Canada requires doctors to not list euthanasia as the cause of death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On April 23, I republished an article by Wesley Smith concerning a US Senate committee hearing whereby Senator James Lankford (R., Okla.) asked HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about assisted suicide. Kennedy said assisted suicide is abhorrent. (starting at minute 3:30).

Smith's article corrected Kennedy who mistakenly stated that euthanasia was the No. 1 cause of death in Canada. Smith wrote that:

It is the fifth, with some 16,000 people being killed by doctors — and rising — each year.

Marissa Birnie was published by The Canadian Press on April 28, 2026 stating that Robert F. Kennedy Jr's statement was false, but the article inadvertently points out how Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law lacks effective oversight by requiring that euthanasia not be listed as a cause of death. Birnie reports:

MAID does not appear on the list because it is not listed as a cause of death.

Statistics Canada codes and classifies causes of death in line with a system created by the World Health Organization, which records deaths according to their underlying cause.

The World Health Organization death reporting system is based on the fact that very few countries have legalized euthanasia.

Birnie points out that cancer is the most common reason for someone to be killed by euthanasia in Canada.

When patients die through MAID, the cause of death is coded to match the health condition that led them to seek MAID, Statistics Canada notes. Cancer was the most frequently reported underlying medical condition among Canadians who received MAID, accounting for 63.6 per cent of cases among patients whose death was reasonably foreseeable.

Birnie writes that Health Canada does not consider euthanasia to be a cause of death.

“The number of MAID provisions should not be compared to cause of death statistics in Canada in order to determine the prevalence (the proportion of all decedents) nor to rank MAID as a cause of death,”

But euthanasia (MAiD) is the cause of death. A person may have asked to be poisoned to death based on a medical condition but they are not required to attempt effective treatments before being killed by euthanasia in Canada. 

Canada also approves (Track 2) euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill but rather have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" which means they have a disability. 

For Track 2 euthanasia deaths, the cause of death is always MAiD or death by lethal poison.

Further to that there are studies showing how people who are killed by euthanasia may have a treatable condition but forego effective treatment and are killed by euthanasia.

In the Netherlands euthanasia is considered a "last resort", even though doctors will ignore that requirement. In Canada terminal condition is not dependent on whether or not the condition can be effectively treated because there is no requirement to even attempt effective treatments.

Another factor is that (MAiD) euthanasia is not listed on the death certificate. Research in the Netherlands indicates that approximately 20% of the euthanasia deaths are not reported. When a person is killed by euthanasia, the doctor will sometimes fail to send in the required report to the Netherlands oversight commission. Some doctors do not report their euthanasia deaths as they consider it to be a private act.

The same could be happening in Canada except that the Canadian government has not commissioned a neutral research study to determine how Canadians are dying.

Therefore, if a Canadian doctor does not submit the required report to the Provincial oversight body and since the death certificate does not indicate that MAiD was the cause of death, therefore it is nearly impossible to know how many euthanasia deaths go unreported in Canada.

The death certificate needs to be accurate to assure at least a reasonable level of oversight exists when a person is poisoned to death by euthanasia.

Previous articles on this topic: (Read the articles).

Under reporting of euthanasia: (Read the articles).

Canada requires doctors to falsify death certificates.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An essay by Amanda Achtman was published by lawliberty.org challenging the fact that Canadian doctors are required to falsify death certificate. 

Achtman wrote her article in response to the fact that the Ontario College of Physicians is soliciting feedback on a draft policy, concerning euthanasia which includes a section concerning death certificates.

Achtman writes:

Physicians who provide MAID must complete the medical certificate of death.

When completing the medical certificate of death, physicians: must list the illness, disease, or disability leading to the request for MAID as the cause of death; and must not make any reference to MAID or the medications administered on the certificate. (emphasis mine)

Here we have the deliberate directive by a governing professional body to falsify medical records. A doctor’s administration of midazolam, propofol, and rocuronium is undeniably the cause of his or her patient’s premature death.

Achtman then states that:

However, despite euthanasia lobbyists insisting that “medical assistance in dying is a legal, federally regulated end-of-life choice, driven by hope and autonomy,” the mandating of professional cover-up betrays the pangs of conscience that still admit there is something fundamentally wrong with it. 

I agree. Read Amanda's essay (here). 

You can respond to the Ontario College of Physicians Draft Policy on MAiD (here).

Connecticut assisted suicide bill (SB 88) requires falsification of the death certificate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Connecticut has debated and defeated assisted suicide bills on a yearly basis since 2013. In 2021, a key reason for the defeat of Connecticut's assisted suicide bill HB 6425 was the requirement that the death certificate must be falsified.

Connecticut's 2022 assisted suicide bill (SB 88) was changed based on the requirement to falsify the death certificate but SB 88 now sereptitiously requires that the death certificate be falsified. As stated in the testimony by disability rights leader Stephen Mendolsohn from Second Thoughts Connecticut on SB 88:

Moreover, the “accordance” language in Section 14 (c) and (d) of SB 88 also mandates falsification of death certificates. According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, death certificates in Connecticut are required to list the manner of death as either “homicide,” “suicide,” “accidental,” “natural,” “therapeutic complication,” or “undetermined.” The “accordance” language rules out homicide and suicide as a matter of law, and “accidental,” “therapeutic complication,” and “undetermined” are clearly ruled out as the manner of death is both intentional and of known cause. Thus as in other states, the death will be deemed “natural,” even if it was unnaturally caused by an intentional overdose of lethal drugs. This would interfere with a potential murder prosecution no less than the removed Section 9 (6) (b) from previous bills.

In an interview with the Fairfield Citizen by Julia Bergman, Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, the co-chair of Connecticut's General Assembly Judiciary Committee, explained why the committee was “uncomfortable” with advancing assisted suicide Bill HB 6425 in 2021. Stafstrom stated that the bill seemed to have unintended legal consequences. Stafstrom continued:

The state’s division of criminal justice said in testimony that the bill “effectively mandates the falsification of death certificates under certain circumstances,” by allowing the signer of a death certificate to list the qualified patient’s underlying terminal illness as the cause of death as opposed to the medication used to end his or her life.

That would pose a problem for the criminal justice system, the division said, when faced with cases involving a potential murder prosecution if the cause of death is not accurately reported on a death certificate.

Under the bill, a person would be guilty of murder if he or she willfully altered or forged a request for aid in dying or coerced someone to complete such a request.

But those actions don’t cause death, rather they potentially offer evidence of intent to kill, thus removing the “causation requirement” that is essential to any murder charge, the criminal justice division said, recommending that section be deleted.

“Given the legal uncertainty and the folks who just outright object to the concept all together, the votes were clearly not there to move the bill out of committee,” Stafstrom said.

Mendolsohn clearly explains why Connecticut's assisted suicide bill SB 88 continues to require falsification of the death certificate. The assisted suicide lobby has made the requirement less explicit.

Eight questions about the New South Wales 'Assisted Dying' Bill

This article was published by Mercatornet on July 23, 2021

Michael Cook

By Michael Cook

NSW MP Alex Greenwich is circulating a draft bill which would legalise what his supporters call “assisted dying” and what his opponents call assisted suicide and euthanasia. He believes that there is strong support for change in the state Parliament now that “assisted dying” laws have passed in Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania. In Queensland a change will come soon.

But even a quick look at Mr Greenwich’s bill reveals that it is full of holes. Here are eight questions that need answers before MPs could possibly vote for it.

Why will doctors be forced to lie when they fill out death certificates?

The draft bill states very clearly: “The medical practitioner must not include a reference to voluntary assisted dying in the cause of death certificate for the person.” In other words, they are required, under law, to falsify the death certificate. If a patient suffering from cancer died after being hit by a truck, would you record the cause of death as “cancer”? If a patient with both Covid and a toothache dies, would you record the death as “toothache”?

Not only will this distort health statistics, one of the principal reasons for death certificates, but it bakes a lack of transparency into the process of “assisted dying”.

How many are going to die?

Like the legislation in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, the bill proposed by Alex Greenwich for New South Wales is modelled on Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act. “Assisted dying” deaths in Oregon have grown very slowly, from 16 in 1998 to 245 in 2020. Supporters of “assisted dying” in NSW believe that only a few people will take advantage of the law.

But from the time “assisted dying” became legal in Victoria on June 19, 2019 until December 31, 2020, 224 people died. It took more than 20 years for deaths in Oregon to rise to that level. For some reason, “assisted dying” is more popular in Australia, perhaps because euthanasia is included as an option.

Perhaps a better comparison is to the province of Quebec, which has about the same population as NSW – 8 million. From legalisation in 2016 to 2020, there were 6,453 deaths. In 2020, 2,268 people died. Will this be repeated in NSW?

The provisions for gathering statistics are crap. What is Mr Greenwich going to do about it?

In Oregon there have been well-founded complaints about a dearth of information. In Oregon’s figures for 2020, in more than half the cases, complications with dying were “unknown”. In about half the cases, the times elapsed between ingestion and unconsciousness and between ingestion and death are “unknown”. You would expect that a bill written 25 years later would improve on Oregon’s deficiencies. This is no small matter: what isn’t measured can’t be managed.

The proposed NSW bill does not fill these gaps. Doctors are required to gather some of this information if they are present – but, based on the Victorian experience, doctors will only be present in about one in five cases. In any case, the proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying Board is not required to publish even this meagre information in its annual report.

Again, lack of transparency is baked into Greenwich’s bill. Voters in NSW will be worse informed about how people die through “assisted dying” than voters in Oregon – even though they can draw on a quarter-century of experience.

Isn’t it true that residential facilities will be forced to host “assisted dying”?

Many aged-care facilities are run by religious groups which object to cooperating with “assisted dying”. They see their job as caring for people, not killing them. And Mr Greenwich seems to accommodate them. The bill provides that “A health care establishment or residential facility may decide that it will not provide services relating to voluntary assisted dying at the establishment or facility.”

But this is smoke and mirrors. What the bill says is that the facility cannot be forced to provide “assisted dying”. But if a resident requests it, the facility must not stop people from entering to advise them of their options and to administer lethal medications. Section 97 states very clearly that the facility must “allow reasonable access” and may not “hinder access” to doctors and witness when the appointment for the death is set.

The same draconian requirements forced a palliative care hospice in British Columbia to close. Its staff and its residents wanted to have an environment where “assisted dying” was not an option. The government insisted and shut it down.

It was tragic. “This is about the B.C. government destroying a sanctuary for dying patients who want the choice to stay in a palliative care facility where [assisted dying] is not offered,” said the chair. Will NSW hospices which object to “assisted dying” be forced to close their doors?

How can we be sure that people will die quickly and painlessly?

That’s the promise of “assisted dying”, isn’t it: a quick, controlled, and painless death? But in Oregon, they know better.

Its 2020 annual report on its Death with Dignity Act covers the 23 years of the Act’s operation, from 1998 to 2020. In that time 1,905 deaths were reported.

In a substantial number of cases there were complications: 33 people had difficulty in ingesting the lethal drugs or regurgitated them; 3 had a seizure; and 16 had “other” difficulties. In 8 cases, the patient “regained consciousness”. It’s hard to imagine how horrific it must have been for a person who expected to die peacefully – but suddenly found herself alive, awake … and possibly in great pain.

The interval from ingestion of lethal drugs to unconsciousness has been as long as four hours in Oregon – and that was in 2017. The time from ingestion to death has been as long as 104 hours (4 days and 8 hours). In 2020 one person took 8 hours to die.

It’s a huge fudge to promise people a no-fuss death. Is that why the bill gathers so little information?

No one is required to witness self-administered death. How can we be sure that there has been no physical or psychological pressure?

People may choose to die in two ways in this bill: self-administration or practitioner administration. No one is required to be present when a person self-administers the poison. How can we be sure that an impatient relative did not browbeat them to hurry the inheritance along if they haven’t died on time –“within a period of 6 months”?

How can we allow people who are seriously depressed to die?

The bill says that if a person is depressed or showing signs of dementia, a doctor must refer them to someone with professional expertise, such as a clinical psychologist, a neurologist or a geriatrician to see if they have decision-making capacity.

But a seriously depressed person, unlike a demented person, could often pass that test. In Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands, for instance, psychiatrists argue that depression should not disqualify some from seeking “assisted dying” because it does not necessarily rob a person of their autonomy. Even if this were true, depression is hard to diagnose and not predictable. A person might recover enough to want to live.

In any case, the experience in Oregon is that referral is ineffective. According to research published in a leading medical journal, the BMJ, one in six people who died under Oregon’s law had clinical depression. Last year, only 3 out of 245 of those who died in Oregon had been referred by the prescribing doctor for a psychiatric evaluation.

Is the ‘slippery slope’ really a myth?

Supporters of “assisted dying” claim that dire predictions about abuses have not eventuated in jurisdictions where it has been legalized. That’s not true, but in any case, the slippery slope is not about abuses; it’s about gradual changes in the law.

In Canada, where “assisted dying” has been legal for a mere five years, there have already been significant changes to allow people to allow people with chronic but not terminal conditions to be euthanised. Doctors are exploiting the law to combine euthanasia with organ donation.

“The law you enact is the law you get” is a great slogan for supporters, but it’s just a slogan. Laws are amended by Parliament and laws are interpreted by judges. They change. Will a “Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021” survive legal challenges by people who want to access “assisted dying” even if they are mentally ill? Even if they are not adults? Even if they are not mentally competent at the time of their death?

Lawyers will argue that some of the vaunted safeguards are arbitrary, discriminatory, and harmful. That is what has happened in Canada and there is little doubt that it will happen here.

Connecticut assisted suicide bill died based on the dangerous language in the bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

In an interview with the Fairfield Citizen, Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, the co-chair of Connecticut's General Assembly Judiciary Committee, explains why a “significant majority” of the committee were “uncomfortable” with advancing assisted suicide Bill HB 6425. Stafstrom states:

“There are certain folks who outright object to the idea of it on moral, religious or other grounds,” Stafstrom said by phone Wednesday. “The other thing, and what’s important for the judiciary committee, is, as drafted, the bill seemed to have unintended legal consequences.”

The state’s division of criminal justice said in testimony that the bill “effectively mandates the falsification of death certificates under certain circumstances,” by allowing the signer of a death certificate to list the qualified patient’s underlying terminal illness as the cause of death as opposed to the medication used to end his or her life.

That would pose a problem for the criminal justice system, the division said, when faced with cases involving a potential murder prosecution if the cause of death is not accurately reported on a death certificate.

Under the bill, a person would be guilty of murder if he or she willfully altered or forged a request for aid in dying or coerced someone to complete such a request.

But those actions don’t cause death, rather they potentially offer evidence of intent to kill, thus removing the “causation requirement” that is essential to any murder charge, the criminal justice division said, recommending that section be deleted.

“Given the legal uncertainty and the folks who just outright object to the concept all together, the votes were clearly not there to move the bill out of committee,” Stafstrom said.

Stephen Mendelsohn

There were many reasons to oppose HB 6425, but Stafstrom particularly pointed out the problems with the bill that were uncovered by disability rights leader, Stephen Mendelsohn from Second Thoughts Connecticut who in his article: Assisted suicide lobby spreads falsehoods to promote systemic ableism points out how the bill creates problems with its requirement to falsify death certificates.

The same problem with falsifying death certificates exists with every assisted suicide bill or law.

Most state representatives vote for or against assisted suicide based on the theory of assisted suicide, but at least in Connecticut some elected representative read the bill and killed the bill based on the dangerous language in the bill.

Sadly, the most dangerous assisted suicide legislation recently passed into law in New Mexico.

Nevada assisted suicide bill denies equal protection under the law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When legislators vote on assisted suicide bills they often vote based on the theory of legalizing assisted suicide and not the reality of the bill that they are considering. A prime example is the recent passing of the New Mexico assisted suicide bill that was one of the most extreme and dangerous assisted suicide bills.

The Nevada State Legislature is debating assisted suicide Bill AB 351. AB 351 is similar to the Oregon and Washington State assisted suicide laws.

There are several hidden factors within this and other assisted suicide bills that lead me to wonder what the assisted suicide lobby is trying to cover-up. For instance, AB 351 forbids a coroner from investigating an assisted suicide death. AB 351 states:

Section 1: Chapter 440 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

1. A coroner, coroner’s deputy or local health officer:
(a) Is not required to certify the cause of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act; and

(b) Must not investigate the death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act if the coroner or coroner’s deputy confirms the circumstances of the death with a physician responsible for overseeing the care of the patient or the physician who prescribed the medication.

This bill provision denies equal protection under the law for people who are prescribed lethal assisted suicide drugs. 

AB 351 requires doctors to lie on the death certificate. AB 351 states:

3.The medical certificate of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act:

(a) May be signed by the physician who prescribed the medication or the operator of a facility for hospice care, as defined in NRS 449.0033, at which the patient dies;

(b) Must specify the terminal condition with which the patient was diagnosed as the cause of death; and

(c) Must not mention that the patient self-administered a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient.

Changing death certificates, for political purposes, has long-term consequences on future research concerning life-expectancy for certain medical conditions but it also affects the ability of law enforcement from investigating potential murder.

Similar to other bills, the proposed assisted suicide request letter uses the term may self-administer. I am fully aware that the assisted suicide lobby says that may self-administer means that a person may decide not to take the lethal drugs, but it also means that someone else may administer the lethal drugs (homicide). The term may self-administer protects physicians or others from being charged with homicide, if they administer the lethal drugs.

Assisted suicide laws are designed to protect medical professionals who are willing to be involved with killing their patients by prescribing lethal drugs. Assisted suicide bills are not designed to protect the person who has asked for death, even though the person asking for death may be experiencing depression, feelings of hopelessness, social isolation and fear, all conditions that are properly dealt with by caring interventions and not killing. 

• Article: Oregon 2020 assisted suicide report - 28% increase in asisted suicide deaths (Link).
  

Stop Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Bill

By William Gallerizzo

Sign the petition: Reject Massachusetts Assisted Suicide bill S.1208/H.1926 (Link).

There has been an amended assisted suicide bill introduced in Massachusetts. S.2745 / S.1208.

The Death With Dignity lobby blatantly refuses to accept or to discuss documented evidence from other states and countries showing how legalizing assisted suicide has jeopardized inherent rights of so many others, all in the name of Freedom of Choice. The data that they do present is either nonfactual or inaccurate; as the past and current laws condone inaccuracy and falsification of death certificates. Mathematically data under those conditions cannot be validated. Likewise, they have condoned and supported using social media and other means to slander opponents and silence the truth, in crude and similar fashion to the tactics used by deficient national leadership.

Isn’t this what America is essentially marching about in the streets right now: transparency in government and laws, that no one’s life needs to be jeopardized; that all lives matter without regard to racial difference, religious difference, disability, socio-economic level, or any other man-made political divide. The value of lives should not concern how much money someone has, their status, or how much influence they peddle. Truthfully, the fallacy counter to this fact has existed for some time; but the past three years have seen it to a greater degree during the COVID-19 pandemic.

My own research and that of others have shown at least 8 major issues that make this legislation abusive to the public interest of social justice. Others exist, but these are the most highly impacting. All of these contentions are documented from reliable sources, but DWD considers them insignificant or will not address.

1. The outcome of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is to kill other human beings whose lives are not fit to live. The whole basis of eugenics, whether ancient or the present age, is that some people do not deserve to live for no other reason than their very existence.

2. Safeguards are to protect physicians, but offer no safety valves or control for the vulnerable. Even in Netherlands and Oregon where euthanasia has been legal for decades, those most adversely affected and abused are people of color, the disabled, the economically challenged, and the elderly.

3. Assisted suicide is incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. The physician is put in the position of being an executioner, a promoter of death, not a sustainer of health.

4. Advancements in medical technology, elder care, advanced medical care are deemed no longer as necessary. The State of Oregon, once the national leader in hospice and palliative care, now ranks as the 7th worst in the nation.

5. Assisted suicide laws create cultural pressure on doctors who in turn pressure patients, especially when a viable treatment is not locally available. Current laws in Canada prevent conscientious objection on the part of medical personnel and force them to give in to euthanasia and assisted suicide as a standard not an option.

6. Doctors are fallible human beings. Misdiagnosis and faulty analysis for any number of reasons can result in patient premature death. My own disabilities occurred from misdiagnosed injuries, and my own life was saved by a very conscientious and observant physician. Assisted suicide laws increase the probability of unintended mistakes significantly. The end result, more often than not, is premature and needless death.

7. The vocabulary that is often used by advocates of euthanasia uses altered meanings from its common forms. This adds to confusion among the public about the meaning of what these words mean. Although most people have no problem agreeing that they want a peaceful and tranquil death, most find it abhorrent that what they are agreeing to involves a doctor or someone else killing a patient. By definition, compassionate action does not involve acts of overt or covert violence. When patients are influenced, options are reduced. Hence, what they propose is not congruent with reality conditions surrounding end-of-life care. Therefore, what C&C/DWD promote are lies and inaccurate vocabulary which cloud reality from public view.

8. There are no drugs effective to do what advocates claim. Several independent studies in both United States and Great Britain examining all drugs and cocktails used for either Euthanasia and/or Capital Punishment have shown that all have significant failure rates ranging from about 24% to just under 75%. Failure can range from painfully long lingering for hours or even days, to convulsions and severe vomiting. The drugs usually promoted by DWD, secobarbital and pentobarbital, are deemed unsuitable for capital punishment due to excessive and painful failure. More so, it has been shown that dosages of drugs used in anesthesiology require enormously high dosages if used for euthanasia and have significantly higher failure rates above their usual norm in anesthesia. It has also been shown that the use of morphine as pain relief goes through a titration of dosage tolerance in the body, and although it may require increasing dosages to relieve pain, the pain relief is significant and the risk of death caused by the morphine is lower than other drugs. Thus current use of morphine for pain relief does exactly what it is supposed to do; it enables a more pain free and peaceful death from the disease, not an induced death, and little failure leading to prolonged agony.

Sign the petition: Reject Massachusetts Assisted Suicide bill S.1208/H.1926. (Link).

William Orazio Gallerizzo taught Sciences for over 35 years and holds advanced degrees in Education and Natural Sciences (University of Maryland, College Park, MD) and Bioethics (Athenaeum Pontificium Regina Apostolorum, Rome, Italy). Specialized in educational multi-disciplinary integration and critical thinking processes, he has conducted interactive instructional research projects both in the United States and Italy. His primary research work in Bioethics is titled, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Trends in the United States.

Making it up as they go: Falsifying Vermont death certificates

This article was published by the Australian Care Alliance on January 2, 2020.

• Vermont: 28 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in the past two years.

As reported in a previous blog on the latest report on deaths by assisted suicide in Vermont, the report states:

100% of the death certificates listed the appropriate cause (the underlying disease) and manner of death (natural), per Act 39 requirements.

This is a curious statement as Act 39 as passed by the Vermont legislature and in force does not include any such requirement.

This matter was raised with the Vermont Department of Health. The reply seems to confirm that when it comes to reporting on assisted suicide officials simply make it up as they go along.

In reply to this query:

Page 2 of your report states:

"All 34 events have a death certificate on file with the Vital Records’ Office. One hundred percent of the death certificates listed the appropriate cause (the underlying disease) and manner of death (natural), per Act 39 (2013) requirements."

The reference to "Act 39 (2013) requirements" seems to be misleading as while there was a provision to this effect in S77 as introduced into the Senate this provision was deleted and does not form part of Act 39 of 2013 (Chapter 113, Title 18 of the Vermont Statutes).

On the face of it in the absence of such a provision deaths certificates in these circumstances should be handled in accordance with the provisions in 18 V.S.A. § 5205 or elsewhere in Chapter 107, Title 18.

Could you please advise if there is some other legal authorisation for the completion of a Vermont

death certificate in the event of a death following ingestion of a lethal poison, albeit in apparent accordance with the provisions of Chapter 113, Title 18 of the Vermont Statutes, recording the manner of death as natural and the underlying condition as the sole cause of death with no reference to the effect of the lethal poison in causing that death?

The official reply from the Vermont Department of Health reads:

18 V.S.A. § 5293(a) states, "Except as otherwise required by law, information regarding compliance shall be confidential and shall be exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act." In addition, decisions made between patient and doctor are protected health information under both state and federal privacy laws. If a death certificate were to make reference to a prescribed dose under Act 39, it would be visible to the public and therefore violate both general and specific provisions of state law. A physician listing the underlying disease and manner of death [as natural] is both appropriate and preserves the confidentiality due the patient.

This reply is extraordinary.

Firstly, 18 V.S.A. § 5293 deals with the information collected and reported on pursuant to the Rule which makes no reference whatsoever to death certificates. It does however refer to the cause of death in requiring the prescribing physician to specify in a follow up form.

Whether the patient died as a result of the ingestion of the prescribed dose; as a result of the underlying disease; or whether the cause is unknown to the physician.

The legislative history of Act 39 indicates that the legislature considered but rejected an explicit provision mandating the falsification of death certificates for deaths following ingestion of a lethal poison prescribed under its provisions:

See the struck out paragraph on p.10 of the Bill as passed by the Senate and House which read:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate, which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause and manner of death.

An alternative provision was proposed but later withdrawn:

The patient’s death certificate shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of the death and shall list the manner of death as natural.

It is alarming that the unelected officials of the Vermont Department of Health are choosing on their own authority to not just act as if this latter proposal was the law in Vermont but to brazenly claim that it is in an official report to the legislature and to praise physicians for their 100% compliance falsifying Vermont death certificates in accordance with unfounded statement of the law.

The general instructions to physicians regarding the accurate completion of death certificates place great emphasis on the importance of a comprehensive recording of ALL the causes contributing to a death.

Certify the cause of death as accurately as possible.

The manner of death describes the circumstances surrounding the death. In Vermont and in most of this country there are only 5 choices:

• Natural
• Accident
• Suicide
• Homicide
• Pending Investigation (only available to medical examiners)
• Could Not Be Determined
• All cases that are not due exclusively (100%) to natural disease MUST, by law, be reported to the Medical Examiner's Office (1-888-552-2952). If an injury in any way contributes to the person’s death, no matter how long ago that injury was sustained, the death is not considered natural.

Stated very simply, a cause of death is the disease or injury responsible for starting the lethal sequence of events which ultimately lead to death. A competent cause of death must be as etiologically specific as possible. Etiologically specific causes of death are the disease entities studied in basic pathology courses

The mechanism of death is the altered biochemistry or physiology whereby the cause exerts its lethal effects. Mechanisms are not specific and can NEVER replace or substitute for a cause of death. Mechanisms can never stand alone on a death certificate and always need an underlying cause of death. Always ask yourself what the mechanism is due to in order to find the underlying cause of death.

Medical judgment and common sense are required for certifying the cause of death.

Truthfulness, completeness, and reasonable accuracy should be the goal. Convenience and expedience should not play a role when certifying causes of death.

Unless of course it is under an assisted suicide law when:

medical judgement, commonsense, truthfulness, completeness and reasonable accuracy must all GIVE WAY to the convenience and expedience of falsifying public records to pretend that deaths by the ingestion of a lethal poison are entirely natural.

Oklahoma Death Certificate Accuracy Act passes.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Great news: I have remained silent about Oklahoma Bill SB 108, The Death Certificate Accuracy Act, to not create unnecessary attention for this important bill. We can celebrate now that SB 108 passed in the Senate on February 25 by a vote of 35 to 10 and passed in the House on April 17 by a vote of 59 to 36.

SB 108, that was sponsored by Senator Gary Stanislawski and Representative Sean Roberts, is clear legislation that requires the cause of death to be accurately reported on the death certificate. Among other things SB 108 states:

A certifier completing cause of death on a certificate of death who knows that a lethal drug, overdose or other means of assisting suicide within the meaning of Sections 3141.2 through 3141.4 of this title caused or contributed to the death, shall list that means among the chain of events under cause of death or list it in the box that describes how the injury occurred. If such means is in the chain of events under or in the box that describes how the injury occurred, the certifier shall indicate "suicide" as the manner of death.

Oklahoma Death Certificate

The bill later states:

A certifier who knowingly omits to list a lethal agent or improperly states manner of death in violation of subsection E of Section 1-317 of this title shall be deemed to have engaged in unprofessional conduct as described in paragraph 8 of Section 509 of Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

The bill then declares that a violation of any provisions of this section constitutes a felony.

Assisted suicide is not legal in Oklahoma, but in states where assisted suicide is legal, the assisted suicide law requires the doctor to falsify the death certificate. When a person dies by assisted suicide, the doctor is required to declare the cause of death as the medical condition that the person was living with, rather than declare death by assisted suicide.

This is just one of the many lies and cover-ups that the assisted suicide lobby uses to hide the truth about assisted suicide.

Thank you to everyone who made this happen.

Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice: Falsifying Death Certificates could have unintended consequences.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

In its testimony concerning the Connecticut assisted suicide bill H.B. No. 5898, the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice stated that it was neutral on assisted suicide but the section of the bill requiring physicians to falsify death certificates could lead to unintended consequences.

The Connecticut Divison of Criminal Justice told the committee examining the bill:

Section 9 (b) of H.B. No. 5898 effectively mandates the falsification of death certificates under certain circumstances. It states: “The person signing the qualified patient’s death certificate shall list the underlying terminal illness as the cause of death.” This simply is not the case; the actual cause of death would be the medication taken by or given to the patient. This language contradicts the death certificate form itself, which states for the person making the certification: “On the basis of examination, and/or investigation, in my opinion, death occurred at the time, date, and place, and due to the cause(s) and manner stated.”

This becomes problematic when read in conjunction with Section 14 of the bill, which criminalizes certain conduct with regard to the “aid in dying” as defined by the overall bill. The practical problem for the criminal justice system will be confronting a potential Murder prosecution where the cause of death is not accurately reported on the death certificate. Should the Committee choose to move forward with H.B. No. 5898, the Division would respectfully recommend that Section 9 (b) be deleted in its entirety.

Section 14 of the bill makes unnecessary changes to the statutory framework for what constitutes the crime of Murder, and the results can best be described as bizarre. As now written, there is no causation requirement, which is an essential element of the crime of Murder. Section 14 provides that a person is guilty of Murder when that person (1) willfully alters or forges a request for aid in dying or conceals or destroys a rescission of such a request with the intent or effect of causing the patient’s death; or (2) coerces or exerts undue influence on a patient to either complete a request for aid in dying or to destroy a rescission of such a request with the intent or effect of causing the patient’s death.

None of these proscribed acts causes death. In fact, under Section 14 death is not necessarily required before Murder could be charged. Willfully altering or forging a request for aid in dying, or concealing or destroying a rescission, may offer evidence of an intent to kill, but it does not cause death. Taking the fatal dose causes death and that is Murder only if the actor himself or herself administers it to the patient, or he or she coerces, forces or tricks a patient he or she knows does not want to die into self-administering the medication. Section 14 of the bill, and any associated references to it, must be deleted for these reasons.

The same problems exist with assisted suicide laws in other jurisdictions.

Legislators who support assisted suicide will vote in favor of the flawed legislation in order to legalize something that they philosophically support.

Many other problems exist with assisted suicide laws. These problems are ignored because legislators are blindly assured that these laws will not be abused.

The fact is that legalizing assisted suicide is a dangerous concept.

New York may debate three bills concerning assisted suicide. The assisted suicide bill allows suicide tourism.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

There are three assisted suicide related bills introduced in New York.

The first bill A 30 is a study bill requiring the commissioner of health to conduct a study relating to medical aid in dying. Study bills always raise a caution because you don't study an issue unless you are considering legalization.

The bill concludes: The commissioner of health shall submit a report including recommendations and findings based on this study to the governor, the temprary president of the senate, the speaker of the assembly and the chairs of the senate and assembly standing committees on health no later than December 31, 2020.

Most studies on euthanasia and assisted suicide have been intentionally one-sided. If this bill passes EPC - USA will challenge the New York commissioner of health to conduct a transparent, open and complete report. 

We do not oppose the debate we oppose fake debates.

The second bill A02694 would legalize assisted suicide in New York. 

This bill follows a similar construct to the current Oregon assisted suicide law. The writer of the bill has attempted to use clear definitions in response to critics who correctly argue that the Oregon assisted suicide law lacks clear definitions that are being interpreted in a wider manner.

This bill does not require the patient to be a citizen of New York. Therefore this bill allows suicide tourism.

This bill does not require a waiting period, which follows the new direction of the assisted suicide lobby. Therefore any person could quickly die by assisted suicide in New York.

This bill requires the physician to falsify the death certificate by requiring the physician to state that the cause of death is the medical condition and not assisted suicide.

All assisted suicide bills assume that it is possible to identify and safeguard a person who is being coerced, abused or living with situational depression or temporary feelings of hopelessness. You cannot bring patients back from a wrongful death.

There are likely other issues with this bill not stated in this article.

The third bill A647 would prohibit the payment of life insurance for assisted suicide / medical aid in dying. This bill would eliminate the incentive to coerce a person, who may be terminally ill, to be prescribed lethal drugs to assist a suicide.

Last year, an Australian man was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for assisting his wife's suicide to gain $1.4 million from her life insurance.