Wesley Smith: The effective use of language in the assisted suicide debate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On Wednesday, January 21, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC-USA held a strategic meeting in Washington DC.

There were four speakers at our event, (Left to right: Alex Schadenberg, Alexander Raikin, researcher and visiting fellow in Bioethics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Ales Primc an organizer of the referendum campaign that overturned Slovenia's assisted suicide law, and Wesley Smith, author, lawyer, bioethicist and long-term campaigner against euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Wesley Smith spoke first concerning the use of language. 

Wesley stated these points.

 

Euthanasia and assisted suicide advocates continue to engage in word engineering. He who defines the words wins the debate, and often that is true. The media will often use the assisted suicide lobby language because they are generally supportive of assisted suicide. 

Smith created a list of terms that should and should not be used. He insisted on using descriptive terminology. 

The first word that was stolen by the death lobby was euthanasia by changing its meaning to mean killing as an answer to suffering. They don't like using that term anymore because it is associated with killing. So they have created gooey euphemisms with terms that avoid what they are talking about.

We should never use the death lobby terminology and if you have to, make sure you refer to it as a euphemism. 

When they say (MAiD), notice how the term MAiD doesn't refer to dying. We need to be accurate and say assisted suicide or lethal injection homicide or medical homicide or euthanasia. The death lobby activists will say that our language is not accurate but it is perfectly accurate and discriptive.

Suicide means to kill yourself, assisted means to have help.

Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) is a gooey euphemism that is intended to deflect from the actual agenda that is being described. They are also using the term Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) to transform killing into a medical treatment. 

When they say that MAiD is really not suicide because the person is terminally ill, the statement is nonsensical. 

Whether a person has a health condition, a mental health condition, or a terminal condition, the act of suicide remains suicide. Just because a doctor prescribes the poison, doesn't change what is actually happening.

When we are advocating we must always use the proper terminology: assisted suicide, euthanasia, medicalized homicide or poison.

In terms of euthanasia, the lethal jab is a homicide. Homicide means one person killing another person or a human being killing another human being. Even where it is legal it is still homicide.

As I wrote in my first book, Forced Exit, when it is legal it may not be defined as murder but it is homicide and it is a form of killing. It is alway perilous and dangerous to society and individuals.

When the death lobby uses the term "medications" (they will often say they are prescribing medications). A medication is supposed to make you feel better or alleviate pain or symptoms, therefore it is not a medication. It is poison. 

Always use the term poison and never use the term medication.

When the death lobby uses the term "choice" we need to say that it is the end of all "choices."

When they say "dying on our own terms," we would say that applies to all suicides. Anyone who commits suicide is dying on one's own terms. Again, it is a nonsensical statement that is based on emotion.

This whole death agenda is being pushed through emotionalism and not rationality.

When they say "death with dignity" we need to challenge their implication that dying naturally is not dignified. 

When they say it is a "medical treatment" we say no killing is never a medical treatment. 

When they refer to their organizaton name - "Compassion & Choices" you can make fun of it. They used to have a much more honest name, the Hemlock Society. The term Compassion & Choices is a name that was poll tested into existence.

When they say nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, our response should be that it is not a good idea. Our job is to ensure that this is not an idea whose time has come.

Beware of social movements that use euphemisms to promote their agenda's. It means that they are trying to pull wool over people's eyes. If you have to use euphemisms and word engineering then there is probably something wrong with your agenda.

Links to previous articles on language by Wesley Smith:

• Euthanasia lobby continues to engineer language (Link).
• Euthanasia euphemisms (Link)
• Assisted suicide: Word engineering propaganda (Link).
• Euthanasia poisons people and society (Link).

Zoom event: Disability Justice Opposition to Assisted Suicide.

Zoom event: Disability Justice Opposition to Assisted Suicide.

Not Dead Yet UK protest.

Saturday, November 29, 2025 at 2 pm (Eastern Time) / 11 am (Pacific Time).

Register in advance (Registration Link). You will receive an email with the meeting link.

The zoom event was organized by Meghan Schrader with EPC-USA. The presenters will focus on several key questions related to disability justice and opposition to assisted suicide.

The speakers include but not limited to:

Harold Braswell PH.d., M.S.W., LCSW St Louis University Graduate Program Coordinator; Associate professor Department of Health Care Ethics

Keith Jones is the President and CEO of SoulTouchin’ Experiences.

Joe Tate is the Program Manager of the E4 Program, University of Texas (Austin) and a member of the EPC-USA board.

Andrew Dell'Antonio is a teaching Professor at the Butler School of Music in the College of Fine Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.

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

Gordon Friesen is a disabled individual who has followed the assisted suicide issue since the early 1990s, and is the President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC).

Register in advance. (Registration Link)

Lesson in Disability Justice 2: Opposition to Recent/Proposed Disability Policy Changes Is Not “Hysteria”

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

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

I was asked to write blogs for the EPC concerning the “MAiD” movement's undermining of disabled people’s human rights. However, “MAiD” is not the only practice with a corrosive impact on disabled people’s lives. 

Therefore, as a disability justice advocate in the anti assisted suicide movement, I think it’s important for euthanasia opponents to know that in the past year there have been several proposed and/or implemented policy changes that dismantle or weaken disability rights laws in the United States.

These policy changes are opposed by pretty much everyone I know in the disability justice community; including groups and advocates who make opposing assisted suicide part of their mission. I am going to go into more detail about what most of those policies are and why they are harmful in a subsequent blog post, but what I wish to focus on in this post is the proposition that I’ve heard from some assisted suicide opponents, who do sincerely support disability justice in general, that the disability rights groups warning about the impact of these changes are getting misinformation from biased news sources and engaging in “woke politics” and “hysteria.”

Meh. 

The disability justice model would oppose these policies no matter what political party wanted to implement them. I urge assisted suicide opponents not to reflexively dismiss concepts like “systemic,” “ableism” and “systemic ableism” as “hysteria” just because those ideas are being articulated by those who embrace other ideologies that you strongly oppose. I’ve lived with disabilities all my life. I grew up in America’s dysfunctional Special Education system, where I experienced social policies that empowered prejudiced people to push disabled people towards choices that have a corrosive impact on their futures. I have published research in the field of disability studies and have followed the disability justice movement’s activities for many years. So, although no ideology or source of information is infallible, I think it’s reasonable for me to trust information from other disability rights advocates more than information from sources and people who have spent significantly less time studying disability policy. 

I also think people from all over the ideological spectrum can agree that society has moral duties to people with disabilities. I see no reason why people of differing ideologies cannot, at times, put practicality first and work together to fulfill these responsibilities. 

I think assisted suicide opponents who want society to meet its obligations to disabled people need to understand that the disability justice groups opposing the aforementioned policy changes are staffed by lawyers, advocates and scholars who have fought for disability justice for decades. Those groups aren’t relying on information from social media or biased news sources. Their leaders are primarily people with disabilities who are reading the texts of these proposed policies and drawing their opposition from years of fighting for disability rights. 

I urge other assisted suicide opponents to recognize that fighting ableism requires comprehensive knowledge. Certainly there are many news sources with clear political biases of all kinds, but in this case the “biased news sources” are reporting what disability justice advocates have said, not the other way around. If groups like the ARC, the Association of University Centers on Disability, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the National Council on Disability, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the United Spinal Association, the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Council on Independent Living and all of the people at the ADAPT Americans With Disabilities Act anniversary party I attended recently tell me that a trillion dollars have been cut from Medicaid and that this will restrict home and community based services for people with disabilities, I trust them more than I trust President Trump’s website. The aforementioned groups/individuals have fought for disability rights for decades and President Trump has not.

Opposition to these new policies does not mean that disability justice advocates are not grateful for the rights that disabled Americans have. As a disabled American I am very thankful that the Americans with Disabilities Act gives disabled Americans more rights than disabled people have in other parts of the world; the law has served as the model for the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of People With Disabilities. But, despite the ADA and similar laws, Americans with disabilities face discrimination every day. Although not everyone who supports an ableist policy is a bad person, assuming the competency or positive intentions of whoever happens to embrace your preferred political party or ideology is not realistic. The disability justice movement’s opposition to various policies might seem like “hysteria”  to some people, but that is generally because so many disabled people and our allies have been put in situations where safeguarding disability rights seems to require one to become, well, “hysterical.” 

Despite how blunt I can be on this blog or on X, I am, somewhere in my heart, still a “people pleaser;” I like being kind to others. So, when I self-advocate for accommodations for my Nonverbal Learning Disability and bipolar disorder, I try to be a nice, reasonable person. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thoroughly explained why I need an accommodation very nicely and politely and still found myself in situations that compromised my dignity; ones where I didn’t have much energy to devote to being “nice;” or it seemed that being “nice” needed to be of secondary concern, such as confrontations, acrimonious meetings and even “hysterical” screaming matches with virulently ableist people who had power over me and other people with disabilities. Every day disabled people interact with people who sneer at our efforts to get an education or a job; people who think disabled people are inherently violent, people who assume that people with disabilities are lying about our impairments, people who aggressively manipulate loopholes in disability rights laws and people who angrily complain about even the trivialist effort to accommodate someone’s disability. That is why so many disability justice advocates oppose “MAiD”: Disability justice advocates know how difficult it is for individuals to resist the impacts of ableist policies, so that movement largely recognizes “MAiD” as creating new situations in which disabled people are bullied into dying. 

I encourage “MAiD” opponents to recognize that deep history and common personal experiences have given disability justice advocates insight into the impact of disability rights laws. Disability justice advocates have every justification to oppose things like subminimum wages, the recent Medicaid cuts, dismantling the Department of Education, proposed changes to IDEA, cutting Special Education funding, and cutting funding for postsecondary structures that serve people with disabilities. Disability rights advocates have every reason to oppose the Section 504 lawsuit’s efforts to vitiate the entire Final Rule.  It is wholly reasonable for disability justice advocates to resist laws that reverse the disability justice movement’s progress in stopping arbitrary institutional confinement of disabled individuals. It is perfectly logical for disability justice advocates to oppose the proposed recision of portions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act that incentivize employers to hire people with disabilities. It is wise for disability rights advocates to oppose repealing portions of Section 503 that outline how employers must comply with fundamental portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Disabled people and our allies are perfectly justified in assuming that the Department of Energy’s attempt to loosen rules requiring that new construction be accessible to people with disabilities will not turn out well. 

In short, the disability justice movement’s suspicion about assisted suicide is equally valid when applied to other policies. I think that even if not all of the anticipated consequences of these policies come to fruition, that will be primarily because of the disability justice movement’s efforts to mitigate those harms. 

I have been asked to remember that not everyone who supports the aforementioned policy changes is “evil.” I don’t think all supporters of these policies are evil, just like I don’t think that everyone who supports “MAiD” is evil. But, just “not being evil” is  not enough for disabled people to be treated as equals. It is not realistic to expect every assisted suicide opponent to agree with every disability rights group or advocate on every nuance of every issue, but the things disability justice advocates want for disabled people: jobs that pay at least minimum wage, access to new construction, a good education, a strong social support system, home and community based services, etc-are generally policies that everyone on the political spectrum can agree about. Those policies benefit disabled people regardless of what other social group they belong to; they are not conjured from “hysteria.”

So, EPC blog readers, embrace your full potential as assisted suicide opponents. Listen carefully to the experiences and history of the disability justice advocates who work alongside you to oppose “MAiD.” If you want your anti euthanasia advocacy to flower into something really wonderful for people with disabilities, support disability rights policies that allow disabled people to flourish; ensure we experience equality and dignity in all domains of life. 

• Lesson in Disability Justice 1: Disability Justice Is a Whole Cloth Effort (Link). 

EPC-USA's Broad Coalition Participated in the American Academy of Family Physicians conference.

Colleen E. Barry

The cost to attend medical conferences is prohibitive. Consider donating to the EPC - USA (Donation Link).

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) FUTURE conference held from July 31 - August 2 in brought together medical students and residents from across the nation with family medicine leaders, residency programs and potential employers for three days of family medicine exploration + celebration." Event. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA had an Honor and opportunity to participate in the "AAFPFUTURE" Conference. 

Part of EPC-USAs' goals are to educate the public along with professionals on issues related to euthanasia, assisted suicide and their effect on society. We provided educational materials, discussions. Assisted Suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. EPC-USA recognizes that Doctors are the original opponents of assisted suicide.

EPC-USA was grateful with the many discussions as well as a great amount of basic information given to participants, including resources and follow up material from Dr. Sharon Quick, President of "Physicians for Compassionate Care educational Foundation". Dr. Quick has expressed that: 

“A death request is often a plea for help, but legalizing assisted suicide may allow an option to die to transform into a duty to die.”

EPC-USA was able to educate Medical Students and a broad coalition of doctors, medical professionals and attorneys about people who have experienced the direct threat of assisted suicide against themselves or a family member. EPC-USA shared the history of Disability groups such as Not Dead Yet, Second Thoughts and DREDF (Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund), just to name a few who have been at the fore front to stop assisted suicide. 

A monumental past leader of DREDF, Marilyn Golden stated: 

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse.” “No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can prevent this outcome, which can never be undone.”

EPC-USA was able too share the many successes when state coalitions encompassing a broad variety of individuals and groups led their state legislators to understand their concern and opposition to assisted suicide. 

One of EPC-USA’s missions is to combat the growing acceptance of assisted suicide through advocacy and education. The broad variety of individuals and groups includes progressive's as well as conservatives, includes a disability and human justice-based movement to prevent the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia and to end these practices where they exist. Assisted suicide cuts to the heart of what kind of society we want to live in.

Discussions with conference participants included physicians explaining that their care of patients, must establish a physician-patient relationship based on mutual trust and respect to be able to render the best care to their patients. Not assisted suicide. 

Many Medical students and residents were very appreciative to see EPC-USA's booth and expressed the concerns that they have with assisted suicide. These medical students expressed their goal of caring for many patients throughout their lives, extending through to their last days of life.

There were residents, medical students and physicians that were surprised to see our booth and expressed confusion. It was a great opportunity for EPC-USA to share basic information, discussion and provide resources from others doctors that have actively taken a stand to help society realize the problems with assisted suicide. These doctors explain that assisted suicide is Not a Therapy or a Solution.

EPC-USA professionals in attendance were so successful that we ran out of educational material and resources including a the story of a doctor working with a patient that qualified for assisted suicide. The doctor knew that the patient was caught up in the hype of the newly passed assisted suicide law in Oregon and was depressed by a new prognosis. The doctor guided the patient out of out the depression. The patient is still alive and well today. EPC-USA also ran out of educational material on a list of coercion and complications cases that is provided by a disability rights group.

Assisted Suicide is not a type of medical treatment. And affects the nature of medical treatment in our society.

Our table at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) FUTURE conference was an incredible success.

The cost to attend medical conferences is prohibitive. Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA (Donation Link).

Colleen Barry is a nurse and the Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) - USA

Delaware Assisted Suicide bill must be defeated in the Senate.

Delaware Legislature

The Delaware State Senate must defeat assisted suicide Bill HB 140.

On March 18, Delaware assisted suicide bill HB 140 passed in the State House by a vote of 21 to 17. HB 140 will now move to the Delaware State Senate.

Please contact every member of the Delaware State Senate and urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide Bill HB 140. (Link to the list of Delaware State Senators).

In 2024, a similar assisted suicide bill passed in the State House by a vote of 21 to 16 and then passed in the Senate by a vote of 11 to 10. Last September Delaware Governor John Carney votoed the assisted suicide bill, saving lives from assisted suicide in Delaware.

Governor Carney completed his term as Governor. The new Delaware Governor is Matt Meyer who has stated that he supports assisted suicide.

Therefore Delaware assisted suicide Bill HB 140 must be defeated in the Senate. Please contact every member of the Delaware State Senate and urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide Bill HB 140. (Link to the list of Delaware State Senators).

We require members of the Senate to vote NO to defeat Delaware Assisted Suicide Bill HB 140 in 2025.

Some good arguments opposing HB 140 include:

People with eating disorders are dying by assisted suicide. 

An article by Jennifer Brown that was published in the Colorado Sun on March 14, 2022 reported that Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani, an internal medicine doctor who specializes in eating disorders published a paper on how she was prescribing assisted suicide for people with Anorexia Nervosa in Colorado. Gaudiani approved assisted suicide for Anorexia Nervosa by falsely defining the condition as terminal.

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

HB 140 claims to be a "tightly worded" bill. The assisted suicide lobby uses a "bait and switch" technique whereby they sell assisted suicide with a "tightly worded bill" and if the bill passes they pressure states to expand their laws or force them to expand their law with a court case. (Article Link).

Assisted suicide creates two tier medicine

Some suicidal people are offered suicide prevention while others are provided assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is inherently discriminatory.

We believe in caring for people not killing them.

Assisted suicide is an act of providing a poison cocktail to someone who is living with suicidal ideation, often related to their health concerns. 

 

Assisted suicide constitutes killing. We believe in caring for people at their time of need.

Assisted suicide is not about autonomy but rather it medically abandons a person to death.

 

Please contact every member of the Delaware State House and urge them to vote NO to assisted suicide Bill HB 140. (Link to the list of Delaware State Senators).

 

Nevada's dangerous assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nevada state legislature.

In May 2023, EPC sent out an alert urging Americans to contact Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo to veto assisted suicide Bill SB 239 after it passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 to 10 and in the Nevada House by a vote of 23 to 19. 

In June 2023, EPC sent out a Thank You email after Governor Lombardo vetoed assisted suicide Bill SB 239. Lombardo stated in his veto that legalizing assisted suicide was not necessary based on modern improvements in pain management.

Recently three Nevada legislators introduced assisted suicide Bill AB 346. Most assisted suicide legalization bills are more moderate. The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to get the bill passed and then expand it later. But AB 346 has several dangerous elements to it. For instance AB 346:

• Allows the "practitioner" to be either a physician or an advanced practise registered nurse to approve and prescribe the lethal poison drug cocktail.
• Requires a 15-day reflection period, but it allows the practitioner to waive the 15 day reflection period.
  
• Defines assisted suicide as a form of palliative care. The assisted suicide lobby is trying to change the definition of palliative care to include killing people. If assisted suicide is a form of palliative care, then assisted suicide is also a form of medical treatment.
• Requires the death certificate to name the cause of death as the disease or the sequence of causes resulting in death, but must not list lethal poison drug cocktail (assisted suicide) as the cause of death.
• Requires the "practitioner" to self-report the assisted suicide death but only requires the report to include the name and date of birth of the patient (person who died), the date on which the patient died and a statement of whether the patient was receiving hospice care at the time of death. This level of reporting is incredibly minimal.
• States that deaths by assisted suicide do not constitute mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide or homicide. Therefore, if the person who died but did not self-administer (it was done to them, as in euthanasia) it would not be considered a euthanasia or a homicide. In other words, this bill allows for euthanasia/homicide through the back door.
• The bill defines assisted suicide as medical treatment by including in the definition of medical treatment: Dispensing a medication that is designed to end the life of a patient pursuant to the provisions of sections 5 to 33, inclusive, of this act. Once assisted suicide is defined as a medical treatment then it becomes the right of a person to be informed of the "option".
  
• The bill not only deems advance requests for assisted suicide as unenforceable and void, but it also deems advance requests prohibiting assisted suicide to be unenforceable and void.

So why are these concerns important? Nevada assisted suicide proponents claim that Bill AB 346 has effective safeguards. But when one reads the language of the bill you notice that AB 346 is a dangerous assisted suicide bill.

In fact, AB 346 is the perfect cover for homicide.