decisions, including refusing life-sustaining treatment.

In Ontario, for example, a minor may consent to or refuse treatment if they understand the “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of that decision. There is no fixed age threshold.

SickKids’ draft policy applied that same logic to MAID.

Sharon Kirkey explained that the hospital’s ethicists concluded:

“There is no meaningful ethical or practical distinction from the patient’s perspective between assisted dying and other procedures that result in the end of a life, such as palliative sedation or withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments.”

Once that premise is accepted, the conclusion follows almost automatically.

A child deemed competent to make medical decisions is also deemed competent to decide to die with or without parental consent.

A permanent decision made in their weakest moments with adults there pushing the narrative.

The AMAD report does not explicitly state that parents should be excluded. Instead, it reframes parental involvement as conditional and secondary to the assessed will of the child.

This is a profound shift.

Parental consent is no longer foundational. It is optional. Consultation replaces authority. As a parent, that notion is simple terrifying.

The report attempts to reassure readers by emphasizing safeguards, capacity assessments, and professional judgment. But the underlying principle is clear: the state is positioning itself as the final arbiter, not the family.

This is the same pattern Canada keeps repeating and never learning from. Canada has been told before that each expansion of MAID would be rare, limited, and carefully contained.

That was said when MAID was limited to terminal illness. It was said again when eligibility expanded beyond end-of-life. It was said again when mental illness entered the discussion.

Each time, the goal post continues to move. Dr’s and this government just can’t seem to get enough of killing their own people.

Now the same logic is being applied to children.

The AMAD report also supports euthanasia based on advance requests — meaning individuals who are no longer competent could be euthanized based on a prior directive. Taken together, the direction is unmistakable.

Consent, once the cornerstone of assisted dying, is becoming conditional. Capacity is redefined. Age is minimized. Parental authority is downgraded.

This debate is often framed as compassion versus cruelty, or autonomy versus paternalism.

People in this country continue to move away from the real, hard questions. Whether it’s because their too weak or whether it’s because they don’t genuinely care about how we care for our children. What does it mean when a society who is supposed to have the best socialized healthcare in the globe starts killing it’s kids.

I’ll tell you, this is a sign of a Godless country, killing it’s next generation just like the Nazi’s did. This is Eugenics all over again, framed as compassion and care. Anyone with two eyes can see that.

Every expansion of MAID has been justified as an exception. But exceptions accumulate and each new door opened makes the next one easier to justify.

Canada is no longer debating whether child euthanasia is conceivable.

It is debating how to implement it and kill more children.

KELSI SHEREN

Source: https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-2/page-5

Sick Kids Hospital Toronto will euthanize children with or without parental consent (Link).